5 Burst results for "Hadley Arcus"
The Eric Metaxas Show
"hadley arcus" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show
"Alex, 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. And the founders predicated the validity of the American Revolution on natural law because Jefferson wrote about the abuses and usurpations. All these quartering act and port act and stamp act and all these things. And when Jefferson wrote and this is where we Christians and pastors I'm talking to you, this is where we've got to decide if we're going to play it safe or play it obediently. Jefferson said appealing to God for the rectitude of our intentions. What that means is king of England, you've abused, you've done so many things. If we don't act, we are complicit with you. Therefore, mindful of our accountability to God, we have to do this and we dissolve the bands that have held our country. Now, here's the thing, if there is no natural law than Jefferson was wrong, doctor king was wrong. Now, if there is natural law, and I think in fact, Eric, as much as I love cosmological argument and arguments from design, even like information theory, I know you've probably interviewed Bill demski, haven't you. We actually, he's one of the few at that band that I have not. No. Brilliant guy. There are so many compelling arguments for God and the Bible and Jesus. But I really think the moral argument might be the most compelling because it is universally undeniable that people have this moral compass and it looks just like exodus 21 through 17. AKA the ten commandments. Now, if we all independently of each other, have this moral compass, this ethical code graven into our psyche, it must have come from an outside source. The law came from a law giver. And the life's most thrilling and most rewarding quest is discover who that lawgiver was..
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.
The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"hadley arcus" Discussed on The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"Many of us are looking forward to the Supreme Court overruling or severely slashing back the roe V wade decision. But in a very important article, a legal scholar named Hadley Arcus argues that it is just as important how the court goes about doing this. The article is in the magazine first things, one of my favorite magazines, it's called on overruling row. And professor Arcus, whom I know, and is a very shrewd observer and has been writing about this topic now for. I would say three decades. He makes the point that the court could sort of go two ways on this. Then there's the traditional conservative way, and then there is, well, let's call it the better way. We Hadley Arcus way. So the traditional conservative way goes something like this. The Supreme Court in effect says, listen, the abortion decision, the roe V wade decision wrongly makes abortion a matter that is settled at the Supreme Court level in which 9 justices decide abortion policy you might say for the whole country. And the court might say that this is locating the authority. The decision making power in the wrong place. That the abortion decision really belongs as a state matter. And should be decentralized so that each state can apply its own, let's say, principles or values or reflect the moral sense of its own community. And thus, we can have a variety of laws on the abortion issue that more closely approximates the actual sentiments of the American people. Now, this has been you could call it conservative talk for almost three decades. But Hadley August thinks the conservatives here, we have it all wrong. Why? Because he says this makes abortions seem like some kind of procedural issue that the decision is really about who decides. And that there's no right and wrong of the matter that somehow all we're trying to do here is place a political authority where it truly belongs, which is to say at the state level, not at the level of the Supreme Court. But Hadley arca says, if you actually listen to the way people talk about abortion, they don't talk like this. They basically say things like, you know, she's pregnant. She's having a baby. And what is abortion, but the termination of the life of that independent developing baby by independent here I don't mean that the unborn child is in no way linked to the mother, but I mean it has its own organs. It's not exchanging life with the mother. It has its own life. It has its own fingers, its own toes, its own heartbeat, and so on. And professor ark is quote some remarkable he's quoting from legal briefs, but it's very eye opening. I just want to read a couple of lines. At the end of the first month, the child is about a quarter of an inch in length. At 30 days the primary brain is present and the eyes ears and nasal organs have started to form. Although the heart is still incomplete, it is beating regularly and pumping blood cells through a closed vascular system. The child and mother do not exchange blood, the child having from a very early point in its development its own and complete vascular system earliest reflexes begin as early as the 42nd day, the male penis begins to form the child is almost half an inch long and cartilage has begun to develop and on and on like this. So what really professor Arcus is getting at is that we are talking in the case of abortion about snuffing out a human life. So yes, Hadley Arcus says, all right, let's say the court wants to overturn roe and return to the states. He says it's really important that the court doesn't make it look like this is purely a matter of kind of placing the legal authority where it belongs, what he says the court should say is essentially the idea that look, we are dealing here with the taking of human life. Yes, states can actually adjudicate these issues as states do, by the way, adjudicate issues of life and death. But nevertheless, the starting point for any discussion is that it is a human life we are talking about. So here's professor Arcus. He goes, he's kind of almost writing an opinion for the court and he says it is the settled finding of embryology that the child and the womb has been human from its first moments are distinct life, not merely part of the woman's body. So what he's getting at is, yes, you can return this matter to the states, but sort of in the process of doing it make it really clear that what the states are going to be adjudicating is not, well, I have one set of values and you have your set of values and ultimately what each going to kind of have laws that reflect our values rather, he says, listen, the real issue is, when is it okay to kill someone? That's really what's being adjudicated. So just as in the case of slavery and other similar types of issues where the fundamental issue, Lincoln understood very clearly, the final issue is is the slave a human being yes or no. And if you answer yes, a whole bunch of things follow from that. And even state laws in the end will have to bend the simple truth that we are dealing with a human being here. So I think the profound aspect of this article is that it goes beyond the kind of bloodless procedural conservative jurisprudence. And focuses on the key issue, when is it right, if ever, to take innocent human life? We all know that in order to keep our immune system strong, we need extra protection for it. My friends at centurion labs have combined 5 key ingredients to defend your immune system against allergies, colds,.
James Wilson Institute Podcast
"hadley arcus" Discussed on James Wilson Institute Podcast
"Right kind of cost benefit analysis caution. But that's not what our settlement by prudence for aristotle prudence was was practical wisdom. It was the practical virtue parks launch. It was the virtue of the statesman. It meant knowing the right thing to do at the right time. In mediaeval scholastic philosophy was called. It was defined as right reasonable to action and prudence isn't away the political virtue because it means knowing. What is the best thing we can do here. Now under these circumstances and so it's a terribly important word that's really completely forgotten misunderstood today. Which is why. I spent several pages trying to explain it in the book well troop to excellence. Comes comes through prudence. it's a. It's an old saying i've heard i guess. The question is really brought home. Though when statesman has the assurance that he's on the side of the majority though and the majority is going to give that statesman wide cover for actions that begin to bought up against those limits of what we mean by prudence. So how do you think of prudence when it comes to the connection between more moral injust rule but also maybe what the majority wants. Yeah anyway this goes back to what we were just talking about a few moments ago. Which is the tension between wisdom and consent. This is the great problem. That lincoln confronted in one thousand nine hundred eighties. What happens if the majority wants to do something. That's unjust and one of the elements of great statesmanship is to find a way to move the country. Move the people In the direction of justice away from consenting to something that the very foundation of their own form government that's incompatible with the very foundation of of republican government. We don't see a lot of prudence statement today and it would be nice if we could get a lincoln or a churchill or washington to emerge on the scene. Guess we can just keep our fingers crossed but yeah part of it is. We don't teach people about any of these things so even if you had some sort of natural talent there's so much misunderstanding and indoctrination and and bad thinking going around. It's very hard for someone to apply their natural talents in a way that could actually be useful. One of the one of the lines that we often hear hadley arcus say i think he's. He's paraphrasing lincoln is the only operational form of government majority rule under constitutional restraint. Thought that might be a nice interesting jumping off point though to ask if it might be better to understand lincoln here as arguing that legitimate constitutional restraint must be understood as an exercise of prudence and prudence has understood from natural law. Right right let me. Just move that in slightly different direction at charity if it's because there's a date it's just a curse me as talking given the zika to say that we live under a left-wing oligarchy. Today is not terribly interested in consent. The challenge for lincoln sh- simply to impose his own will right. So this is a critique that you you're against lincoln a lot for more traditionalist paleo conservative critics and draft really resisted. That lincoln was very conscientious of the restraints. Chiapas under.
James Wilson Institute Podcast
"hadley arcus" Discussed on James Wilson Institute Podcast
"Josh hammer. Josh is newsweek. Opinion editor a research fellow with the edmund burke foundation he previously worked at kirkland ellis in clerked for judge james c of the. Us court appeals for the fifth circuit. He'll be s from duke university and a j d from the university of chicago law. School josh is on to discuss his new harvard journal of law and public policy as a common good originalism. Our tradition and our path forward. The essay grew out of a piece that he wrote. As part of symposium with claremont institute's publication. The american. Mind that i our founder and director hadley arcus also contributed to its for a lot of a potential exploration of path forward for conservative jurisprudence. And so we're really pleased to have him with us. Also joining us on. Podcast is one of our interns. Tom's roof tom. Why don't you get started josh. Give us a sense of what you understand. Conservatism to be specifically. How does the common good relate to conservatism as a value. Right because leftism has collectivism as a common good value. But why is that antithetical to your project from the left. And then from the right. What distinguishes you from someone. Like professor adrian mule and his concept of common good constitutionalism. Sure yeah so garrett and james wilson's shoot. Thanks so much for for having me back. I i take pleasure in hinting. A return guests of this wonderful program so happy that you're kicking us off on this. No because i think defining what conservatism is or at least have as i construe it is definitely kind of a necessary precondition of sorts for understanding. Why the our understanding why what is currently offered as a purportedly conservative jurisprudence simply does not rise to that occasion. So you know look i A lot of this is going to be Beyond the confines of what we can talk about here. I think scholars continue to debate. What conservatism is. But you know speaking. Personally my own you of of what. Conservatism is is definitely informed. Quite heavily by my my colleague In many ways kind of One of not my of preeminent mentor Which is a euro-zone as the president of the burke foundation. Where research fellow. And he's understanding. What conservatism is which i think most clearly outlined the twenty seventeen american affairs journal long-form essay with our other colleague for your high avery. Abi i think it's closest to what i have in mind when i talk about conservatism..