Read natural law and justice reviews, rating & opinions:Check all natural law and justice reviews below or publish your opinion.
100 Reviews Found
The first 200 pages of 'Natural Law & Natural Rights' is impressive, insightful and compelling. However, the latest 210 pages amounts to a long and tedious venture. Finnis can write beautifully at times and convey his argument with artistry and cleverness. However, he can also drone on in tedious fashion to the point where reading becomes a chore, and one can contemplate simpler ways a verbose sentence could have been articulated. Unless you are a serious student, I would recommend one of Finnis's shorter works or commentaries on practical reasonableness.
It is a striking fact, often mentioned by depth psychologists, that human beings leave tell-tale signs of undoing of their own point of view in plain sight. That is, if they are operating in some sense covertly, even with themselves and others. This book, which is popular in its own small globe of Natural Law theorists, is one of the best exemplars of that psychological phenomenon. It is a chief concern of these modern fans of Aquinas to somehow leave the impression that the continuity of Natural Law reasoning is something easily discovered in intellectual history, and especially that dealing with legal thought. You need unique help, which they provide, but once you have it, it would be very obvious. Well, if that were the case, then highly educated people in these matters would long have noticed at least something in that direction. There would be a trail, even if not very pronounced. But, I think it was safe to assume that Finnis was always a quite educated person, and he himself -- perhaps unwittingly -- has given away the farm, so to speak, on the whole matter early in this book. On p. vi of his Preface he mentions the very educated legal "milieu" he participated in and the very informative fact that it "antedated the time in which I first began to suspect that there was more to the theories of natural law than superstition and darkness." Now for sake of argument, allow us leave aside every other contention in this book as possibly brilliant. What the author has admitted here is what is obvious to anyone who knows intellectual history, up to the intellectual fashions of the 20th Century. Namely, that the Natural Law field connected with Aquinas was everywhere in the educated "milieu" seen as a thing of the past at least shrouded in some "darkness" and possibly "superstition". Allow me say as an aside, that for younger scholars such as myself, who have benefitted from more up -to -date research on the medieval era, have NEVER thought of that age as simply darkness, and always known that the adjective "dark" for the whole period was profoundly imprecise. But the more central matter is surely whether anyone in serious intellectual circles in the fairly latest past ever thought that the thought that under-wrote modern societies had any true debt to this natural law thought at all. Clearly NOT, and the author HIMSELF has admitted as much here, , in fact this field was waiting for Finnis himself as the true Queen Bee of all the later drones of natural law to conjure this fresh realm out of an historical vacuum. The method was paved somewhat why the (Leo) Straussians who somehow got Aristotle brought into historical discussions of modern law. Of course, Leo Strauss has been the topic of the most withering criticism since then, and not always from liberals even, but from people with an honest sense of history. Though he is no longer a serious hero in legal academic kabuki, his example was paramount. That is the example of a successful smuggler. It is like honor amongst thieves, he was skillful enough to pull it off; it created others think: I can do that too! But you always need a fresh angle, and Aquinas was it. So Finnis, who is massively clever, started his long trek towards the apotheosis of the Summa and modern legal theory. Since, as he himself admits, there was no true acceptance of the fact that there was any kind of continuity between m he previously considered avatars of "superstition" and "darkness" and the Enlightenment ideals that run modern democracies, he had to slip them in under the carpet, so to speak. This he does with a very slippery and elusive sense, best seen on p. 28. He there quotes a source, whose reasoning he later calls a "travesty", but is useful apparently to him because the source claims that the natural law thinking that Aquinas apotheosized "dominat[ed] the period 'from the church fathers down to Kant." Remember, this is a source he called a travesty, and that the source was referring to specifically those (presumably Catholic) natural law thinkers so engaged with this unique endeavor. In that limited sense -- only!!! -- the statement is correct. Namely, that minority of thinkers so inclined natural law approaches (again likely mostly Catholics) were indeed dominated by this view from the church fathers down to Kant. But the rest of the intellectual globe in the West, the vast majority, were not. And definitely not those upon whole thought modern democracies are based. But Finnis just proceeds then in his book as if this idea of "down to Kant" is unproblematic, when it is clearly faulty from the evidence in his own book! So there may be a lot of clever moments in this book, and corners of insight, for the natural law view is not without some insight historically. But as a description of anything whatsoever relating to law in modern democracies it is a pure fantasy. An elaborate and, yes, quite erudite chimera.But it gets worse. This fantasy has been taken up by de facto drones of Natural Law like Robert George, who claims Finnis as "mentor". In fact on the Mirror of Justice website George just described his glee to atttend the "Finnis-Fest" at Notre Dame, and with that the whole cultic guru fragrance of the whole thing finds confirmation. In light of the fantastical origins of this trend amongst Catholic thinkers, it might have been best to call it a Finnis-Festivus, after the made-up holiday on Seinfeld. It is a conjured realm, with no historical help but a lot of acolytes. And in the US at least, a lot of of those acolytes, like George are engaged in the most grotesque politicization of these natural law ideas . Using this fantasy to prop up their contempt for fellow citizens in the democracy they are privileged to call home. A democracy amazing enough and resilient enough to withstand regular assault by fanatical thinkers of all sorts, claiming they have amazing insight into the Founding vision. Even when it is the anti-thesis of that vision. They are only the recent crowd to attempt it. But, freedom is on guard!
Intellectually well written. The only problem I had was the delay in receiving it; but, the USPS where I live is the worse in the country, and I've lived in a few places. Overall, this book is recommend to any serious student in government and law.
John Finnis is one of the school of 'New Natural Lawyers', along with thinkers such as Robert P. George, German Gricez, and others. Natural law was relatively neglected in the 19th and 20th centuries, replaced largely with positivist theories based on the natural sciences that divorced law completely from any 'emotive' problems like ethics and is changed with the revival of natural law theory, particularly in the 1980's. Although natural law has its roots in Greek and Roman philosophical thought, the idea was incorporated into Christian theology. Its most popular exponent was the Dominican scholar St Thomas Aquinas, who dedicated a fair portion of his first Summa to natural e natural law has often been used by the Catholic Church to articulate and defend its teachings on moral issues, from giving workers the right to a fair wage and personal property to the ban on artificial contraception. Violating these norms breaches the plan of the creator, hence the natural law provides a framework in which to judge moral actions in an evaluative manner.Unfortunately natural law theory has a lot of weaknesses, and the main one with the Catholic ver is its inherent sectarianism. Why should a rational person for example, choose Catholic natural law instead of Islamic shariah or the law of an Aboriginal tribe? Aren't all equally 'natural?' How can we tell which one is better? The appeal to God inherent to Catholic natural law thinking will also be repellent to atheists and agnostics, who are by no means a little number in contemporary though he is a devout and conservative Roman Catholic (and admits it), Finnis admirably tries to establish a non-sectarian theory of natural law than can be used by an smart person as the basis for jurisprudence. Finnis does this by constructing his theory around seven 'basic goods' which every person of goodwill can recognise, including friendship, the right to life, and so on. Finnis goes into considerable detail and does his best to argue his theory without resorting to purely religious or polemical arguments derived mindlessly from church documents, a mistake a lot of lesser thinkers than Finnis engage pending on your sympathies, Finnis's theory fortunately (or unfortunately) produces conclusions remarkably related to the official teachings of the Catholic church, whether in morality or on economic issues. This is where Finnis runs into trouble, and this is a issue that occurs in a lot of of his papers and books - he claims to be establishing a rational theory of morality, law and political that can appeal generally to all, whether or not they have religious beliefs, but all too often Finnis falls into the vicious circle of assuming the truth of what he sets to prove - in other words, a purely secular and rational theory of natural law should lead to exactly the same conclusions as those of the Catholic church, and very conservative ones at that (i.e. contraception is never permissible, homosexuality is always wrong, abortion is always wrong, etc). One can't but support feel Finnis in the end is himself simply to be an apologist for the Catholic Church, even for some of the more questionable views like the very negative ones about homosexuality. This impression is reinforced when one reads the collection of papers and addresses (many of which were previously unpublished) by Finnis that were recently released which clearly present his very conservative 'traditionalist' Catholic views on different issues, including the neuralgic ones of the 'culture' wars. Astute critics of Finnis like Nicholas Bamforth have rightly picked this up and showed this glaring flaw in Finnis's work.Even so, Finnis deserves for producing a fine work of legal philosophy. He is clearly a thinker of first rank and deserves to be taken seriously. Natural law and natural rights is arguably the best restatement of natural law theory in the contemporary setting and well worth considering carefully.
If you have fallen into the myth that mankind needs government to exist and thrive and that we need authority figures to rule over us then this book will dispel that myth. As Benjamin Franklin said "Any society that would give up a small liberty to gain a small security will deserve neither and lose both." Authority is not gained unless it is willingly given. There are a lot of amazing books out there regarding this subject but this is a fast and simple read to wet your appetite.
Book won’t go past page 39. And all the pages of the book are blank. I’ve tried restarting everything, I’ve tried going to the contents page to on the next chapter, but all the other pages are blank. This book has a major glitch.
Page numbers don't accurately match with hardcopy text book. Not even close. For example, 480 in actual book = 774 in ebook. For that matter. P. 774 covers hundreds of pages of content in the hardcopy. So it's completely useless for citations which means its virtually useless for any academic purposes. Will be attempting to return for asap.
Really enjoyed and informed my perception about the Palestine Question and the logical explanations to history happenings similar to this Question, I really recommend anyone from any background to read and highlight the interesting analysis in this book, since they are strongly connected to the understanding of International law and its dimensions.
Westley Wallace Law grew up in Savannah, Georgia, at a time when segregation laws dictated that he drink at separate water fountains and attend a separate school. Westley grew mad that his mom and grandma experienced discriminatory treatment at work and in local stores. He vowed that some day he would become a leader in the black community and also help his mother so she no longer had to work as a domestic in someone else's a young man, Westley took on leadership positions in the National Association for the Advancement of Colourful People. He helped African Americans pass tests that were needed for voter registration, and he started training local students in non-violent protest methods that were place to the try during the Amazing Savannah Boycott in 1960. Westley's job as mail carrier proved instrumental in establishing dialogues with people in the white community and cultivating an understanding of the need to end racial livering Justice tells the necessary story of an unsung character during the civil rights movement who fought for racial equality and social justice for African Americans. Carefully intertwined in this biographical acc are some strong lessons in economics similar to discrimination by race and jobs in the public sector. This perfect book gets high marks for putting the spotlight on an inspiring leader and making his contributions accessible to younger readers.
In "Justice for Some," Professor Noura Erakat delivers an anti-Israel tirade in the antiquated terms of e main target of Professor Erakat’s assault is the 1922 British Mandate for Palestine (the BMP), the League of Nations law that enabled the creation of the State of Israel. The professor declares that the BMP institutionalized a “racist,” “settler-colonial,” “Apartheid regime” of “oppression” dedicated to the “juridical erasure” of the Palestinian people. Equally extreme is her view of the Oslo Accords, the set of agreements signed by Israel and the Palestinians in the 1990’s to resolve their longstanding feud. She condemns the Oslo peace process as a continuation of oppressive “colonial practices.”To combat the alleged colonial oppression, Professor Erakat recommends worldwide “resistance,” described as a blend of economic and legal activism versus Israel. These “coercive pressures,” she contends, would reverse the legal injustices of the past, “dismantle” Israel’s “illegal … colonial infrastructure,” and “liberate” akat champions two similar forms of resistance: the BDS movement, a boycott campaign “aimed at isolating and shaming Israel;” and “lawfare,” the use of legal strategies to hurt a political enemy. She agrees with BDS leaders that all Palestinians should be allowed to relocate to Israel under a supposed “right of return.” Regrettably, she omits the fact that such a novel population shift would create Israel a majority-Arab state. Even more disturbing, she enjoys hinting at the prospect of “Palestinian sovereignty” over Israel. Although the professor maintains that “armed struggle” is available to Palestinians “as a matter of legal right,” she considers BDS and lawfare more essor Erakat is not the first Palestinian to assail Israel with the debunked Marxist rhetoric of oppression and resistance. The Palestine Liberation Organization has been spewing the same hate-filled jargon since its founding in 1964. The only difference between the two manifestos is that one would annihilate Israel through terrorism while the other would do the job through the cynical weaponization of economics and instream scholarship on the BMP confirms the mandate reflected a valid recognition of Jewish self-determination, not an act of colonial oppression. The law was approved unanimously by a vote of all League of Nations members, not just the “colonial powers.” The amazing powers did not even share a common political goal, allow alone a scheme of oppression. They competed shrewdly for influence over the areas topic to the League’s mandate system. Amazing Britain, the empire that most actively prepared the Jews for statehood, soon became the movement’s most strong opponent. Moreover, the Jews could not participate in the League’s BMP vote because they lacked membership in the globe body.Far from serving as agents of any colonial hegemons, the early Zionists immigrated to Palestine to escape the persecution of those regimes. Another 800,000 Jewish immigrants came to Palestine from the Arab world, including the Jordanian-occupied East Jerusalem and West Bank, where they had suffered a brutal ethnic cleansing. Jews from all hemispheres migrated to the “Land of Israel” because that was their ancestral home. There, they supplemented indigenous Jewish communities much older than the region’s first Arab dwellings.Middle East Arabs won the greatest share of mandatory bequests. They gained four huge fresh states: Lebanon; Syria; Iraq; and Transjordan (present day Jordan). By contrast, their Jewish neighbors had to settle for a much smaller tract because Amazing Britain reallocated 77% of their League-designated location to make Transjordan. The Arabs could have celebrated their vast, newfound sovereignty. But instead, in 1948 they waged a five-state military jihad versus Israel and grabbed portions of the Jewish foothold for themselves. That illegal offensive was the true “oppression” that turned the BMP border-drawing exercise into perpetual ethnic an international lawyer, Professor Erakat must realize that expunging Israel through terrorism or any other manner would violate the animating principle of the United Nations. Article 2 of the UN Charter requires nations to settle their differences “by peaceful means” without harming the “sovereign equality,” “security,” “territorial integrity,” or “political independence” of any a human rights lawyer, Erakat should know better than to portray the existence of Israel as a racist endeavor. That unfounded charge constitutes antisemitism as defined by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance and officially recognized by the US, Canada, 24 EU member states, and five other state signatories. She compounds the human rights affront by endorsing the BDS movement. A September 23, 2019 UN report titled “Elimination of all Forms of Religious Intolerance” determined that BDS is a form of antisemitism.A less biased study of legal claims in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would have considered both sides of the debate. The author would have acknowledged Israel’s indigenous rights, self-determination rights, and sovereign rights to the areas in dispute. She would have weighed possible remedies for the Jewish refugees from East Jerusalem and the West Bank. And she would have backed at least one legal measure to curb terrorism. Sadly, “Justice for Some” demands justice only for Palestinians.
I've enjoyed Randy Barnett's other books and his blogging. Barnet is a go-to guy on the Supreme Court and Constitutional problems concerning libertyHis "The Structure of Liberty: Justice and the Rule of Law" is an ambitious book that would be enjoyed by anyone interested in liberty issues. He begins with a philosophical look at natural rights as the foundation of his structure."If adherence to natural rights is indeed essential for the maintenance of social life, as natural rights theorists maintain and as I shall test to explain in the balance of this book, then laws are obligatory only if they are consistent with natural rights. By this account, a command may be a "law" in the descriptive sense that it is issued by a recognized law-maker, but it is only law in the normative sense of a command that binds in conscience on the citizenry if it does not violate the background rights of persons. Thus, for human laws to be obligatory, they should not violate natural rights."The next layer is economics: chiefly Hayek's knowledge issue and Mises's Praxeology."Prices are by far the most neglected form of knowledge we have. Although some economic literature stresses the importance of prices, the knowledge-disseminating function of is largely unknown-- or, if known , then widely ignored-- in political and legal theory." In Barnett's view of liberty, individuals have bounded-domain jurisdiction over property. And consensual transfer, based on prices, best reflects local knowledge of property's value and the best use of the resource. Nothing earth-shattering just yet, but a majestic, rights-based explanation and defense of liberty with a consistency, clarity and comprehensive scope to rival political philosophers -- but with some hooks that are more familiar and accessible to economic and political , he covers the structure of Law, which was my only expectation seeing Barnett's name on the cover. Having established these rights and the best means to transfer them, how do we defend them form those with Interest and Power to suborn nett asks how this can be done, and how respect for rights and the rule of law can survive the conflicts of Interest and Power. To my sadness, the Constitutional scholar does not choose the Constitution. The author of "Restoring the Lost Constitution" seeks a liberal that will not someday succumb to 16th, 17th Amendments and decisions like The Slaughterhouse Cases, WIckard, Raich, and Kelo.I have already weakened the first section by over-synopsis. I'll save you and the author a summary of his prospective solution: the "Structure of Liberty" he proposes. I'll tease that it is built on personal property, criminal and civil law based on restitution and not retribution, and distributed ("polycentric") enforcement and is is the first truly compelling suggestion for privatized justice that I have encountered. I like Rothbard some -- and I like Hoppe a lot, but I read them and appreciate their arguments without accepting their underlying is is not "oh, we'll just allow personal business do it and it will be swell!" This is thoughtful and carefully assembled. Not an afternoon-by-the-pool read, but readable and comprehensible. The high density of ideas dictates serious contemplation.
As owner/fan of the 1998 printing (first edition), now dog eared, was worth the cost for the Afterword: The Modesty of Modern Libertarianism. In the Afterword, Professor Barnett admits his limitations while convincingly demonstrating the, "Libertarianism today is actually a far more modest theoretical position than the two contemporary extremes: social justice and legal moralism."It is not important to read The Structure of Liberty before reading Professor Barnett's study of constitutional theory advanced in Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty, but both together create accessible to modern readers a libertarian path to making America a put where all are enabled to pursue their happiness.
I purchased this book because I read and thoroughly enjoyed and appreciated 'Restoring the Lost Constitution'. The Lost Constitution was not a 'light' read, it needed a amazing of thought and rereading to grasp - however the knowledge and insight gained were well worth the effort - it remains one of my favorites. This book never seemed to go anywhere - after 125 pages I still couldn't grasp what it was trying to impart to me nor could I figure out what I had learned. I'm putting it aside for now - I'm still not sure whether it's me or the book.
This is a wonderfully strong and rigorous argument for libertarian rights and justice. It definitely is not beach reading, but it is compelling if you're interested in the topic. Professor Barnett describes the issues that a social structure must solve in to provide the important environment to let individuals to pursue the amazing life. He then describes how maximal liberty structured around property rights achieves that and. What a unbelievable book and highly recommended!
Updated for the second edition.I highly recommend Randy Barnett's The Structure of Liberty to anyone who wants to better understand the principles of justice and the rule of law. He develops and explains how they provide the structure of liberty that enables individuals to pursue their happiness in a social context. There are a lot of thought-provoking ideas throughout the book that are making me think more deeply about this e most strong feature of the book to me is the method Barnett builds out the classical liberal conception of justice. He begins the book with a discussion of Natural Law and Natural Rights. Then he uses a "Given-If-Then" model of reasoning to set the context for what is to come:Given: The nature of human being and the globe in which they liveIf: "we wish a society in which persons can survive and pursue happiness, peace and prosperity"Then: we should respect the liberal conception of justice and the rule of lawThe development of this conception of justice is what is covered in the rest of the book. I found his way of developing and refining his formulation of the liberal conception of justice very powerful. He evolves the formulation as he works through the "serious and pervasive social issues of knowledge, interest and power" that justice and the rule of law must ere is a lot of amazing thinking as he works through these issues and evolves the conception of justice. There are 3 locations I wish to call attention to since they are locations where I now see the need to think more about:1.) The common law - he notes how the common law helps bridge the gap between theory and practice through an evolutionary process (this section also given me some thoughts for my job as a program manager which was a nice side benefit)2.) The issue of enforcement abuse - I had given too small attention to this but with the latest (2013 - 2014) attention on locations where government abuse has grown, I think this zone has become even more problematic than when Barnett first wrote the book3.) Retribution vs restitution - there is a lot of material that Barnett covers here which have led me to begin reconsidering what role retribution has given the issues of knowledge, interest and power - especially where those issues falsely victimize the innocent.I highly recommend the second edition of this book. Barnett has added an afterward that covers his thoughts since the book was first published. He has a nice discussion of the social justice and legal moralist critiques and he explains why the libertarian position is far more modest and realistic. It better addresses the issues of knowledge, interest and power as a whole than the competing political ing the second edition allowed me to continue to think a lot deeper on some very necessary problems regarding a society. I can say that this is a work I will continue to revisit as it has a lot of necessary thinking. The methodology he uses allows someone to disagree with the author but they then need to create sure they can better address the issues of knowledge, interest and power that he info throughout the the Author notes at the end of the book: "...social theories have to be assessed comparatively. ...Criticism simply is no substitute for the presentation of a potentially-superior alternative perspective."P.S. – Barnett also notes in the afterword to the second edition of the need for a better foundation for rights (which is outside the scope of his book). Since my original reading of Barnett’s book latest summer (2013), I have read Rasmussen and Den Uyl’s work “Norms of Liberty” which addresses this question and which I highly recommend as well.
Randy Barnett writes a clearly stated argument for liberty. Barnett takes an in depth approach to the topic and create few assumptions. If liberty and justice are things that you desire then this book will support you argue the case.
This book deserves all the praise lavished upon it and more. It is an eye-opener for people like me, who do not have a legal background but care about criminal justice reform. If you’re familiar with Michelle Alexander’s The Fresh Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, then you understand the unequal treatment Black people face in the criminal justice system due to racialized law enforcement. Armour’s work complicates this picture in two ways. First, he shows that while racialized mass incarceration affects Black people more than any other group, it is not only a law enforcement problem but a much larger systemic problem. He shows that it’s not just that police are biased versus Black people in their law enforcement and arrest them more, and prosecutors are biased and are more likely to pursue harsher outcomes versus Black offenders, and judges are biased and give them harsher sentences, but what created me take message is how Armour points out, and rightly so, that juries carry their anti-black bias into the courtrooms. Likewise, in the fact-finding process, bias rears its ugly head. As Armour points out, until that is remedied by jurors, witnesses, law enforcement, judges, prosecutors, and lawyers becoming aware of this bias and actively working to root it out or courts taking it into consideration, it is impossible for black people in the criminal justice system to obtain a fair trial. The second difference between The Fresh Jim Crow and N*gga Theory is that while Alexander has the reader feel compassion for low-level non-violent offenders, Armour asks us to extend our sympathy towards violent criminals, some of what we regularly consider society’s worst. A tough request and yet after reading this book, one will search himself obliging. Armour’s work is the kind of call for criminal justice reform that should be front and center, especially now that the US is having another racial justice/racial equality awakening moment. This book ties closely into the agenda of Black Lives Matter but takes it further, advocating for systemic change. I highly recommend reading it.
Have had to work 3x as hard in class because the pages dictated in course assignment are extremely various from this ver of the e-book (i.e. 205 vs. 375 in my book). Additionally, e-book says 774 is the latest page - 774 is in the middle of this book, and as you "turn page" the rest of the book says "774". I believe that all of us with this problem deserve a 50% and apology for the electronic issue. This is an expensive book (far more expensive than printed copy), and a lot of of us working people do not have the luxury of parents or financial aid reimbursing us. Thank you.
Amazing book on the history of the Israel-Palestine conflict form a legal perspective. Erakat talks about how Israel's legal maneuvers in not withdrawing from the lands it occupied during the 1967 battle through a loophole. It skirted occupation law and the Geneva conventions so it could move civilians into those lands. It used maximum force on armed resistance not as a police force, but not battle either (because then they would concede that the location doesn't belong to them), but something on the cusp of war. Finally, it treats anybody employed by Hamas as part of Hamas, i.e., as terrorists, so it's begin season on Gazan civilians come wartime.
--------------------------------------------------------------------"Delivering Justice: W.W. Law and the War for Civil Rights"Written by Jim HaskinsIllustrated by Benny Andrews(Candlewick Press, 2005)--------------------------------------------------------------------This is an perfect biographical picturebook presenting the story of Georgia-born Westley Wallace Law, a postal worker who helpedorganize the nonviolent civil rights movement that desegregated the town of Savannah, Georgia in the early 1960s. As the book points out, Savannah's desegregation campaign was far less violent than in other Southern cities, in part because of the work that Law and his allies did to foster dialog between black and white citizens, gaining white help for a citywide boycott that lasted nearly two years, from 1960-61. The author does a amazing job presenting the kinds of injustices and prejudice that African-Americans faced in the 1940s and '50s, as seen through the eyes of the young W. W. Law, first as a kid and then as a young man - the artwork by Benny Andrews is nicely textured, colourful and appealing. This book, which concentrates on a less well-known Southern battle, is an perfect resource for broadening young reader's knowledge of the American Civil Rights movement. Recommended! (DJ Joe Sixpack, ReadThatAgain children's book reviews)
The info in this book is presented well. The authors provide perfect statistical info and overviews of specific problems in Indian country. The book points out the impact the federal law, Public Law 280, has on the Indian tribes and their communities. "PL 280 impacts 51% of all federally recognized tribes in the lower 48 states and 70% of all recognized tribes (including Alaska Native villages)"pg.14. I appreciated the method the authors illustrated how the non-tribal and tribal perspectives will vary from each other.A amazing book for a presentation of the multi-faceted problems in tribal communities in relation to PL 280.C. Pierce
Thinking about constitutions is an necessary but neglected und er taking and Barnett is masterful even if I ultimately disagree. Yes, constitutional limits are required to hold democracy from becoming tyrannical, but no, people are not too stupid to participate in their governance. What is wrong with the Swiss constitution?
“Why must our kids be excellent to live?”This question, early on in this book, really bothered me. Not because I don’t hear it from my Black friends, but because the feeling behind it created me wish to cry angry, hopeless tears because this is the very real reality for Black parents all over this supposedly amazing is is by no means an easy, satisfied read...but it is a important one. And yes, parts do read like a college professor’s lecture because that’s exactly what Jody Armour is: a law professor at USC. But within that multitude of info lies the root of America’s issue with Black men and women. A system that inherently favors white people, not good or rich, and the “good” Black people over all other Black people. And by “good”, I mean this: those seeking to be meek, quiet, subservient, hardworking, and utterly excellent in the eyes of America. But even then, our society makes it all too simple to judge solely based on prejudices and he color of one’s mour breaks down the means by which America has divided Black people into specific classes beyond those which are deemed inferior to others. He breaks down the luck or pluck theories by which POC may fall into one life or another. Most importantly, he breaks down exactly how we got where we are and who helped us along that om the revolutionary minds and lyrics of Ice Cube to the penal codes of yesterday and today, this was a compelling read that, at times, was so much info I had to stop, absorb, think about what I’d learned, and then come back for more.
Grotius wrote the Commentary at the request of the management board of the Dutch East India Company (or VOC in Dutch) as part of a defence of the actions of one of its merchant ship captains, van Heemskerk, who seized a Portuguese ship in the East Indies. Based on the captain's own retrospective self-justification (he possessed no warrant for such seizure), the confused reasoning of the Admiralty Board, and his own classical education, Grotius argued for 'subjective right' of the individual (as judge and jury of his own cause when at sea or anywhere else without government jurisdiction 'like Muscovy today') and thereby invented modern natural e Commentary is a pleasure to read - written with energy and confidence, Grotius is here at his best. Although unpublished in his lifetime, and subsequently overshadowed anyway by the large 'Right of Battle and Peace', the Commentary is a remarkable mixture of high principle and opportunistic pragmatism. One of the true highlights is a conception of religious tolerance entirely based on the pursuit of profit-making. In this method Grotius invented a line of thinking tolerance that differs from both reason of state approach of Pufendorf and Hobbes and from the liberalism of Bayle, Locke, Mill.
A wonderfully readable acc of Lewis’ complex thought on natural law, reason, the effects of sin and the Fall, and his indirect means of re-introducing what he called the Tao - moral truth - into the war between amazing and evil, through fiction, his ultimate purpose being the promulgation of the Gospel.
This brief book has seven chapters. It begins by debunking the misperception that Lewis was not political in Chapter One. In the second chapter, the authors summarize the pattern of the Christian worldview–– Creation, Fall, and Redemption––which is always show and often overt in Lewis’ writing. Chapter Three puts Lewis’ work in contact with some of the significant criticisms of natural law theory, particularly the critique of Karl the fourth chapter, Watson and Dyer focus on one of Lewis’ most necessary works for both ethics and political science, The Abolition of Man. In that chapter they outline some of the a lot of changes in culture that Lewis was responding to in that short volume. Chapter Five includes the most debatable proposition of the volume, where they argue that Lewis’ held to a form of Lockean Liberalism. There is evidence to help their case, though Lewis never cites Locke; the authors remain on safe ground by arguing that Lewis and Locke shared a lot of tenets in their political philosophy. In the sixth chapter, the authors discuss some of Lewis’ writing on political discourse and the put of Christianity in the political sphere. There is much to be learned from Lewis in this regard. The book concludes with Chapter Seven, the authors summarize their arguments and urge the reader to continue to engage contemporary problems through the work of C. S. times, given the amount of secondary literature on C. S. Lewis, one wonders whether there is much more to say about him. Whether academic studies of Lewis will run their course remains to be seen, but Dyer and Watson have demonstrated that there is still more to be gleaned from the voluminous work of C. S. Lewis. This book adds to the ongoing conversation about political theology, political science, and the work of C. S. Lewis.A significant danger with dual-authored volumes is uneven writing styles, which can create them difficult to read. This volume, however, has a consistent flow throughout and is a pleasure to read. C. S. Lewis on Politics and the Natural Law is a book that has potential to be a ready resource for years to is volume presents Lewis fairly and thoroughly and it makes it clear how Lewis can be helpful for Christians. One zone that deserves further exploration is how Lewis and natural law can be helpful in building a common understanding beyond the ranks of the TE: I received a gratis copy of this volume with no expectation of a positive review. This is an edited ver of a review posted at Ethics and Culture.
As a CS Lewis fan I was keen to read this book to support me create sense of politics and social problems of the day. Lewis believed in little government, and that no sin should be a crime unless it caused injury. His arguments versus theocracy are very timely, highlighting how theocracy can begin little and unnoticeable, and then go on to become the worst kind of tyranny because 'God' is invoked. We see this lived out in Islamic countries today. Lewis believes equating God’s will with their own politics is breaking the third commandment. He warned versus governments that engage in "soulcraft."Along the same lines, Lewis thought that teaching morals in the same method that biology is taught, is counterproductive. Further, he disagreed with state sponsored religious or morality programs in schools. He saw the same issue of a theocratic government attempting to control sinful behavior with laws, with the issue of the state attempting to indoctrinate children. He suggested Christian schools run by teachers who lived their faith, and evangelizing to neighbors and is book has been unbelievable in helping me sort the wheat from the chaff when it comes to politics and living out my faith.
A determined effort; be prepared to meet a challenging read. Author Graybill is essentially critical of Karl Barth's dispute with the biblical doctrine on natural law and its proper relation to Reformational (Calvinistic) theology, and credits him with separating it from and suppressing its further development within the Reformed theological tradition in the latest aybill's interest is to prove John Calvin's patent admission of the natural law premise in his 'Institutes' (from its original publication through to its final revision) and to faithfully resolve the Reformer's treatment of its biblical meaning and purpose from its corruption at the hands of Calvin's commentators. Though I am grateful for the author's painstaking work on this matter (fully half the book comprises footnotes of his studious sojourn), I can imagine a more succinct manner would have distanced the outcome from "the academy" and warmly delivered it into the welcoming ears of a common audience. Even so, it is the most accessible effort I've found.
1. IntroductionStephen Grabill (research scholar at the Acton Institute, inaugurating editor of The Journal of Markets and Morality, PhD, Calvin College) explores in this volume the history of the natural law in the Reformation and in the Reformed tradition. The chief problem that he explores is the latest break among Reformed Christians from an ancient natural law tradition that traces its method back from the Middle Ages to the Patristic Age. Grabill argues that this tradition was a part of the early universal church, and that even the leaders of the Reformation never doubted its put in theology. Grabill therefore questions why the Reformed churches have broken from this tradition. He does this by exploring the writings of Reformed theologians from John Calvin to those of our modern abill traces the latest shift to the influence of theologians who split from the natural law tradition for epistemological reasons in the twentieth century. These theologians believed that, due to man's fall, reason has been irrecoverably tainted and therefore, the natural law, which relies predominantly on reason, is not trustworthy. They keep instead to the competing school to natural law theology--divine command theory--which teaches that Scripture alone is able to lead man to truth on matters of God and is volume, which is particularly dense in some sections, reads at times like a research dissertation. The first paragraph of page 175, for example, begins with a sentence spanning eight lines and is broken up by only two commas. The non-theologian lay reader will search occasional passages difficult to digest. For the most part, however, the work is readable, and it is to my knowledge the best scholarship available on the Reformed tradition's view of the natural law. The following review summarizes the main ideas that Grabill seeks to convey.2. Karl BarthThe theologian who has more than any other led this split from natural law theology is Karl Barth. Barth (1886-1968) was a Swiss Reformed theologian who led the confessing churches in their opposition to Hitler's regime. Struck by the indifference of a lot of of the mainline churches in confronting and opposing the Nazi regime and the ease with which the Nazis swept through Reformed Europe, Barth grew deeply disillusioned and his confidence in reason was shaken: if Christian men and women could cooperate with a regime that so clearly violated all of the biblical precepts, then clearly the faculty of human reason is deeply flawed. Barth thus discounted the put of the natural law in informing ethical questions and found it to be completely incompatible with Christianity. "Resistance to Hitler will be built on a really sure foundation, insists Barth, `only when we resist him unequivocally in the name of peculiarly Christian truth, unequivocally in the name of Jesus Christ.' According to Barth, all arguments based on natural law ... do not lead to the light of clear decisions, but to the misty twilight in which all cats become grey. They lead to--Munich" (p. 38). For Barth, Jesus alone through Revelation could become the firm foundation for resolute opposition to Hitler. The faculty of reason and natural law could have no put in this equation. For Barth, "the choice is stark: Jesus Chris or natural law? There is no common middle ground" (p. 38).Barth, in his passion for truth and justice, and his righteous indignation at the Christian churches that failed to act in accordance with Christ's commandments, commits a logical fallacy that leads him into divine command theory: he assumes that it was the employment of reason by the Christian churches that led to their cooperation with the Nazis. Yet he overlooks the chance that the natural law, written on every man's heart and offering knowledge of God's eternal law through man's exercise of reason, might affirm rather than negate Christ's commandments and that the issue of the Christian churches was that they were neither obeying the Scriptures nor heeding the natural law. Barth is fast to cast the blame on man's reason and he overlooks the chance that the cooperation with the Nazis was a betrayal of both God's law as well as of the natural e consequences have been far-ranging. In Reformed seminaries across America today, seminarians are taught to distrust the natural law and to any teachings that come outside of the Scriptures. Yet as Grabill shows later on in the book, this teaching is a departure from rather than an affirmation of the Reformed tradition as it was mediates by John Calvin and later Reformed theologians.3. John Calvin and the Other Early Reformed ThinkersAs Grabill convincingly shows, the fathers of the Reformation saw themselves affirming a natural law tradition that they found show in the early fathers of the church and that continued right into the Middle Ages of the Catholic Church. They never took problem with natural law reasoning and they did not consider the natural law and Christian orthodoxy to be an either-or dichotomy. Rather, they viewed the natural law to be consistent with biblically orthodox Christian doctrine. The reformers did take problem with some of the natural law teachings of the Catholic Church--namely, they placed less trust on man's postlapsarian reason and its put in the discernment of the natural law and instead placed more trust in man's conscience--yet they left intact the primary precepts of the natural law without abill cites the writings of a lot of of the leading reformed theologians from the sixteenth century until the show day to prove that the distrust of the natural law is a phenomenon that can only be traced to the twentieth century. Calvin writes, for example, that the moral law is etched in all peoples' consciences: "all people are culpable for breaking the moral law because their conscience, operating in conjunction with the knowledge of that law etched in the mind, dismisses any ground for rationalization based on ignorance of the written law's demands. In short, people are obligated to act in accord with the written law because of the engraved knowledge of what it requires of them" (p. 88). Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499-1562) similarly affirmed the put of the natural law in theological ethics and formulated a "sophisticated doctrine of natural law on the basis of a modified Thomist understanding of the natural knowledge of God" (p. 97). In like manner, Francis Turretin (1623-1687) "employs the mind's natural capability of apprehending first principles immediately and of appropriating knowledge derived by inference to supply the requisite data upon which to construct the doctrines of natural theology and natural law" (156). According to Turretin, Reformed orthodoxy uniformly teach that "there is a natural theology, partly innate ... and partly acquired" (p. 156). The real notions of God are revealed "partly in their hearts [innate] and partly in the works of creation [acquired]" (p. 157).None of this is to say that the natural law tradition of the early reformers looked identical to that of the Catholic Church. Indeed, there were necessary questions involving questions of faith, works, grace, intellectualism, reason, and conscience, where the two groups disagreed. Yet the point that Grabill is making, and that he successfully conveys, is that the early reformers did not keep the same suspicions towards natural law thinking that the Reformed churches keep today.4. ConclusionThe state of affairs in the current Reformed church stands in contrast to that of the early Reformed Church. The current church holds that thinkers such as Calvin, although they may have held to a natural law ethical system, were simply over-influenced by the Catholic doctrines of their day and were unable to reason out the full consequences of such doctrines. Yet even if this were true, then modern Reformed theologians would have to concede that the earlier Reformed theologians were holding on to a tradition that traced back to the Patristic Age and continued into the Middle Ages through such scholars as Thomas Aquinas. It is the modern theologians who stand disconnected with a tradition that has lasted nearly two thousand , however, things are changing in the Reformed Christian world. Several noted Reformed theologians have expressed renewed interest in the natural law tradition and take careful steps towards exploring its put in their own tradition. Grabill holds that there is nothing in the natural law tradition that is intrinsically incompatible with Reformed theological thinking, and he is hopeful that this fresh interest may lead to a restoration of the put of natural law in Christian ethics. This book will prove to be a key resource in the process.
In his letter to Sadoleto (1539), John Calvin denied that the Reformers were innovators, expressed that the desire of the Reformers was to remain in continuity with antiquity, and alluded to the Vincentian Canon (AD 434). Grabill's Rediscovering the Natural Law demonstrates that the Reformed tradition, as it existed from the time of Calvin to the end of the 17th century, created amazing on Calvin's claim in the zone of theological is book is both a historical and topical approach to the foundations of ethics in the Reformed tradition. Those already familiar with the historical methodology of Reinhold Seeburg, Heiko Oberman, David Steinmetz, and Richard Muller will search this survey in the history of doctrine a comfortable read. Grabill examines in detail a limited number of interrelated doctrinal subjects (natural revelation, natural theology, natural law) as they were formulated by Reformed founders (Calvin, Vermigli) and developed by later successors (Zanchi, Althusius, Turretin).Perhaps the most illuminating chapter in this volume, however, is the late-Medieval background to the development of the natural-law tradition. Here Grabill summarizes the research of medieval historians William Courtenay, Francis Oakley, and Heiko Oberman to present that the development of natural-law theory in the late-Medieval period should not be read as a monolithic tradition. Rather, two distinct natural-law traditions existed prior to the Reformation--(1) a realist tradition which builds moral obligation on God's eternal law expressed in a metaphysics of embedded essences in creation (the Augustinian tradition represented by Aquinas and Scotus); (2) a nominalist tradition which builds moral obligation exclusively on God's ordained covenant with creation, which was therefore non-necessary yet stable (Occam, d'Ailly, Biel). Grabill's subsequent chapters read representative Reformers and their successors in light of these traditions, and demonstrate that the Reformed natural-law tradition falls decidedly into the realist, via antiqua tradition of Aquinas and abill's book challenges the Denifle-Lortz thesis that the magisterial Reformation was an outgrowth of late-Medieval nominalism. His conclusions will therefore likely generate a mixed reaction from both Roman Catholics and Protestants. On the one hand, Roman Catholics and confessional Protestants will search that their past shares much in common on the foundations of theological ethics, so that they have common resources from which to draw in addressing complex moral issues. On the other hand, this book will create thoughtful Roman Catholics somewhat uneasy since one of their means of dismissing the development of the Reformation (viz., continuity with late-Medieval nominalism) is called into question. This book will also create a lot of contemporary Protestants and evangelicals uneasy, as their adherence to different post-Harnack/Ritschlian theological systems which repudiate the use of metaphysics, natural theology, and natural law locations them in discontinuity with representative leaders of the universal church extending from the patristic era through the post-Reformation r those interested in the question of why a lot of contemporary Reformed theologians, especially in the twentieth century, repudiate natural law altogether, Grabill two concise chapters. In chapter 1, "Karl Barth and the Displacement of Natural Law in Contemporary Protestant Theology," Grabill examines Barth's critique of natural theology and natural law, as well as that of subsequent Reformed ethicists writing in the aftermath of the Barth-Brunner debate (Jacques Ellul, Henry Stob, John Hare, Richard Mouw). Here, as well as in the introduction, Grabill also notes the problematic historical assumption of identifying Calvin as the chief-codifier of Reformed theology, rather than understanding Calvin as one among a network of a lot of theologians who worked closely together to establish a theological tradition which was carried on in the theological schools they established. In the conclusion, Grabill sketches a short history of the development of theological ethics from the late-seventeenth century to the present, based on latest historiography in the secondary literature.
I'm a few chapters into the book, and I'm a bit dismayed that PB didn't have some kind of editor -- or at least it seems as though he didn't. He makes a point, then makes it again, then repeats the facts that comprised the story that led to the point, then makes the point again. It's a good-hearted book, full of valuable lessons that unfortunately I felt beaten over the head with. I would like to see PB appointed to the US Supreme Court, but at the same time my services as a reader/editor should he decide to write another book.
This is not a Trump bashing book. Instead it is an inspiring ramble through the legal process. It looks at the process and mindset of how justice should work. I am a scientist, and I was especially impressed by how much legal investigation and prosecution has in common with lab research. Patience, continual questioning of data and bias, and the necessity to admit when you are wrong; and of course, pursuit of truth.
In a lot of courts across the country, more than 80% of cases have one or both parties unrepresented by counsel. In an adversarial legal system designed for both parties to represented, this results in a crisis of access to justice.Our laws and procedures are too complex for ordinary people to understand and navigate on their own. Paradoxically, the U.S. has more lawyers than any other country, but our lawyers are among the most costly. So, millions of Americans resort to “do it yourself” law to defend crucial legal rights in a byzantine legal system. As a result, throughout the country thousands of laborers are cheated of their wages, tenants are unfairly evicted, and consumers are taken advantage of by businesses -- all without any effective cording to Rebooting Justice, one issue is that most courts are still “partying like its 1899.” Courts and the legal bar are unwilling or lack incentives to adapt to a changing world. Judges feel it’s incumbent on litigants to learn their archaic and arcane ways, rather than making the system simpler for ordinary people (i.e, those who can’t afford expensive lawyers) to understand and avail themselves of the protections of the law. Lawyers have fun the monopoly they have on the legal e book is a unbelievable clarion call and should be needed reading for every state and local court judge in the country, as well as everyone who cares about justice for the not good (and middle class).
I enjoyed Preet's take on our justice system. He explains the method things are supposed to work (as opposed to the method Hollywood shows it), and how hard the decisions can actually be for the prosecutors, defenders, and judges. He uses actual cases to illustrate his points, and finds a method to explain the intricacies of our legal system in a method even non-lawyers can understand.
i found several passages pendantic and often thought Kindle had created unexpected jumps to sections i had read. Over all this book has intensified my distaste for the ignorant oligarchs trump has unleashed on America. i feel more confident karma will grace ex-president trump with a Fresh York orange jumpsuit.
Doing Justice is the best non fiction book I've read in a long time. Preet has a storytelling expertise that keeps your interest. It is so refreshing to hear someone speak with such integrity, honesty and work ethic values. His words can certainly apply to all facets of life. Amazing book. Janet Shiers, retired elementary teacher
There is broad consensus in the judicial system that a vast number of us cannot afford even primary legal services despite there being a superabundance of lawyers. Further, a lot of people who can afford lawyers choose not to hire them because they cannot identify a return on investment. The effect is that courts are seeing dramatically increasing numbers of parties unrepresented by lawyers.What professors Barton and Bibas have expertly accomplished is distilling into one very readable book the a lot of factors that contribute to a largely inaccessible justice system. Whereas a lot of “access to justice” efforts in the past three decades have focused on identifying means of providing more lawyers to more people, the authors persuasively argue that “lawyering up” has not been an effective strategy. Instead, they propose simplifying processes that may not require lawyers, such as having unique dockets for unrepresented parties in low value claims, having judges become more active in eliciting necessary facts from parties, ensuring that easy forms are available, and piloting the use of technology to support people resolve typical disputes through online dispute resolution, to name just a few. The suggestions for reforming America’s archaic and inexplicably expensive system of legal education are particularly insightful.Having served on innumerable “access” committees over three decades where addressing the root of the issue is largely avoided, this candid assessment of legal representation, together with its array of potential solutions, is both timely and welcomed.
This is a chilling and compelling look at how juveniles, especially teens, are viewed in legal terms. It reads like a novel as the info unfold from various perspectives until a amazing courtroom showdown. Tanenhaus is a brilliant legal historian with the eye of a novelist. Can't recommend it highly enough for book clubs and library discussions.Every high school history class should read & discuss! 4 stars
This book tells what particular situations it may be wise to use a lawyer and in what particular situations, it may be wise to test to avoid using a lawyer if possible. In cases involving a lot of legal technicalities and a lot of legal procedures, it may be wise to use a lawyer in those instances. Pro-se means without a lawyer. In Fresh York Town evictions, 88% of tenants are unrepresented by a lawyer and 98% of landlords are represented by lawyers. In California, 80% of family law cases involve at least one party proceding per se. The costs of preliminary hearings are usually between $2,000 and $10,000. A jury can run into six figures. In the 21st Century, England has deregulated the shop for legal services making it more deregulated than the United States. Bills from lawyers can add up fast. The largest expense in modern litigation is not time spent in court. It is time spent on the discovery process. It is harder and more expensive for a person to become a lawyer in the United States than in a lot of other countries. Between the years 1985 and 2011, roughly one in three law school graduates in the United States could not search work as a lawyer, and there are a lot of as 600,000 JD holders who are not working as a lawyer. Roughly a quarter of the lawyers are not in personal practice. In the 1700s and in the 1800s, a citizen could represent himself. Even then a lot of judges were not lawyers.
America has more lawyers/capita than any other nation. Yet, even a little firm's legal support costs $190/hour (average) or more. Bar authorities hold non-lawyers such as paralegals from offering more affordable service, yet rarely prevent incompetent or dishonest lawyers from harming their clients, or punish them for doing so. Bar associations and legal scholars propose more law, lawyers, and procedures. Law schools could shorter, cheaper ways to qualify as a lawyer - a lot of say the third year of law school is largely ton instead proposed simplifying our legal system where the stakes are lower and the problems simpler (eg. non-felony criminal cases). For a lot of easy civil and even minor criminal cases, technology (interactive www services - eg. eBay has online dispute resolution, fillable forms, hotlines, chat rooms, notice boards) could do the work. Licensing rules could allow trained social workers and accountants handle routine, specialized work. Another suggestion - have court officials actively investigate the facts and probe the evidence. In short, the legal system needs to go on a diet. Simplification is also more democratic - empowering citizenry rather than ton then provides examples of not good defense provided those accused (underfunding = underlying cause, along with a failure to weed out those failing their clients), and tells us that legal aid funding has been in steady decline since the 1990s - down 63% from its 1980s high pointAppointed criminal defense lawyers are often wildly overburdened, lack help (eg. personal investigator), and plead their clients guilty as quickly as possible. The situation in our civil courts may be worse. Mothers seeking kid support, tenants fighting eviction, laid-off workers claiming unemployment or disability benefits usually cannot afford lawyers. A 2010 ABA survey of state court judges, 94% stated that unrepresented parties fail to show important evidence, 89% said they suffer from procedural errors 85% said they failed to effectively examine witnesses, and 81% said they are unable to object to improper evidence offered by an opponent. In Mane, 75% of family matters involve at least one pro se party, 88% of tenants are unrepresented in eviction actions, and 80% of litigants in protective cases are pro se. In MNC evictions, 88% of tenants are unrepresented and 98% of landlords are, while in D.C. the numbers are 98% and 93%.In the 1970s, unrepresented parties were rare - in less than 10 - 20% of cases. In 2014, the Globe Justice Project ranked 99 nations on access to civil and criminal justice. The U.S. finished 27th in civil and 22nd in criminal.
This is a beautifully written and thoughtful book about aspects of the criminal justice system that should be of interest to everyone. As a lawyer myself--but not one who is involved in criminal law--I found the book fascinating because it not only explains the nuts and bolts of the system, but uses stories of true people involved in it to bring it ere is also something comforting, in this fraught time, about Preet's calm, measured, even humorous tone, both in writing and speech. I have both the Kindle and Audible editions and recommend them both.
I had a hard time putting down a lot of sections of the book. To me, the most interesting and intellectually enlightening section was about soliciting info from different poor guys including terrorists and was glad to read that the patient and humane treatment worked best. Amazing read. Mr. Bharara would create a amazing US attorney general.
Bibas and Barton and blunt, and accurate, about the a lot of issues that have long been apparent in both civil justice and criminal justice systems in the U.S. This book is one of the few efforts to think about civil and criminal justice together--to search common ground in diagnoses of their issues and to borrow ideas for potential solutions. Its key premises are refreshingly honest and sobering. One is that we should recognize legislatures are never going to sufficiently fund lawyers for not good people in civil litigation or who face criminal charges; another is that the legal profession contributes to the problem, especially through insisting on a broad definition of "unauthorized practice of law" to resist tournament from non-lawyers. They powerful arguments for some bold, sometimes contrarian proposals, such as cutting back on the right to counsel; looking for ideas to improve public courts in technology such as online dispute resolution that tech firms such as Ebay have road-tested; and borrowing from the medical profession's example to advocate for legal-assistance equivalents to nurse-practitioners and physician's assistants--trained specialists who could provide competent services for a lot of ordinary legal problems at much cheaper rates than lawyers. It's a thought-provoking and in a lot of respects persuasive book, well worth the time of anyone interested in improving American justice systems.
Preet Bharara powerfully narrates his own story. Hearing it in his voice makes it all the more powerful. It is a human story, a story that can be listened to and enjoyed without taking notes. He speaks in every day [email protected]#$%!&? is an elegant speech. I search it thrilling that it is like listening to a soliloquy. I hold wanting to speak up and often do. Yes, I have interrupted Preet is is not just the story of his year in and out of office. This is his story, not the story of Barack Obama and Donald Trump. It is a story about who we are and who we should be. It is also about the true globe -- it is about integrity and leadership. The meaning of truth is under fire: "The creeping contempt for truth" is e Southern District of Fresh York makes me think of Tim Russert saying: 'Florida, Florida, Florida.' At some point the entire drama will end up playing out in the center of the world, not Florida this time, but the Southern District of Fresh York.
This is a decent textbook for any political science or law class that is teaching the fundamentals on the legal process and judicial procedures. However, if I wasn't in school, then I wouldn't be reading this book.
Given its title, one would expect this book to be of limited, focused interest, very narrowly addressed to the Straussians, a group taken seriously only within a very narrow circle (a circle that includes vanishingly few theologians, philosophers or classicists). However, the author himself is fast to point out that the interpretations of Aquinas with which he is taking problem have a wider popularity. These interpretations represent Aquinas’ notion of natural law as based either on his revealed theology or on an outmoded physics. The first of these is particularly popular, not least among Aquinas’ own supporters. This gives the book a much broader relevance than its title y’s central claim is that Aquinas’ thoughts on natural law are meant to be part of a rational ethics and in no method dependent upon unique revelation or any sort of physics. Carey is an immensely learned and a careful reader, and, in the course of his arguments, he gives a unbelievable general exposition of Aquinas’ project that, by itself, makes this book well worth at said, one section of specific bearing on the Straussians is especially well done. In “Circumventing the Practical Syllogism,” Carey addresses that group’s habit of making normative judgments—of using words like “ought” or “should”—while simultaneously denying the existence of universal practical major premises. The school’s seeming inability to understand the issue with this is one major reason they tend to be dismissed as antirational. Carey’s treatment of the problem in formal logical terms may, one hopes, clarify fore reading this book, I had always regarded Aquinas simply as someone trying to reconcile Catholicism and Aristotle, and of no significance beyond this. The Aquinas shown here, however, is an independent philosopher in his own right, heavily indebted to Aristotle but not shackled to him. This is a welcome eyeopener, and Carey is to be thanked.
It would seem that having the combined skills of a professor, a minister, and an attorney have placed David VanDrunen in the ideal position to study and analyze the topic of natural law as it relates to the creation of universal moral behavior.With a topic like natural law, an author has a lot of options in terms of direction. In Divine Covenants of Moral Order, VanDrunen chooses to study the earliest covenants God created with humanity and how these act as the foundation for understanding His power to govern the globe under natural law. The book also looks God's covenants with Abraham, Israel, etc. and how they established the obligation of God's people to obey natural law and wraps up expressing the importance of natural law in Christian life and the need for a solid theology. I found this section of particular interest since finishing Van Seters' Abraham in History and e viewpoint here is one of a Reformed Christian theologian and the analysis definitely adds to the current discussion. Thoroughly researched and examined, this study of natural law will likely be referenced by scholars for years to come. This will also be a amazing resource for those interested in learning more about the biblical (as opposed to secular) aspects of natural law.
Very thoughtful! VanDrunen advances the only contemporary biblical case in help of natural law theory that is situated in the Reformed tradition that I am aware of.
If you're looking for an in-depth scholarly resource on natural law from a historic Reformed Christian point of view, this is the book you want. VanDrunen talks about natural law as it is found in Scripture - specifically, as it is found in the unfolding history of redemption (including the covenant of creation/works, the Noahic covenant, the Abrahamic covenant, the Sinaitic covenant, and the Fresh Covenant).The primary structure of the 550+ page book is as follows: PART ONE - 1) the covenant of creation, 2) the Noahic covenant, 3) the judgement of Sodom, 4) the prophets and judgement, 5) an exposition of Romans 1:18-2:16. PART TWO - 6) the Abrahamic covenant, 7) the Sinaitic covenant, 8) Wisdom literature, 9) the Fresh Covenant, 10) conclusion. In each of these chapters, VanDrunen discusses the natural law themes of morality, justice, equity, and judgment. There are a lot of summary sections, which support nail down the main points of each chapter. There is a Scripture index, but sadly it is not exhaustive. After the conclusion of the book there are several doubt some readers will disagree with certain aspects of VanDrunen's exegesis and conclusions. Others will search them persuasive. Either way, if someone wants to learn about this subject in a biblical and Reformed way, this book will engage the reader in a lot of ways. Though I had a few questions here and there, I enjoyed the book - especially the section on wisdom and natural law. There are not a lot of resources like this - it surely deserves to be read and studied by those who are thinking about and doing work in the zone of natural law.
In "The Genesis of Justice" the brilliant teacher/lawyer Alan Dershowitz examines the first book of the bible as the foundation of Western legal tradition. His awesome insights into what these ancient biblical stories have to say about injustice are something that everyone who is concerned about justice should read. This book is full of questions I have never thought to ask. Dershowitz's Jewish background leads him to approach the text from a direction that most Americans would never even conceive of. The globe of rabbincal theology was opened to me for the first time and I found I wish to know more.Having said all that, this is not a theology textbook. It is a book about the law, so don't come to this book looking for amazing theology; either Jewish or Christian. Dershowitz's conclusions about God's justice, ominiscience, and perfection stretch the bounds of orthodoxy of both faiths. He reads Genesis and takes his theology straight from it without using the entire Old Testament to inform his views on the above characteristics of the Lord. I found this a bit frustrating, but don't allow that stop you from reading this well done and thought provoking book by a brilliant mind.
I have not much to say but that this book is amazing for someone who is interested in the law of God and the lawsas they apply to us today. It is very amazing for a law student who is interested in the justice in the legal systemand how the app of the law has changed.
God's sense of justice evolved over time...pretty hilarious theme to a guy who grew up reading the Bible literally and scratching his head over some of the perceived unfairness of God's actions. I didn't have fun Dershowitz looping in the Rabbinic tradition into his analysis, which is the only reason I didn't give this book five stars. Is God fallible? Does he create mistakes? If the Bible is your source of divine inspiration, and you wish answers to those questions, Dershowitz's book is a amazing read. Or if you are a Christian and don't mind having traditional views of Genesis and God challenged, this is a amazing book. If you wish to be entertained or have fun scholarly debate and analysis, this also is a amazing read. I suspect that fundamentalists will be place off by Dershowitz's commentary.
Just a short commentary here, because this is a bit difficult of a work to categorize. The point I do wish to create is not only that it is a very thoughtful and educational text, but it is one that is more than mildly enjoyable to read. Stop and think for a moment; how a lot of times can you genuinely say that about a book of law, theology or philosophy. Dershowitz's preeminence as a professor carry over very well into the field of writing and one can read a chapter or two at a time purely for the enjoyment of self-improvement and reflection. The author makes a number of contemporary allusions, but does not do so in a method that kindles partisanship. Instead, he does a unbelievable job of causing the reader to think about the problem and come to a conclusion that he or she did not anticipate before and to do so with a sense of moral comfort. I'd recommend this for all ages, but particularly for old farts like myself who take pleasure in fresh and thinking.