Rushdoony comes right out of the gate in this chapter and lays out for the reader where the discussion must begin. "The law is no longer held in the same respect; the courts are in process of changing the law by re-interpretation...the actual revolution in law is already over; we are merely seeing its consequences." And what a litany of consequences we have with Christian morality being supplanted with secular humanism with all of the expected societal fallout as society collapses when denied of a solid foundation to build upon.
In looking at how this revolution occurred form common to statute law, it is important to look first at the system that we are in the process of dismantling. "First, common law in England and the United States is an age-old doctrine of law...Its root is in the bible. It is the application of the Biblical law and doctrine of justice to the problems of everyday life...Second, common law represented God's law rather than the king's law or the state's law." These first two points emphasize why the common law that was a part of our nation's heritage must be overthrown. Without supplanting this law with humanistic statist law, the nation and people would still have to openly recognize their subservience to God and His laws. By attacking the family, church, and law simultaneously, the vestiges of the past are overthrown in chaos leaving the ruling class in a position of power over the ruled; for at any time, the law can be changed to the advantage or disadvantage of another with no real basis for the reversal. As Rushdoony points out, "under common law, supremacy of the law meant that neither king, state nor any agency of state was above the law." Any honest person would admit that the exact opposite is seen today with politicians and agencies all over the civil government acting as if there is no individual liberty that cannot be trampled on or law that they cannot overcome with the right political application. I think Rushdoony clearly saw the implications of where we ended up today and thus his cautions on the end of common law are truly prescient.
"Third, [common law] was not statute law, that is, it was not based upon written laws enacted by an agency of state. The judge based his decision on basic Christian law, biblical law, and on the biblical doctrines of justice." The benefits to this are delineated by Rushdoony, "when a crime was committed, it was not necessary to find a specific written law to cover the case. The case was always covered by a basic principle of justice. As a result, the common law has a great deal of flexibility, whereas statute law is very rigid." Another issue that we have today is that the principles of common law, including its flexibility are being utilized when torn away from the biblical principles that they were grounded in. In this case then, what you start with is an abandonment of common law/biblical principles followed by an avalanche of statutory law put on the books. Instead of the rigidity necessary to operate in this statutory environment, enforcement is applied in haphazard fashion under the guise of flexibility when in fact it is lawless, random and capricious application of law under the civil government and powers that be. In the end, what is taught to the people is a complete and total disregard for all laws.
"Fourth, common law was precedent law. Past decisions provided a ground for deciding present cases, because past decisions were developments of the implications of the basic principle." Radical revolution though, requires radical steps and in order to break away from the past, God's law is denied which undercuts the basis for past precedent allowing for the new philosophies to take shape in new, "improved" law.
"A fifth aspect of common law is trial by jury. Under common law, the jury simply acted on the basis of its Christian sense of justice. Sixth, basic to the common law was the biblical principle of restitution. In short, the law operated for the welfare of the citizen rather than for the impersonal state and its concept of society."
I have two points to make in summarizing this chapter. First, the law today is under attack, both in the way it is constructed by our representatives as a tool to control society and limit liberties, and in the way it is selectively enforced for political ends and not to determine what is just. Second, and more importantly, we have let this happen, both in the way we have disregarded teaching and enforcing laws in our family and in our churches as well as in our failure to self police ourselves as individuals. Until this is rectified and we look again to God's law in every aspect of our life, there is no reason to expect that the government will reflect anything different.
No comments:
Post a Comment