35 Burst results for "Hadley"
The Eric Metaxas Show
Eric Chats With Hadley Arkes, Author Of "Mere Natural Law"
"With Hadley Arkes, A R K E S. The book is Mere Natural Law. You were saying, just before we went to the break, that there are younger people who sense something missing. In other words, that if we proceed as agnostics, as secularists, we can't really have the laws that we have. We can't govern ourselves. That this thinking seems to be catching hold. Yes. By the way, you said it's a readable book. I hope it will be read by ordinary people, businessmen, ordinary citizens. I think it may take hold among young lawyers, people in law schools who are told, you'll never hear anything about natural law. If you want to hear anything about it, maybe it's a readable version. We have a seminar. Anybody, look, let me interrupt. Anybody thinking about law school or in law school or practicing law should read this book. That's a fact. I say that not to do any favors to Hadley Arkes, but to do favors to those to whom I have just been speaking honestly. No, no, I mean it because I'm not a lawyer and it is readable and it's actually fascinating. It's also very, very, very, very important. Please continue. We have this seminar in the summer for really gifted young lawyers coming out of law school. Who does? James Wilson Institute. I'm sorry. What's the website? JamesWilsonInstitute .org. JamesWilsonInstitute .org. I hope you'll visit it. One of our programs is a seminar we have every summer for some gifted young lawyers coming out of law school on the way to clerkships. We had a first two years ago of a young woman who had already been clerking at the Supreme Court. She had clerked for John Roberts and she's coming to us. And I said, what are you doing here? And she said, I want to get what I never got at Harvard at the law school.
The Eric Metaxas Show
Hadley Arkes Discusses Judges Second-Guessing Military Decisions
"My conversation with Hadley Arkes, A -R -K -E -S. The book is Mere Natural Law, Originalism and the Anchoring Truths of the Constitution. So, you just mentioned Korematsu. This has to do with judges not second -guessing military decisions. Talk about this a little bit. This is the limits of what a judge can do. This is after they accepted curfews for Japanese. Then they're now willing to stand back while Japanese… Whoa, whoa, whoa. You're talking about World War II? World War II. Japanese… They Japanese moved into the interior. Which is a shocking moment in American history. It was. So, what did the judges say at that point? Some of them, like Robert Jackson and Frank Murphy and Owen Roberts, said, no, this is really just racial discrimination. These are people who were born here. But these are American citizens who have rights. And the idea that their ethnicity would affect those rights is legally nonsense. Right. But you have the judges, other judges appointed by Roosevelt, Hugo Black and Felix Frankfurter, just taking the side of the executive and saying judges can't be held responsible for what goes on here. Judges don't have the judgment to sort of second -guess what is being done. That gets pretty tricky because we're talking about foundational principles and that's like saying, well, when they created the Constitution, they didn't think about this stuff. Well, that's the Constitution. But judges the may not be the best people to vindicate. They may simply have to rely on elected officials, Congress and the executive, to bear these things in mind and to honor the Constitution. So
The Eric Metaxas Show
Hadley Arkes' Lonely Crusade for Natural Law
"In a way, on a somewhat lonely crusade, because when you talk about natural law, you are, as we discussed previously, you're at least slightly at odds with friends of yours who we would think of as proponents of originalism. Samuel Alito, and others, who would quibble, you mentioned Scalia, maybe quibble is a nice way of putting it, but would argue with you and say that if it's not in the Constitution, we cannot go back to what the founders intent was, unless that's expressed in the Constitution, you take issue with that. Right. Well, Scalia said at one point, it's a bedrock principle, the First Amendment, we may not make restrictions on speech based on the content of the speech. Well, that's not that bedrock principle is not in my copy of the First Amendment. I think Scalia would often try to construe the Constitution, and determines what he thinks is the most sensible, which is say he's going, he's going back to natural law. I used to rib him and say, you know, for somebody, you offer sometimes handsome examples of natural law, for someone who professes up and down that it can't be done.
The Eric Metaxas Show
"hadley" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show
"In other words, you just referred to Kavanaugh talking about some people believe that. Don't you think he's just being gracious and somewhat coy when he makes a statement like that? I mean, he's not speaking ex cathedra. This is not an opinion or is it an opinion? But that concurring opinion confirmed the point that the decision of the court forced to not even speak about the rights and wrongs of abortion, but it would not even confirm the human standing of the child in the womb. And the dissenters nailed that right away. They said the majority's opinion has nothing to do with the status of the child in the womb. If they had made that judgment, confirmed that there was nothing less than a human child in the womb, it had a profound effect. When you return the matter to the state, you're saying, we're clear now. You don't have to make a value judgment. What do you think it's a human life? We're clear it's a human life. And so we're going to ask you how you reconcile the taking of this human life with your other laws on homicide. And if you plant that premise in the law, you plant the premise for the Congress to act now under the 14th amendment when the protections of law are being withdrawn from a whole class of human beings in the blue state. And remind us, what is the 14th amendment? 14th amendment, no state shall, the 14th amendment, the equal protection clause, which first you gave citizenship to the newly freed slaves who received ended slavery and servitude in the 13th amendment. Now you undid the Dred Scott decision, which denied the black people could be citizens by confirming the citizenship of black people, but also confirming the power of a national government that could protect the newly freed slaves and everybody else when the protections of law withdrawn in the states. We're going to go to a break. We're going to follow up. Absolutely fascinating. We're talking to Hadley Arkes, the book, mere natural law. Welcome back talking to Hadley Arkes. The book is mere natural law. This is fascinating stuff. I want to get to all of it really, but you just were saying that Kavanaugh, who I suppose wrote the opinion for Dobbs, is that right? No, no, except just as a leader, but Brett Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion, but in his, he couldn't have written his concurring opinion, established what the limits were of the holding because in other words, you understand that you are a five decade long professor of jurisprudence who may be speaking above some of our heads. So I just want you to make sure that you slow down enough so that I can interrupt and ask you for clarification. So Dobbs decision is, it comes down. Alito writes the opinion. Kavanaugh writes a concurring opinion and in the concurring opinion makes a statement that you disagree with and the statement has to do with when life begins. You are saying, I guess, I gather that he had an opportunity to say life begins at conception. I am guessing that that, that he and many in America would have said, I don't know that you can say that whether it's true is another question, but to say that in a concurring opinion, maybe, or it seems definitely, Kavanaugh thought at a bridge too far, thought maybe this is not the place to do that. It's not a disagreement. It's a matter of getting something so profoundly wrong on the question that's central to the case to say, when you do that, you're addressing this life in the womb and you're beginning by being willing to live affably with a radical falsehood, a falsehood that you cannot say what the human standing of that child is. That's a serious thing. It's not simply I disagree with it. It's just profoundly wrong, but it's an indication of what the code by which conservative jurisprudence is operating. We try as much as possible to deal with the moral substance of the issues before us. We tried to just deal with the, who has the right to make the power to make the decision. The conservative argument against on abortion was simply that abortion was not in the text of the constitution. Therefore, a federal judge has no ground in which to proclaim any rights to abortion emanating from the constitution. Okay. So here's just again to clarify and to boil these things down. What Roe v Wade did, the reason it was ridiculous overreach judicial is it claimed. Okay. The seven, I suppose that the Supreme Court justices in 1973 decided that somehow the constitution makes the case for a legal right to abortion. This is a federal law. It's in the constitution and they give us Roe v Wade. So now in undoing that, um, people who would consider themselves originalists, um, like Kavanaugh say the first thing we need to do, at least what we need to do is say that is not true. That that is not in the constitution. So I'm guessing, look, I'm not saying I'm agreeing, but I'm, but just for the case of this here is that, that what Kavanaugh et al were attempting to do is to say that's wrong. There's nothing in the penumbra. We need to remove that. That's all we're trying to do today. So you don't think it was possible for them or, or right for them to merely do that. Do you think that any of them like Kavanaugh were thinking, well, we're going to do this today and we can get to that other thing another time, or was this their only shot? No, I think Samuel Alito's opinion prevents the possibility, offers the possibilities for going further. He, he shows in his opinion that there's no principle ground on which to deny the human standing of the child in the womb, but he wouldn't extract the con, the conclusion that arises because he, they're trying to keep this, we're returning this to the political arena. Somebody else will have to make that decision, but go back for a moment. Marriage was not in the constitution when the court struck down the laws that barred interracial marriage and the federal government. Uh -oh, we're going to a break. We're going to have to continue this conversation an hour or two, but guess what? We are going to continue this conversation with Hadley Arcus. 2 ,500 feet. Time to pull our chutes. 25? Did you hear you could save up to 25 % off grocery store prices at BJ's wholesale club? Did you say save up to 25 % at BJ's? Yeah, save up to 25 % at BJ's. Whoa, that's like saving up to one -fourth of, that's going to leave a mark. BJ's absurdly simple savings. Shop today. Not a member? Go to BJ's .com slash simple savings..
The Eric Metaxas Show
"hadley" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show
"Now, some people listening to this program are familiar with the magazine First Things which published a poem of mine in 1999 but I want to say that First Things magazine founded by the great Richard John Newhouse takes the name First Things from you, from a book that you wrote called First Things. He borrowed it. Yeah, he borrowed it but they're still borrowing it and Richard John Newhouse is gone and Rusty it's name from the book that you wrote back in 1986. A nice bishop once in Dallas at a workshop told his colleagues that Father Newhouse took the title from my book of that name and I said, yes, I told Richard my next book is going to be called Urology and what it can do for you. That's funny. And I want to see what kind of a journal he'd make out of it. How about McCall's? Let me ask you, now First Things which is the title of your book in 1986, has to itself have an antecedent. In other words, you didn't coin the term First Things. Well, I think it was Origen who had it. Origen, O -R -I -G -E -N, he didn't write in English. No, no, it was Church Father but it was common, it was common to hear things said, we have crises in the American regime at these certain crises, things are taken back to first things, the first principles. First principles. So the first principles of the question there was moral truths and how you know them and people used to take that course seeing if they could break the argument and so on. I said this course could be done with a codicil, that everything here could be wrong because if you accept that, you understand we are implying the right or wrong answers and the currency will be the giving of reasons. But I said it's always open to you to ask for re -argument of that. But see, I remember once I began the course and I said, I'm happy, this is the first thing, so the kid gets up and said, what do you mean by that? We're going back and forth and then the word came back to me later, someone told this kid that if you conceded the very first thing I said, if you let it go by, he'd never be able to work his way out of the argument. So he had to challenge you immediately. Right away. It's kind of like you got to pick out the big kid, the bully, and you got to beat him up on the first day of school, otherwise you're never going to get through school. We're going to go to a break. We're talking with Hadley Arkes, the brand new book, very important, Mere Natural Law. Welcome back, talking to Hadley Arkes. The book is Mere Natural Law, Originalism and the Anchoring Truths of the Constitution. Hadley, you were raised in a Jewish home. The term natural law, most of us would associate it with Catholicism, even though the ideas, when you talk about first things and these kinds of things, these are fundamental ideas, but the term natural law is associated with Catholicism, and I guess I want to ask you, I know that at some point, 12 or 13 years ago, you converted to Catholicism, which I call Christianity, and I'm just fascinated about that what because was it in your life? Were you at all religious in all these decades? Only faintly religious. There's not much theology. For Jews, it's keeping the calendar, keeping the memory of the Jewish people with the calendar, but it was the pro -life movement. As I've gone into the pro -life movement, the church doesn't argue about life on the basis of faith. It simply offers a combination of embryology of science and principle reasoning. What's the ground in which you regard that offspring in the womb as anything less than human? Does it speak it? Either they're deaf or mutes, so on. You don't have to be Catholic to understand the argument. The Catholic position on abortion is simply natural law reasoning. While I was living in these circles with a natural law argument, I was living mainly, I think, with so many Catholic friends living in those circles, and finally what struck me is that the church had really become the main sanctuary for preserving that reasoning about natural law, at a time when the currents of relativism were roding everything around us..
The Eric Metaxas Show
"hadley" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show
"My name is Eric Metaxas and we are talking about your book, Hadley, Mere Natural Law. This is as central as it gets, as important as it gets. And I want to by your story. The idea that you were at Amherst for 50 years, for the love of Mike, how did you pull that off? 50 years at Amherst. Amherst is not exactly a bastion of conservative thinking. When you arrived there, were you politically ideologically conservative? Were you an originalist? Where did you grow up? Let's start there. Chicago, Chicago, the days of - Never heard of it. Not ringing any bells. Of the great Mayor Daley who said, the police are there not there to preserve disorder. To preserve disorder? Not to create disorder, but the police are there to preserve disorder. Disorder. Disorder, right. He was not joking? No, he was just one of those Daley -isms like - Most of us - I'm offering these advice for the enlightenment, the edification, and the hallucination of this audience. You see, most of us aren't old enough to remember - Mayor Daley, the great Mayor Daley. We Daley, remember but not the details. You grew up in the 50s and 60s - Right. In Chicago. Chicago. I'm a child of the University of Chicago, my graduate degree. University of Chicago, which is a tremendously august institution. You studied under Leo Strauss? He was there, yes. He was there. I took courses with him. What's his name? Bloom was there also. No, no. Allen was gone by that time. He was gone by the time you were - He'd gone on to Cornell by that time. Okay. It can happen, people. I'm sorry. It happened. He went to Cornell. So you were raised in a Jewish home. Were you at all religious growing up? Yeah. It was an orthodox background with my family, but not too firm going on in the years. My grandparents were quite religious, but we sort of drifted away from that. I a think telling moment came for me in the synagogue in Amherst when I was asked to speak on - I was often asked to speak at Yom Kippur. I told the president once that, you know, the thing I regard as the most searing question before us now, I can't speak about in the synagogue. He said, there's no question you'd want to speak about that this congregation will not want to hear you about. What is it? I said, abortion. He said, I'll get back to you. Whoopsie -daisy is the legal term. That's the Latin, whoopsie -daisy. Let me ask you though, wait, where were you as an undergraduate? What did you study as an undergrad? Well, political science. I was interested in political science, political theory. At the University of Chicago. Illinois first. University of Illinois. Okay. And then you go, you know you want to do law. No, no. Law was one of the fields of my PhD. I didn't imagine that I'd be moving into it as steadily as I did move into it and be writing as much as I have written in it. So what were you teaching when you began at Amherst? Oh, political parties and bureaucracy, administration. I taught, of course, a seminar in urban politics which gave rise to a book called The Philosopher in the City of what the city would look like if we viewed the city not as simply a dense settlement with a heterogeneous population but a polis, a moral association that teaches through the law. What difference does it make if we look at the problems arising in the cities through that moral lens? So that turned into that book and then it turned into the book that became First Things..
The Eric Metaxas Show
"hadley" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show
"Now, when you say positive law, because you're a professor emeritus of jurisprudence, you're going to throw these terms around. It's my job to say, hold on a second. When you say positive law, what you mean is - The law that is positive or enacted, the law that's enacted. Okay, so our laws in this country are those kinds of laws, but they are founded upon something previous, something foundational, which is the natural law. It's your contention that all of the founders, when they gave us the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, they weren't just making this stuff up. They understood this idea of natural law. Well, the positive law, the law that's enacted by the people who have the power to put into place - Legislators. Well, could be Stalin, who had the power to put his law into place. So the question has to be, what is the difference between the positive law of Stalin and the positive law in America? It has something to do with the antecedent principle before the Constitution, those principles that tell us what is the rightful governance of human beings. Who has the rightful authority to making that possible? Okay, so any nation can have laws. So the question we're asking is, what laws are just laws? What would make a law a just law? What would make a law an unjust law? That's ultimately what our concern is in discussing this. So when you write mere natural law, as the title of your book, Originalism and the Anchoring Truths of the Constitution, take us back to the founders. What was their sense of this? You mentioned Kant, you mentioned certain people, but what was their sense when they gave us our Constitution and our laws? They were not familiar with the term natural law. Oh, sure they were. Sure they were. They were. Sure. Natural justice and so on. Actually, let's take it back to the mere for the moment. To the what? To the mere. Oh, to the mere, yeah. You know, you recognize the reference, the way that C .S. Lewis would draw us back, attentive to the way in which children would show the rudiments of moral reasoning, where they're arguing. It's not merely about likes and dislikes. They're having an argument about what is fitting and unfitting, right or wrong. And the conversation makes no sense unless you presuppose the standards of judgment to tell the difference between right or wrong answers. What I was trying to do here was take it back to those principles of common sense. The founders read the great Scott philosopher Thomas Reed. Those principles of common sense, on those things that the ordinary man has to understand before he starts trafficking in that line of Jefferson, he said, you could give the same moral problem to a plowman, man who runs a plowman and a professor, and the plowman is apt to get it right, because he will not be confounded by artificial rules called them theories. The pitch is that the founders found the ground of the natural law in those axioms, those anchoring axioms of truth, available to people of common sense. So C .S. Lewis, when he writes in mere Christianity or in other things, he's referring to this idea that everyone gets this, kids on the playground gets this, they say, you cheated, that's not fair. And you think, well, those ideas are not arbitrary, they're rooted in something deeper, that there is this idea of what is fair and what is not fair, what is cheating, what is right, what is wrong, what is honest. And so you're saying that, what you call positive law, these things have to be founded in something deeper, and that's what the concept of natural law concerns itself with, those deeper things, and who has the right to say you have to abide by this law. And those beginning principles, are those principles so grounded in common sense that ordinary man not only knows them, but as Reed would say, has to take them for granted just to get on with the business of life..
The Eric Metaxas Show
"hadley" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show
"Back. As I will have warned you in the introduction, I have in the studio with me in New York City, someone I consider a national treasure. I would never say that in front of him. Uh -oh, here he is, Hadley Arkes. That's the biggest problem I have in introducing you. How do I pronounce your last name? Arkes. Oh, come on. When I get an introduction like that, I say, look, I just came in to read the meter. Hadley Arkes. They asked me to stand around for a few more minutes. Okay. Hadley Arkes. Now listen, I've got to tell my audience again, Professor of Jurisprudence, which is some type of agriculture. No, that's law. Professor of Jurisprudence at Amherst College for 50 years. That doesn't seem possible. I want to ask you about your whole life and your career. You started in 1966. You ended there in 2016. You're currently with the James Wilson Institute on Natural Rights and the American Founders. A rights natural and the American Founders. You've written many books. You've done many things. The book that will concern us principally today, the new book, is titled Mere Natural Law. We discussed it on this program, but not with you in the studio. So thank you for coming into the studio. The title is Mere Natural Law, Originalism and the Anchoring Truths of the Constitution. Hadley Arkes, I cannot say how grateful I am to have you with us and in the studio. Thank you for being here. That's lovely to have to be in with you, Eric. Thanks for inviting me in. We've got a lot to talk about, but we have the time to cover it. Let's just start. I want your whole story, but let's start with the book a little bit. Sure. Mere Natural Law. Most people don't really know what natural law is. You're borrowing from C .S. Lewis with the Mere, like Mere Christianity. What in a nutshell, this is the nutshell version because we've got plenty of time to discuss it, but what in a nutshell is natural law? Well, Aquinas and Kant would tell you it's the law that underlies all the law, the law that tells you why you're justified in having a positive law, a law that's enacted. We see the sign saying 65 MPH, 35, and Kant would tell us before you have a positive law like that, you have an underlying natural law that tells you why you'd be justified in having some restraints on the freedom of people to drive a space that put innocent life at hazard. As ever, as Aquinas recognized, there's a need to move from the natural law to converted to terms that apply to the circumstance and terrain before us. Not only does it underlie the positive law, it's running deeper to tell us who has the authority to make the positive law..
The Eric Metaxas Show
"hadley" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show
"It's Friday, yay. And in both hours today, I'm speaking with the great Hadley Arcus. Now, a lot of people don't know who that is, but I'm here to tell you every now and again, I have the privilege of knowing someone who is a legend. He's a legend. He's 82, one of the greatest legal minds in America. A lot of the good things that have happened in the world of the judicial system, the Supreme Court, the law in America, has something to do with Hadley Arcus. Yes, and he's the son of Noah Arcus too, actually, that's not true. But a lot of people can make that mistake. They could. But so Hadley is going to be my guest in the next segment. Is that right? Yes, he's your guest in this segment coming up and then in the second hour. And the whole second hour. Yeah, and then we have another edition on Monday. He was so wonderful that we did like three hours technically with him. So coming up, I'll be talking to him in this hour and in the next hour today. And then on Monday, after my conversation with James Ward, we will play my final half hour conversation with Hadley Arcus. But he is an extraordinary individual. He's written a book called Mere Law. Natural We just have a really fun conversation. I want to say also that today, which is Friday, I'm in Colorado. I don't know how I do it. It's like Padre Pio by location. Here I am in New York. No, I'm in Chicago. Actually, I am today in Chicago. And you know what? Some of you will see me in Chicago and you'll know I wasn't making that.
The Eric Metaxas Show
"hadley" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show
"So they got locked in. There's so much more to be said. We're out of time. We're going to have to get you Hadley Arcus into the studio. Please, to continue this conversation. Thank you for your time. Thank you for the book folks. It's mere natural law. Thanks for tuning in. What we can do together. There is no way. Folks welcome back. You know, before we end things, I just want to people always ask, what can we do? What can we do? I get this question so much. And I have a hundred answers. So let me, let me start here. You can support our sponsors on this program. Okay, they need help. We need help. We're all as far as I can tell. Doing what we can on our end, but we need help. So I want to say, if you can go to my pillow dot com and use the code Eric, we are grateful to you. If you can go to my store dot com and use the code, Eric, we are grateful to you. Those are two things you can do if there's anything there that you want to buy that you might buy elsewhere and you make the choice to buy it there. That helps this program. And it helps our friend Mike lindell, who's a hero. So my store dot com and my pillow dot com use the code Eric. All you have to do is visit those websites and you'll see what's there, but the main thing I want to ask folks to do today, as you know, we're raising money for Christian solidarity international. There can't be more anything more serious in the world than the fact that there's actual slavery. And we know that every $250 that is given enables a human being to be translated from the world of slavery into the world of freedom, not just taken out of slavery, but established in a world of freedom. For every $250. But the thing that I want to say now is that there have been 98 donors on this. We've been doing this for talking about this a lot over two weeks. And only 98 people have donated. Now, maybe people have the idea that, well, if I can't give $250, I'm not going to give anything. But what I keep trying to say is that it really does make a difference that more people do it. Obviously, I would like everyone to do it. But when I think that it's literally 98 people out of an audience of many, many, many thousands, I just want to exhort you whoever you are, to give what you can. $10, $20, $50, makes a huge difference when it adds up. So again, the easy way to do it is go to our website, metaxas talk, dot com. That's the easiest way. You could give $5 a month, it's a huge deal when people participate. And so while we are obviously hugely grateful to those of you who have participated, I want to exhort everyone when people say, what can I do, this is a real thing happening in the world. And I can't think of a more powerful example of Christian faith in action. Then you take money and you use it and you get nothing back. You're doing something beautiful for a stranger. With an organization that's very reputable. Now I do also want to say Alvin, we always say that no matter what anyone gives, the amount doesn't matter, we put the names in a hat and we pull out three grand prize winners and you'll get a ton of signed books and all kinds of fun stuff. We just do that for fun to surprise people to say thank you because we can't thank everyone. But I do want to ask you today if you're not one of those 98 donors, would you please either go to the website metaxas talk dot com and give anything something or you can call this number. I'll give you the number. You can call it right now. We're really grateful to you. The number is 8 8 8 two 5 three 35 22. 8 8 8 two 5 three 35 22. I'll say it again. And again, I just wish everyone who listens to the program would give anything they can give. I'd be just thrilled if that number of 98 were 998. If everybody gave $5, it would change the world. Because these lives are changed. 8 8 8 two 5 three 35 22..
The Eric Metaxas Show
Discover the Untold Influence of Lincoln on Natural Law
"Delights of your book mere natural law is that you referred to Lincoln and quote Lincoln a lot. And what an extraordinary mind he had. There's just no question about it. Tremendous clarity in how he put forth these ideas you were just referencing one of them. But Lincoln seems to have understood all of this. And it's part of why he didn't appeal to religious arguments against slavery. He thought maybe we can reach more people just from the common sense argument. But you referred to the James Wilson institute. Where is that and how can people find out about that? Well, it's named after one of the premier minds among the American founders. James Wilson said, if we have natural rights, when do they begin? And his answer was as soon as we begin to be, which is why the common law cassius protection and the human being from the first stirrings in the womb. So we named it after James Wilson. We're in Washington, D.C.. We do seminars out there, but we have the James Wilson institute. We have a website, we have a journal called anchoring truths, but we put up the articles I do, but also the articles done by my dear colleague and friend Gerald Bradley Notre-Dame. And many of our former students who are formed now with us, younger lawyers who form with us now the college you might say of this James Lewis and institute, people who want to make this argument and bring it on now into the next generation. They'll be there after I'm gone. And they're my hope for what for this project.
The Eric Metaxas Show
"hadley" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show
"We're giving the moral reasoning of the natural law in making our case. And my own experience is that that clicks in with people. You can hear something as Lincoln said with offer connect can be grasped even by people without college education. And these days, probably grass more easily by people without college. Well, see, this goes back to it's the old, it's the old saw, I guess it was first or most famously articulated by William F. Buckley about how he would rather be governed by the first 300 or 3000 names in the Boston phonebook than by the faculty of Harvard college because there's some things in someone else famously said some things are so some ideas are so ridiculous that only an intellectual can believe them. There is a disconnect and I think a widening disconnect and this is what you're dealing with in your book mere natural law between what can be an apprehended by normal citizens and what can not. And it seems that a lot of the legal theorizing and a lot of the theorizing in the academy almost means to be abstruse and incomprehensible and that somehow you're making the case that we have to move in the other direction. Sure, I remember calling him my once saying in response to the writing of someone that we're considering as a candidate for a job. This must run deep because I don't understand them. Right. Well, that's to my mind at the heart of all this, but when you have folks even like the late Scalia pulling in the other direction, it's, I guess, the challenge is how do we get people to think along these lines. We're going to be right back final segment talking to Hadley, our guest, the book is mere natural law. By the way would you like your body. Folks, we are talking with the author of mere natural law originalism and the anchoring truths of the constitution Hadley Arcus. This is deep stuff and this is important stuff. I just don't know how we get there. When you or when you have the people we think of as originalists on the Supreme Court, not buying what you're saying, I buy what you're saying, obviously, or at least I think I do. But if they don't, how do we make this case? They barely seem willing to be going as far as they are going on the Supreme Court unless maybe Thomas and Alito would agree more heartily with what you have to say. Sure, I think that, look, first, we're seeing, by the way, reports coming in about a younger generation of lawyers who realize there's been something wrong with this stuff. Something has gone awry. There's something morally incoherent about. They're looking for something else. We have this project, of course, James institute. What we're teaching these things, trying to make this argument to lawyers, younger and older, and more people seem to be coming over to our side. Younger judges want to send us students. Want to join our meetings. People have the sense there's something has gone as something is off out there. And I have three fence on the Supreme Court. I find myself at odds with him several times, but defending some of the suburbs. I think Sam Alito and the premier jurists of my own lifetime rivaled only by my dear friend Antonin Scalia or clarence Thomas. But we're at that we can get along and I think the conversation will still continue. But people have been daunted to Adrian from lull in this new argument that comet good constitutionalism because they think there's something of more significance out there that just has to be brought in here. Something has been missing. So it's that sense is getting through to people. And we're seeing it ourselves. Once again, you read something like Lincoln. People want to be on Lincoln's side..
The Eric Metaxas Show
"hadley" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show
"Tell me why relief factor is so successful at lowering or eliminating pain. I'm often asked that question just the other night I was asked that question, well, the owners of relief factor tell me they believe our bodies were designed to heal. That's right, designed to heal and I agree with them. And the doctors who formulated relief factor for them selected the four best ingredients, yes, 100% drug free ingredients, and each one of them helps your body deal with inflammation. Each of the four ingredients deals with inflammation from a different metabolic pathway. That's the point. So approaching from four different angles may be why so many people find such wonderful relief. If you've got back pain, shoulder, neck, hip, knee, or foot pain from exercise or just getting older, you should order the three week quick start discounted to only 1995 to see if it'll work for you. It has worked for about 70% of the half a million people who've tried it and have ordered more on one of them go to relief factor dot com or call 800 for relief to find out about this offer. Feel the difference. Welcome back. I'm talking to Hadley Arcus. The book is mere natural law originalism and the anchoring truths of the constitution. So Hadley, the question then becomes how do we get back to it's almost like original originalism, a different kind of originalism. How can we go back there when even the originalists on the court and in jurisprudence say we can't do that? I see the point you're making. The question is, how do we get back there? Well, a couple of things. Either you can say, look, just read again, the writings of those luminous lectures by James Wilson and the lectures of law, chuck, look closely at John Marshall's opinions or Hamilton. But third part of it is also to administer the shock to point out that what you're giving us is a jurisprudence that so as it feels so confined to the text that you're reluctant to appeal to objective truths that stand outside the text. Don't just to take your point. A disconnection from reality. Well, I mean, look, I think the problem, of course, is it's you and I certainly believe in objective truth and reality and in nature in a nature's God. The question is, how do we appeal to those things in this day and age? That's where I think it becomes a bridge too far for folks like Kavanaugh and they would rather say, I think I can pull it off this way, so I will just pull it off this way. Well, we don't really believe in objective truth. It's like content the laws of reason. What makes them laws? Why are you obliged to respect the law of contradiction? The two contradictory things both can not be true. You simply obliged to respect for its truth. And so part of the move is to is to move in that direction. And part of this is to show people that, look, give them examples of how this was done in the most white matter accessible to ordinary folk, consider, for example, as a model for us, that fragment that Lincoln wrote for himself. What he imagined himself engaged in a conversation with owner of slaves saying, why are you justified making slave the black men? It's because you are more intelligent than he? Ah, I'll be where. The next sweater that comes in you are rightly enslaved you. Is it because you're in his darker? Ah, next white man that comes along with a complexion lighter than your Spain's slave view. Now there's no appeal to religion or faith. It's simply principled argument. There's nothing you could cite to disqualify the black man. Though not applied to many whites as well, you don't need a college educational understanding and is successful to people across cross religious divisions, which is of course what the purpose of natural law is as sequins said. The divine law we know through revelation, but the natural law we know to that reasoning that is successful to human beings as human beings. It was part of the same thing too abortion. We said, why is that offspring in the womb less than human? Doesn't speak yet. Do they do their muse? Doesn't have army selects? Other people lose arm legs in the course of their lives. Without losing anything necessary to their standing as human beings, to receive the protections of the law. Look, when I've taught link, that example from Lincoln, in my experience, as soon as it is heard, it is understood. You don't need a cartridge, and people hear it. And it does something for them. And as a matter of just inducing the same reaction by bringing things back again to those things that are so true that you fall into gibberish if you try to resist them. The old line about the student coming up and saying, there is no truth and the philosopher says, what about that one that is that one true? Okay. It's just simply a self refuting proposition. So some of this is to bring home the fact that people there, they're really our canons of truth. That they do respect, and they will lie on. They can recognize a principled argument when they see it an argument that does not depend. On an appeal to faith. This is a Catholic position on abortion, but you don't have to be Catholic to understand this. We're not appealing to faith..
The Eric Metaxas Show
How Do We Get Back to ORIGINAL Originalism? Hadley Arkes Explains
"Back. I'm talking to Hadley Arcus. The book is mere natural law originalism and the anchoring truths of the constitution. So Hadley, the question then becomes how do we get back to it's almost like original originalism, a different kind of originalism. How can we go back there when even the originalists on the court and in jurisprudence say we can't do that? I see the point you're making. The question is, how do we get back there? Well, a couple of things. Either you can say, look, just read again, the writings of those luminous lectures by James Wilson and the lectures of law, chuck, look closely at John Marshall's opinions or Hamilton. But third part of it is also to administer the shock to point out that what you're giving us is a jurisprudence that so as it feels so confined to the text that you're reluctant to appeal to objective truths that stand outside the text. Don't just to take your point. A disconnection from reality.
The Eric Metaxas Show
"hadley" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show
"Let's take your point about appealing to reality. Part of my argument here is that what we've seen is originalism in our own day is one that concentrates on the text and holds that when a judge moves beyond the text of the constitution, is really looking inside himself as though there were no truths outside the text. So what we're saying is we want to we're making the argument again for an originalism that embraces the understanding of the American founders about the moral ground of the constitution. They were persistently appealing to those moral principles that were there before the text. Now, the dramatic example of what you're talking about detaching ourselves from reality is why is it that in the case of transgenderism? Conservative judges feel constrained from moving outside the text to appeal to the objective truth of the matter of what is, or more recently, with adopts case and abortion. 6 conservative judges. Reach that decision and will not speak to the human standing of the child in the womb. They're leaving that as a judgment to be made elsewhere. But without that judgment, you make no sense of the case. I mean, 50 years ago, the lawyers from Texas and roe versus wade brought in the most updated findings of embryology to show that that offspring in the womb has been nothing other than Newman from its first moments. It had never been merely a part of the body of the mother. The dissenters in row and the majority now in the adopts case last year would none of that. And so we have justice Kavanaugh saying, well, it's interesting, some pro life is actually think that the fetus is human. Think that the fetus is human. After years in which that point has been taken as a predicate in embryology, why isn't it conservative judges? Have to start with the assumption of embrace a radical falsehood. Why do they think they're obliged to well, let's get into that. Let's get into that because it's obvious something's going on here. Kavanaugh is obviously playing some kind of a game. Another one, I'm not trying to say it only in the negative sense. But it's obvious that Kavanaugh himself believes, in fact, knows that what is in the womb is a human being. He knows that. So when he is making this case, is it just because he feels constrained by a certain kind of originalism that he can only go to the let me play devil's advocate. Why would it be wrong to, in other words, if we're talking about, I mean, I think the idea is that most of us when we talk about originalism, we're saying the text as it was intended by the founders. So originalism, right? You're saying, in a sense, the flip side of what some people would say, you know, when they talk about the penumbra when they talk about they're sort of looking beyond the text so that they can legislate from the bench so that they can twist the text or say, well, we can look under the text and around the text. They're doing something that you and I would say they ought not to be doing. But it sounds like you're advocating for something similar in the opposite direction. That's what I'm not clear on. Well, the conservatives see them fashioning these novel ideas from penumbras. And they are two ways you can go on that. You say, we're going to do something specious and false. And the way to counter that is to correct it and show them what's wrong with it. The conservatives reacted by saying, you see the vice is moving outside the text of the constitution. Now, of course, the founders persistently moved outside the text of the constitute. You've heard the expression innocent until proven guilty. I remember one lawyer being conquered by countering I want to appeal to my right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. My, where was that in the constitution? That's not in the text. I was talking with schooly about the case on guns. And I said, I assume you're talking about the right of self defense. You're talking about the right of an innocent person to fend off an unjustified assault. It's an absolutely right. But those words are not in the Second Amendment. Now, are you simply appealing to some text outside the First Amendment? Are you to a principle that must be there? A principle that does not depend the physical solidity on being mentioned in the text, the right of an innocent person to defend his life by having access to a lethal weapon. Persistently, we're drawn outside the tech store to explain it. The founders did this all the time. They understood they have, the arguments were made by Janet nieppe, a fine historian that's at Stanford. That the constitution for the founders was not confined to the text. They didn't put in the text everything they knew. No, so you say what that first anchoring principle of moral illegal judgment. It makes no sense to cast judgments of praise or blame on people for things that they're powerless to do. We don't hold people responsible for X they were proudest of that anchoring proposition can threat to so much of our law and it's nowhere to be found in the text of the constitution. An earlier generation understood, remember that fine line of Hamilton, the federal 31. It disquisitions every kind, begin by with certain primary truths, our first principles upon which all subsequent reasonings must depend. They contain an internal evidence, which antecedent to all reflection a combination, command the ascent of the mind. Now, he went on with that, but the point is he thought that's what you. That's what you have to do. You talk about taxation, but parts of taxation. Why do you have to put that in? Because they seem to understand that it was their moment to explain the deep grounds of the judgment that led them to the kind of judgment. So in earlier generations, John Marshall and sander Hamilton thought, of course, you should trace your judges back to those principles that anchor adjustment, things that established what you were liable to know as you go onto..
The Eric Metaxas Show
"hadley" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show
"To Hadley Arcus, who is the author most recently of an important book mere natural law, of course, meant to evoke mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis famous book, mere natural law. So what is natural law? The subtitle is originalism and the anchoring truths of the constitution Hadley, you were just saying that when we make a law or a manual Kant was saying something. So why don't you go back to what Kant was saying about speed limits? As always understood that the natural law would have to give way to the positive. The law that is positive or enacted. You have to move the principles of the natural law to a regulation that bears on the circumstances of the terrain in front of you. So before you have a sign saying 65 MPH is 70. There must be an underlying principle that tells you why you'd be justified in restraining the freedom of people to drive space and put innocent lights at hazard. But if you can take it back to one root of elementary point, telling point, take us 30 seconds, Eric. In a book of mine 40 years ago, the philosopher city. I recalled seeing an X rated program on Capitol Hill done by Judith denson Gerber, who was working on the abuse of children. And she came in with evidence of, I don't want to be too graphic. But sexually transmitted diseases in young infants 9 months old and 18 months old. Now, let's suppose we as a community solve it. Face after the first time. I'd ask you, what do you think the natural reaction would be? Would it be ah? Let's give them a tax incentive to induce him to stop. Or a deduction for the children. People that used to get a giggle. And when people laugh at that, they recognize if something utterly enact the response to that situation is the voice of a command, stop. Whom to stop anyone, anyone who does such a thing. In other words, for whom would it be wrong to do that to children? That's anyone, everyone. In other words, we were supposed to reacting or reacting with a moral voice. It would be wrong for anyone to do. Therefore, we would be justified in forbidding that wrong to anyone. But there, in a capsule, you get the original understanding in Aristotle of what the connection is between the logic of moral judgment and the logic of law. We have law only because we have creatures who have access to reason and who can reason about these things. Well, so let's put this in some ways, this is as simple as I said in some ways it's very deep. What you're saying is that if you hear as you did here about something like sexually transmitted diseases occurring in infants, the only normal natural response is deep moral revulsion first. Exactly. You don't have that, then you really can't proceed. And the idea of deep moral revulsion to that presupposes a number of things. And it sounds to me like part of what you're saying in the book is that the legal system has moved away from that. We've become increasingly, I guess, legalistic and unmoored from these foundational assumptions..
The Eric Metaxas Show
"hadley" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show
"I'm talking to Hadley Arcus, who is the author most recently of an important book mere natural law, of course, meant to evoke mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis famous book, mere natural law. So what is natural law? The subtitle is originalism and the anchoring truths of the constitution Hadley, you were just saying that when we make a law or a manual Kant was saying something. So why don't you go back to what Kant was saying about speed limits? As always understood that the natural law would have to give way to the positive. The law that is positive or enacted. You have to move the principles of the natural law to a regulation that bears on the circumstances of the terrain in front of you. So before you have a sign saying 65 MPH is 70. There must be an underlying principle that tells you why you'd be justified in restraining the freedom of people to drive space and put innocent lights at hazard. But if you can take it back to one root of elementary point, telling point, take us 30 seconds, Eric. In a book of mine 40 years ago, the philosopher city. I recalled seeing an X rated program on Capitol Hill done by Judith denson Gerber, who was working on the abuse of children. And she came in with evidence of, I don't want to be too graphic. But sexually transmitted diseases in young infants 9 months old and 18 months old. Now, let's suppose we as a community solve it. Face after the first time. I'd ask you, what do you think the natural reaction would be? Would it be ah? Let's give them a tax incentive to induce him to stop. Or a deduction for the children. People that used to get a giggle. And when people laugh at that, they recognize if something utterly enact the response to that situation is the voice of a command, stop. Whom to stop anyone, anyone who does such a thing. In other words, for whom would it be wrong to do that to children? That's anyone, everyone. In other words, we were supposed to reacting or reacting with a moral voice. It would be wrong for anyone to do. Therefore, we would be justified in forbidding that wrong to anyone.
The Eric Metaxas Show
Hadley Arkes Reveals the Truth About Natural Law and the Constitution
"I'm talking to Hadley Arcus, who is the author most recently of an important book mere natural law, of course, meant to evoke mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis famous book, mere natural law. So what is natural law? The subtitle is originalism and the anchoring truths of the constitution Hadley, you were just saying that when we make a law or a manual Kant was saying something. So why don't you go back to what Kant was saying about speed limits? As always understood that the natural law would have to give way to the positive. The law that is positive or enacted. You have to move the principles of the natural law to a regulation that bears on the circumstances of the terrain in front of you. So before you have a sign saying 65 MPH is 70. There must be an underlying principle that tells you why you'd be justified in restraining the freedom of people to drive space and put innocent lights at hazard. But if you can take it back to one root of elementary point, telling point, take us 30 seconds, Eric. In a book of mine 40 years ago, the philosopher city. I recalled seeing an X rated program on Capitol Hill done by Judith denson Gerber, who was working on the abuse of children. And she came in with evidence of, I don't want to be too graphic. But sexually transmitted diseases in young infants 9 months old and 18 months old. Now, let's suppose we as a community solve it. Face after the first time. I'd ask you, what do you think the natural reaction would be? Would it be ah? Let's give them a tax incentive to induce him to stop. Or a deduction for the children. People that used to get a giggle. And when people laugh at that, they recognize if something utterly enact the response to that situation is the voice of a command, stop. Whom to stop anyone, anyone who does such a thing. In other words, for whom would it be wrong to do that to children? That's anyone, everyone. In other words, we were supposed to reacting or reacting with a moral voice. It would be wrong for anyone to do. Therefore, we would be justified in forbidding that wrong to anyone.
The Eric Metaxas Show
"hadley" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show
"Okay, so of course we have to go to break. We're going to be back with Emmanuel Kant and speed limits when we continue. I don't know about you, but I'm sick and tired of iconic American brands selling us out to appease radical leftists. But it's not just beer and sneakers. For years, big mobile companies have been dumping millions into leftist causes, and we had to take it because another option didn't exist. Well, now it does. Patriot mobile, America's only Christian conservative wireless provider offers dependable nationwide coverage on all three major networks so you get the best possible service in your area without the woke propaganda pushed by people trying to destroy this country. When you switch to patriot mobile, you support free speech, religious freedom, the sanctity of life, the Second Amendment, or military veterans, and first responder heroes. They're 100% U.S. based customer service team makes switching easy. Just go to patriot mobile dot com slash metaxas or call them 9 8 7 8 patriot, get free activation today with the offer code metaxas spelled MET AXAS, ask about their coverage guarantee while you're there. That's patriot mobile dot com slash metaxas. Legacy precious metals has a revolutionary new online platform that allows you to invest in real gold and silver online. In a few of these steps, you can open an account online, select your medals of choice and choose to have them stored in a vault or ship to your door. You have access to a dashboard where you can track your portfolio growth in real time anytime you'll see transparent pricing on each coin and bar this puts you in complete control of your money. The platform is free to sign up for, visit legacy p.m. investments dot com and open your account and see this new investing platform for yourself. Gold hedges against inflation and against the volatile stock market, a two diversified portfolio isn't just more stocks and bonds, but different asset classes. This new platform allows you to make investments in gold and silver no matter how small or large with a few clicks, visit legacy p.m. investments dot com to get started, you're going to love this free new tool they've added. Legacy p.m. investments dot com legacy p.m. investments dot com. Check it out. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm talking.
The Eric Metaxas Show
The Professor vs. The Ploughman With Hadley Arkes
"Of things like critical theory, when I think of deconstruction, it all sounds like gobbledygook and I would argue that part of it is calculated to sound like gobbledygook part of it is calculated to tell common men and women, listen, this is not for you, will take it from here. That seems to me part of the underlying thesis of what we're communicating. That's absolutely right. You know, Jefferson had that line. You could do the same problem to a professor in a ploughman and the planet was an example to get it right. Well, if you want to who said that? Jefferson. Okay, Jefferson said the proof of the problem. I didn't get the word the ploughman. Right. It gives the same question to the Professor of the ploughman and the plowman was his apt to get it right because he's not being distracted by artificial rules or theories. And that is the argument I'm making here. Click the most dramatic example, Eric. You have the matter of transgenderism. Comes before the court and the court decides that if Anthony Stevens, declares himself to be a woman, everybody else around him must be obliged to respect that judgment or put their jobs and their employers in peril. Now, the conservatives look at this and say, well, that's how what sexual discrimination made in 1964. Let's look at, let's look at the legislative history. But that's I could get them anywhere. You have to go beyond the legislative history to consider what sex really is. You know, the congregation for the doctrine of faith once said there's not always been an Italy or a Hungary. But as long as there are human beings, there must be men and women, males, and females. The average man would look at this thing and say, why do you kidding? He's not a he's not a woman. He's a man. In other words, it took certain lawyers. Years of training, absorbing theories of statutory construction to prevent them from seeing what the ordinary man sees it once is imbecilic.
The Eric Metaxas Show
"hadley" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show
"So what did he know? Father knew if father knew house couldn't get it right. I'm in great company, Hadley arkus. Your book, I've known you for a number of years. Your book comes, I like to say festooned with encomia from such as Larry and president of hillsdale college, Mary Ann, glendon, my goodness. The title of the book, and this gets us to it. Mere natural law. Originalism and the anchoring truths of the constitution. When people talk about the constitution, when people talk about originalism, when people talk about natural law, oftentimes, people like me want to ask people like you, what exactly does that mean? What is natural law? So why did you write a book called mere natural law? And what is, as you see it, what is natural law? Because I want my audience that isn't familiar with this or at least not very familiar with it. Really to understand it. And in the book, much of which I've already read. But you really get into this in a way that I've never seen it before. So how do you answer? That's interesting. Well, first of all, you'll recognize mere natural art drawing upon a C. S. Lewis. Where he could find in the conversation of children, the rudiments of moral understanding that they get into an argument, not over likes and dislikes, but over matters of right and wrong. They the conversation makes no sense unless they assume that their standards of judgment to tell the difference between plausible and implausible right or wrong answers. And I want to draw upon that in order to take us back to those precepts of common sense that the form the ground of the natural law. I invoked your my friend Dan Robinson. My late friend Dan Robbins, who wrote 18 books. And he wanted on his tombstone. He died without a theory. And when he said that, he was really drawing on Thomas Reid, the great Scott philosopher, with his teachings on common sense. A man who was read closely by James Wilson and John to have us among the founders. And Reed was joined us to those precepts of common sense that the ordinary man has to know just in getting on with the business of life. The things he has to know before he starts trafficking in theories. So before the average man could start bantering with David Hume about the meaning of causation. He knew his own act of powers to cause their own acts to happen. So the pitch in the book is that that's what we find the ground of the natural law. That's where the American founders felt it. The principles that the precepts of common sense, the principles of right and wrong that were there before they framed the constitution and they know that those principles would be there even if there were no constitution, much of the way that John Quincy Adams would say that right to petition the government is simply implicit in the idea of a free society. It would be there even if it had been mentioned in the First Amendment..
The Eric Metaxas Show
"hadley" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show
"Why did you write a book called mere natural law? And what is, as you see it, what is natural law? Because I want my audience that isn't familiar with this or at least not very familiar with it. Really to understand it. And in the book, much of which I've already read. But you really get into this in a way that I've never seen it before. So how do you answer? That's interesting. Well, first of all, you'll recognize mere natural art drawing upon a C. S. Lewis. Where he could find in the conversation of children, the rudiments of moral understanding that they get into an argument, not over likes and dislikes, but over matters of right and wrong. They the conversation makes no sense unless they assume that their standards of judgment to tell the difference between plausible and implausible right or wrong answers. And I want to draw upon that in order to take us back to those precepts of common sense that the form the ground of the natural law. I invoked your my friend Dan Robinson. My late friend Dan Robbins, who wrote 18 books. And he wanted on his tombstone. He died without a theory. And when he said that, he was really drawing on Thomas Reid, the great Scott philosopher, with his teachings on common sense. A man who was read closely by James Wilson and John to have us among the founders. And Reed was joined us to those precepts of common sense that the ordinary man has to know just in getting on with the business of life. The things he has to know before he starts trafficking in theories. So before the average man could start bantering with David Hume about the meaning of causation. He knew his own act of powers to cause their own acts to happen. So the pitch in the book is that that's what we find the ground of the natural law. That's where the American founders felt it. The principles that the precepts of common sense, the principles of right and wrong that were there before they framed the constitution and they know that those principles would be there even if there were no constitution, much of the way that John Quincy Adams would say that right to petition the government is simply implicit
The Eric Metaxas Show
What is "Mere Natural Law"? Author Hadley Arkes Explains
"Why did you write a book called mere natural law? And what is, as you see it, what is natural law? Because I want my audience that isn't familiar with this or at least not very familiar with it. Really to understand it. And in the book, much of which I've already read. But you really get into this in a way that I've never seen it before. So how do you answer? That's interesting. Well, first of all, you'll recognize mere natural art drawing upon a C. S. Lewis. Where he could find in the conversation of children, the rudiments of moral understanding that they get into an argument, not over likes and dislikes, but over matters of right and wrong. They the conversation makes no sense unless they assume that their standards of judgment to tell the difference between plausible and implausible right or wrong answers. And I want to draw upon that in order to take us back to those precepts of common sense that the form the ground of the natural law. I invoked your my friend Dan Robinson. My late friend Dan Robbins, who wrote 18 books. And he wanted on his tombstone. He died without a theory. And when he said that, he was really drawing on Thomas Reid, the great Scott philosopher, with his teachings on common sense. A man who was read closely by James Wilson and John to have us among the founders. And Reed was joined us to those precepts of common sense that the ordinary man has to know just in getting on with the business of life. The things he has to know before he starts trafficking in theories. So before the average man could start bantering with David Hume about the meaning of causation. He knew his own act of powers to cause their own acts to happen. So the pitch in the book is that that's what we find the ground of the natural law. That's where the American founders felt it. The principles that the precepts of common sense, the principles of right and wrong that were there before they framed the constitution and they know that those principles would be there even if there were no constitution, much of the way that John Quincy Adams would say that right to petition the government is simply implicit
The Eric Metaxas Show
Alex McFarland and Eric Discuss the Subject of Natural Law
"We're talking about everything and you said people need to attend to the life of the mind. I mean, I think it was something that we did in this culture for most of our history, people had to understand the basics of how things work, what is liberty? What is right and wrong? How do you get right and wrong? And you were talking earlier about what Lewis C. S. Lewis calls the Dow this inherent sense that every human being has, this conscience of between right and wrong. We all know it. You don't need to be a baptized Christian to know that stealing and murder are wrong. And it brings us maybe to the subject of natural law. The genius legal scholar Hadley Arcus has written a book coming out in a few months called mere natural law. That God's law right and wrong is that the basis of everything. You can not have a constitution unless you understand these things that precede whatever is written in the constitution. Do you know doctor Martin Luther King Jr. predicated the entire validity of the civil rights movement on natural law? If you read his 1963 Pulitzer Prize winning book while we can't wait, brilliant book, by the way, and he quotes Augustine Aquinas in letter from the Birmingham jail. He basically appeals to natural law that we're all human beings, regardless of our ethnicity, we're humans. And if one human has natural rights, all humans have natural rights. Now, Jefferson two, when he used the words in the declaration, we all these truths to be self evident. That all endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. That's natural law.
Out of Bounds Podcast
"hadley" Discussed on Out of Bounds Podcast
"And I have a hard time doing things like halfway. Yeah. I might get that. Cool to talk to some really interesting people. And maybe it'll come back. Yeah, that's one of the things that's actually one of the reasons that we started hosting other shows on this feed was because so many people are really good talkers and good interviewers and have voices in this industry. But the legwork of hosting a podcast is really annoying. So that's actually what we ended up doing for the other shows is like we just send us the raw audio and we'll put it we'll put it on the feet. And that's kind of what the whole idea was. So that people that want to do this kind of thing can without having to worry about the promotion of it is exhausting. Putting the stuff out there is exhaust, getting it up on the feed, make sure the audio doesn't completely suck is really hard. Even just how many different websites you needed to link. Like blueberry and all these. How do I even put this on the Internet to hours and hours of my life? Yeah. Thanks. Of course. Where can people find you on social on discourse, your website, the whole deal? Where can people find you? Yeah, Hadley hammer dot com is where you can find me. I also put up pretty extensive gear reviews there and what I'm using in my kit and you can also email me directly from my website, which is, yeah, I love talking to people. So people feel free to email me there and the discourse is also there had the hammer dot com slash discourse. Also on Instagram, hopefully if you're not too much longer, but that's had hammer. That's Twitter got hacked a long time ago and I'm sure it still exists..
Out of Bounds Podcast
"hadley" Discussed on Out of Bounds Podcast
"That's it. Here's our interview with Hadley hammer. So Hadley, tell me, tell me until everyone who you are, a little bit about yourself and then we'll go from there. Sure. My name is adley hammer. I'm a human, I guess. And I was born and raised in Jackson, Wyoming, which was very lucky. And yeah, currently living in the Alps. Okay, cool. Full time move to the Alps, are you splitting time? I know for a little while you're splitting time, right? Yeah, I mean, it's really hard to say with COVID because it's so much harder to travel. So I've really, in the last two and a half years almost only been in Europe in Austria. Okay. What is that? COVID situation like over there right now. We're about to go into a lockdown on Monday. No way. Which is such a bummer. I mean, it's a bummer because people like the hospitals are really just and a lot of people are really sick. And so that's like the actual bummer. And the very side no bummer was one of the parts about living here, it's the glaciers open in October. And so I've been able to go seeing. And that's obviously closed starting Monday. So. Yeah. So how are you feeling? I mean, you had an injury, you had an ACL again last year right? Or is it one? Is your first one? Okay. I always assume every skier in the entire world has done more than one ACL. How do you feel what was the process like for you? Yeah. The process was, yeah, it's never great to get injured. You always learn things. There's always still relining blah blah blah. But ideally, it would have been nice not to spend the summer injured, but instead I did. But it's awesome. I have such I've been training at this gym called base 5, which is downtown in the city of Innsbruck. And I was training with them before I got injured and they were like such a godsend because when you live in a foreign country like knowing which doctor to go to and like zeo and blah blah blah is such a mystery. And they like the second I was hurt. I called them and they arranged everything like.
AP News Radio
South Africa's Higgo Wins Palmetto Championship at Congaree
"Twenty two year old Garrick Higo was broken through for his first PGA tour win in just his second start coming from behind to close out the pal metro championship at Congaree in South Carolina just gone to another level now so I'll just see what my game can do I enjoy playing and seeing you know what my game does in a way it takes me the south African posted a final round sixty eight to finish eleven under and then watched as a third round later Chesson Hadley struggled through the closing holes ending with the final hole bogey they gave him a closing seventy five and drop them into a six way tie for second one shot back at ten under the wind was he goes third victory in this last four tournaments the other two winds coming on the European tour I'm Graham make us
The Investigation Guru
The Mysterious Disappearance of Maura Murray
"Without further. Ado i present to you. The case of more murray mars early life more was born on may fourth nineteen eighty two in hanson massachusetts. The fourth child of fred and laurie. She had two brothers an older brother. Fred and a younger brother. Kurt and two sisters kathleen and julie. Both older parents divorced when she was six and moved in with her mother. After her parents split she graduated from whitman. Hanson regional high school where. She was a star athlete on the school. Track team an excellent student. She scored a fourteen twenty on her. Sat and was accepted a west point which the united states military academy where she studied chemical engineering for three semesters she was released from west point on an honor violation for stealing five dollars worth of makeup after her dismissal from west point she transferred to the university of massachusetts amherst to study events prior to her disappearance in november of two thousand three free months before her disappearance maura admitted to using stolen credit card to order food from several restaurants. Discharge was dismissed after three months of good behavior on saturday february seventh two thousand and four two days before her disappearance morris. Father fred awry. Am i to take more a car. Shopping and later went to dinner with mara and whatever friends when they were done with dinner more dropped her father office motel room and borrowed his toyota corolla to return to campus to attend dorm party. She arrived at the party at ten thirty. Pm and left at two thirty the following morning at three thirty that morning one day before she disappeared she struck a guardrail on route. Nine in hadley causing nearly ten thousand dollars worth of damage to her father's car. No field sobriety test was conducted so she went to that party and probably got drunk and started driving. Her dad's car ran into a guardrail. One day before she disappeared and cost ten thousand dollars worth of damage to his core. The cops didn't feel the need to do any kind of sobriety test interesting.
Ernie Brown
6th Grade Student Stabbed During Class At Handley Middle School In Dallas Area
"Forthe. Police are investigating after they say 1/6 grade student stabbed another student at a Fort Worth I sti middle school. Kaylie F's cat Bones are says district did confirm that it was at Hadley Middle School. District officials say two students were arguing in math class and that resulted in one student stabbing the other. They say the student only suffered minor injuries and the other is in police custody. Sadly, Middle school is in east for worth.
The Daily 202's Big Idea
National security experts describe a distracted and potentially vulnerable country
"Our president is hospitalized with a virus that he refused to treat as a grave threat. In the final weeks of an election whose results he will not pledge to accept as our nation confronts a struggling economy, an unyielding pandemic and significant reason unrest. The combination of these cascading crises has plunged the United States into a vortex of potential vulnerability that national security experts save probably without president. Current and former senior national security officials tell my colleagues, Greg Miller and currently on that they're worried worried that consumed by our own difficulties America is in a poor position to respond to provocations by adversaries advance its foreign policy interests with support from our allies or serve as a credible model. For. The world of what a functioning democracy is supposed to look like. Nick Rasmussen who served as director of the National Counterterrorism Center under trump and before that Barack Obama said he sees weakness and division. And above all. His word distracted nece. Rasmussen. Said any problem anywhere else is just a third or fourth order problem right now because we're so self absorbed inward-looking and consumed with our own toxicity and as he put it when you're distracted. You make mistakes. Current and former US officials say trump's infection is widely seen overseas as a direct consequence of his troubled handling the pandemic but also part of a broader disturbing pattern of perceived incompetence and turbulence. A former senior US intelligence official and frequent contact with counterparts at other intelligence services said he has been delude with emails all weekend asking what in the world is going on This intelligence official says trump's refusal to wear masks or abide by other protective measures has baffled foreign officials describing trump's symptoms as an extraordinary manifestation of the obtuseness. To the contagion. Now. It's worth contrasting trump's cavalier and reckless personal behavior to that of Vladimir Putin. The Russian president has spent the last six months in almost total isolation at a country estate outside Moscow running his government via videoconference. Those who visit Putin person must first quarantine for fourteen days and obtain a negative test result before they are allowed into the residence then they must pass through a disinfectant tunnel to get inside where strict social distancing is then maintained. Steve Hadley who was national security advisor under George W Bush says that if trump loses, he's most nervous about our enemies like Russia or China trying to come after us during
WTOP 24 Hour News
Remains of sailor killed in Pearl Harbor returned home
"The remains of one of the U. S sailors killed in the attack on Pearl Harbor Back on December 7th of 1941 Return home Navy Fireman First class Hadley. He even was just 23 when he was on the USS West Virginia when torpedoes and bombs destroyed the battleship. His remains were identified last year after his two remaining brother has provided DNA samples to aid in a match. Navy personnel recovered the remains of at least 66 crewmen from the USS West Virginia. Memorial services set for this weekend in his hometown of Baxter Springs, Kansas.
Today in Focus
Bad News For Prince Andrew As New Witness Comes Forward
"Let's move onto Prince Andrew can remind us how he started this year. He had been basically sacked from the royal family which we take subduing. He was essentially stripped of all his royal duties after his completely disastrous Newsnight interview y have you decided to talk now? because. There is no good time. To Talk, about Mr Epstein and. All things associated in Andrews Newsnight interview his big defense really aside from the fact that he of how they can't sweat and he's a big patron of the pizza. Express woking is that he didn't really know Jeffrey Epstein he claims he only knew him through his friend Glenn, bloom it through his girlfriend. Back, in nineteen, ninety nine, who an I'd known her since she. In the UK this is all Remember that it was his girlfriend. That was the key element in this he was the. Plus. One to some extent in an expert. You through a birthday party for since girlfriend then Maxwell at Sandringham. No shooting weekend a shooting weeks straightforward straightforward for choosing weekend. Despite the fact you know Jeffrey Epstein was at the Palace went to Epstein. Manson had dinner for him. He stayed with Epstein because because Andrew just couldn't find a central Manhattan hotel he's very convenient epsteins mentioned it was a convenient place to stay. I mean I've gone through this in my mind so many times. At the end of the day. with the benefit of all the hindsight that one can have. It was definitely the wrong thing to do is you say that interview was a disaster foundry and he was forced to withdraw from his rural Gt's I'm imagining heat hopes that would draw a line under the whole thing for him but then in July galet maxwell was arrested. The risks are simply too great. The words of the judge refusing bail this evening to maximum the one time girlfriend an alleged accomplice of the sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, might saw pleaded not guilty the hearing by video link on charges she helped recruit and groom minors as young as fourteen. So she was arrested in her strange though Bolthole and a few weeks later, a bunch of documents unsealed from a two thousand fifteen civil action brought against her by Virginia. Robert Scott Free and price price whose name pops up again it's Jews You know a lot of the allegations in these documents were already known but what is new is the allegation that? Forced Virginia Robert Scott Free to have sex with Prince Andrew as a way to gather incriminating evidence against him. And then on top of that, this month of witnesses come forward claiming to have seen the Duke of York, at trump nightclub on the night he insisted in the Newsnight interview that he was at Pizza Express in woking why would you remember that? So specifically, why would you remember a pizza best birthday in being because going to pizza express in working is an unusual thing for me to do. So he obviously hit denies everything but the circle is definitely tightening around Andrew. US. Law Enforcement has said repeatedly they want to talk to him that he has been cooperative a war of words as I'm sure you know has broken out between Prince Andrew and the US authorities investigating sex offender Jeffrey. Exiting The prince claims that he has offered to help that inquired eat city times but this is something the American prosecutors deny effectively calling him a liar the palace hopefully insisted this is untrue and US law enforcement has repeated it. So this is where we are at the moment. Do you think this puts more pressure on Andrew to cooperate with the investigation? Me The idea of any member of the royal family cooperating Larry's but yes, I mean absolutely. But I mean the fact that he was saying such stuff in that interview emily weightless without realizing how terrible the sounded I mean just shows he has no sense of consequences for his actions. I'm Jay his sin said, he regrets his ill-judged Association with Epstein. But as you point out, these aren't incredibly serious allegations and yet everybody feels like his story that dozen attract as many column, Inches Harry, and Meghan. Let's I think this is the thing when talking about the role families so much tension and I've just done two is focused on Harry Megan and the stupid decisions they make in his make it actually lady Macbeth is very telling for example, the mail there's certain Cole missed the male who I'm not gonNA pollute podcast listener's ears with his name, but he is completely obsessive. Meghan. Markle. Interest. Rates. Endless combs about her I. Don't like to own Andrew or something Sierra. Let's just bear in mind that actually the royal to really be focused on is Andrew
AP News Radio
Pints poured, unkempt hairdos cut as England eases lockdown
"The pine said being pulled in the unkempt teddy's up being cut and styled as England and box on its biggest locked on easing yes pubs restaurants and cinemas and I'll be opening and people come once again visit different households and even tied the knot for the first time in three months and many of those despairing a what they see in the mirror I can finally get the heck trims in all cases social distancing rules have to be followed published something this Stephanie Hadley was relieved to finally be back in business after three months we have been booking appointments and and I've had messages and pictures if thirty hackers daily also the easing of the looks I will be warmly welcomed there are concerns that the British government is being a V. hasty in other countries the reopening of bars and restaurants has been blamed for a spike in infections Karen Thomas London
Climate Cast
Early climate prediction for 2020 'spot on'
"Climate Change forecasts issued decades ago made specific predictions on how much the earth would warm. One British team predicted. Global temperatures would rise half a degree Celsius from nineteen ninety two today. So how did that forecast turn out Jonathan? Watts is the guardians global environment editor. He's been tracking the British meteorological. Office climate forecasts hey. Jonathan welcome to climate cast high either get to be on. On the show, so the UK met Office Hadley Centre for climate. Science predicted in Nineteen, ninety that global temperatures would rise half a degree Celsius by this year by twenty twenty. How accurate was that forecast? Well, they just celebrated their thirtieth anniversary, and one of the things that they pointed out was that they go to spot on? The happy said to was setup to be on. On the cutting edge of climate, research, and the predictions have now been realized they were remarkably accurate, and what about Global Sea ice? You say they primarily focused on temperature, but as the years have gone by today's measurements, compared to predictions made in the last thirty years on Arctic Sea ice. If anything they'd been too conservative, they did not expect the ice melt as quickly as. As it has done at some numbers that they gave since the nineteen nineties are the yes, global temperatures won't buy Hoffa Degree Arctic Sea. Ice has shrunk by almost two million square kilometers. Sea Levels have risen by ten centimeters. Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by sixty bucks per million so they they stress that we're living in a very different climate from the one. The that existed when this Hadley Centre started. Let's rewind back to Nineteen Ninety Jonathan. prime minister Margaret. Thatcher was considered a conservative. Did she support this work that the Hadley? Centre was doing on Climate Science Margaret. Thatcher was one of the most enthusiastic supporters of climate science. In the early days. She studied science Oxford University. She didn't need much convincing. There was a serious risk that that had to be face. She persuaded her Cabinet to put up the money. Will the Hadley Centre and she actually was there at the opening in her speech for the inauguration. She said they would be serious consequences of greenhouse gas emissions, and she said what they send to predict will affect at daily lives, governments and international organizations in every part of the weld, going to have to sit up and take notice and respond. How have the global climate predictions from the Hadley Centre from thirty years ago been received by you know both supporters and skeptics in the UK for the most part Britain does no cap, such a strong climate, skeptic movement as the US, and so there is widespread agreement in parliament in the public. Really. Serious action needs to be taken and I think highly sense the mets office. have a a part of the reason for that, because the very well respected it's, it's quite a conservative institution that these radical people they account so between bureaucrats and scientists. Very careful about the conduct predictions they make. And I think that has helped to convince a widespread of society that something needs to be
Linear Digressions
The Grammar Of Graphics
"Hey Katie Hi ben high you doing? What are we talking about today? We're talking about the grammar of graphics. The Grammar of graphics yeah. This is a visual episode in audio form. So let's see how this goes. This can be okay. You're listening to linear digressions. Okay so I know what? The term grammar means as it applies to language It's kind of the the rules about how you would construct sentences and I'm sure that there are many people who find better than me but that's kind of how I think about it. Yeah that when we are using language to communicate. There's an order in which we place subjects in verbs and objects. There's a recurring to language in the sense that you can have phrases. That have substructure. There's also Orders in which things tend to appear like I would say I would always say the big black car I would never say the black big car. Yes grammar is yes this this thing. That's a little bit hard to define but once you start to think of it is pretty common to think of it. In terms of the rules of language I actually was reading. Something really interesting about this It's so I just found it a tweet by Matthew Anderson things native English speakers. No but don't know why we know and the quote is adjectives in English. Absolutely have to be in the following order opinion size age shape color origin material purpose noun. So you can have a lovely little old rectangular green French silver WHITTLING KNIFE. But if you mess with that word order in the slightest. You'll sound like a maniac. It's an odd thing that every English speaker uses that list but almost none of us could write it out yeah. I think I've heard something similar to so I think that was what I would like drawing on a little bit in that Great Green Great Dragons. No Great Green Dragons. Yeah exactly so. We're not talking about language in this talk of graphics. What how what does that mean yes? So that's what we're going to spend the next fifteen minutes talking about a little bit but the rough idea here. Is that so just like? There's an expectation that you have about the word order or the construction of phrases when you're listening to someone speaker when you're reading a sentence. There's a similar idea. Perhaps for visualizing drawing visualizations of data or consuming visualizations of data. Things that you expect to see whether or not you even really think about it. Or when you're composing a visualization things that you're planning for or taking into account that again. Maybe you aren't thinking about but this comes up in a really deep way if you are say. Dealing with data visualization software at a at a pretty fundamental level. So for those of you who are into our universe and particularly The tidy verse Hadley Wickham 's corner of the our universe. You're probably familiar with a package called G. G Plot to which is a visualization library. In our that's can famously makes very beautiful graphics especially with its its defaults make for really nice graphics. the gee-gee NJIT PLOT TO REVERSE TO GRAMMAR OF GRAPHICS and own. And actually. Yeah the most of the research that I did for. This episode was reading a twenty five page paper. That had they wickham wrote about how he thinks about. And how the field a general thinks about the grammar of graphics. Data visualization says where. We're going to talk about very cool. I don't even know where to start in thinking about this. This is this is GonNa be neat. Yeah this this was a pretty challenging Topic for me to try to understand because it gets into theory pretty quickly of like what is a facet and what is the scale and what is A. What's the difference between a mapping to an aesthetic and coordinate system I think There's certainly a lot to unpack if you're just really excited about this idea but rather than getting into some of these kind of esoteric concepts especially concepts that are ESA teric without having examples to look at. I wanted to illustrate the main pieces of the grammar of graphics as highly working for example talks about it using an example of a visualization. That probably a lot of people are really familiar. With and how that illustrates a few of the big important concept that again. We all kind of take for granted probably in our day to day. Visualizations Okay so what's the. What's the example graphic then? All right let's talk about a stacked histogram stacked histogram yet can you? Can you describe it for me? Yes so let me give you an example of stacked histogram ice to make all the time when I was a physicist so when I was a physicist we used to make lots and lots of plots where what you are trying to do was look at distributions of particles that you are getting in your detector and in general there were lots of different kinds of particles that were classified as what we would call background so these were types of particles that were you know interesting but not what we are really searching for and then there were in certain situations. You'll be looking for signal particles as well so this might be like a higgs bows on if you're doing a heck search and so when you were creating visualizations of your data. What you're looking for is okay. Do we have a distribution of data? That's more consistent with there. Only being background present or does it look more consistent with background plus signal for the second cases like Oh maybe we discovered some new physics or something so we would think a lot about how to visualize background and when you're doing that analysis you tend to have different kinds of particles that are coming in from different places in your detector and so if you just look at one of those systems at a time you're going to get an incomplete picture of all of the particles instead what you wanted to layer them all on top of each other so that you have yes so that you have like a picture of the overall distribution of the particles that you see but you also have them stratified by the different types of physics processes that they correspond to and so you're kind of stacking each of those strata on top of each other and you have a visualization that shows you know each of them separately but also all of them adding together. That's roughly what a histogram is God. I think I've seen these before are I'm sure I've seen them in many places but I'm thinking about when you look at when you do a software release and you look at all of the different All of the different computers that are running the software. And what version. They're on and you can see how people have upgraded. Each version of the software will be represented by different color. And over time. You'll see them kind of go and peak and then as new software later is released than the previous version will kind of trail off and The I guess the representation that you're talking about is showing all of that in a single graph with time. Let's say being the x axis and in in my example. It's always at one hundred per cent hike because every user is on some version but you can see the dip the I guess the distribution at any given point of those versions yeah or a few decided to represent it instead of as a percentage of the whole if you had your y. Axis was allowed float and instead it was the total number of users using that system than you could imagine like the overall rate could actually go up and down as users join. Leave your your system or you're right are using your software or whatever so. I haven't I have an image in my head now. Okay great and so hopefully for most of the folks who are listening to this. Hopefully you do too. But if you don't or if you're really struggling to think about what a stacked histogram might look like an might be worth taking like five seconds to Google this on your phone to see like a mental snapshot because it's I don't imagine that the rest of this will make tons of sense if you have no idea. We're talking about so okay So stacked histogram how do we think about this in terms of the grammar of graphics so let me layer in a few of the fundamental ideas of grammar graphic so either taking place in a very explicit order to the first layer the most foundational layer of when you need to make? Data visualization is What is the data? Set that you'RE GONNA BE VISUALIZING. And how does that map from The the variables in the data set to a set of aesthetics. So what's the data set? Let's talk about that first. Let's use my example of. Let's use your example. Actually I think that's probably a little bit more familiar to our listeners than like a particle physics date set but instead we have some notion of a data set that has all of the users of our software through time and the type of what did he say. It was like the version of the software that they're using yet and actually. Can I make this a little bit? Meta and tweak this and we'll say this could be a linear digressions episode downloads. Like we can go. We can go into our hosting provider and we can see how many people download on on a given day and so of course the day after we release an episode we see a lot of downloads and then maybe two months ago by and now that episode is a small sliver.