Search results

Schopenhauer's life -- Kant's influence -- Schopenhauer's departure from Kant -- Schopenhauer's own claim to fame -- Platonic ideas -- Schopenhauer and contemporary scientific theory -- Ontological "oneness" -- Justice and the "principium individuationis" -- The inner conflict -- A brief glimpse into theistic natural law theory -- Eternal justice -- The denial of the will-to-live -- Schopenhauer and quietism -- Schopenhauer and Luther -- On the freedom of the will -- Modern conceptions of justice -- Schopenhauer and contemporary political thought

Arguments for the overturning of the Roe decision can be grouped into two categories: (1) the positivist argument that, contrary to the assertions in the Roe decision, nothing in the Constitution protects the right to privacy in the abortion decision (thus leaving legislatures free to regulate the matter), and (2) the natural law argument that a fetus or unborn child has a fundamental and inalienable right to life (thus preventing legislatures from regulating the matter, except for compelling governmental reasons). The right-to-life movement is grounded upon the latter, natural law position. The difficulty for the pro-life movement is that, if the Court decides to overrule Roe, it will most likely do so using a positivist rather than a natural law rationale.

"You can't legislate morality!"-so says someone, somewhere every day. It is our conventional wisdom. It is a truism that is often heard in crassly political advocacy, and yet it both antedates and transcends traditional American politics. It has often been used by both liberal and conservative advocates. One recalls its use by President Eisenhower in the Little Rock, Arkansas, school desegregation crisis in the 1950's, as well as its use by more recent advocates of change in anti-abortion laws. Today it is most often heard in contexts similar to the subject of this symposium: laws prohibiting the dissemination of obscene materials, homosexual acts, fornication, prostitution, and a host of others the reader can doubtless supply. What does the truism mean?

On the morning of August 3, 1916, at Pentonville Prison in England, Roger David Casement, former Knight of the Realm, was hanged. Sir Roger's last thoughts on that ultimate morning may well have centered on the incredible series of misadventures and blunders that led to his arrest some four months earlier, but his lawyer's thoughts almost certainly centered on punctuation. It was indeed an improbable set of mishaps that led to Sir Roger's arrest, but it was punctuation that eventually and inexorably did him in.

Over the past decade or so, lawyers have become accustomed to socio-legal "explosions": the explosion into the law scene of legal services corporations; the explosion in malpractice insurance rates as the result of the explosion in medical malpractice suits and favorable jury verdicts; the explosion in no-fault law, both in negligence and family disputes; and the legal profession's own population explosion. Therefore, it should come as no great shock that over the past decade there has been one additional socio-legal explosion: the explosion in the use of paralegals by lawyers, law firms, corporations, and government agencies of all descriptions. Although the explosion in the use of paralegals comes as no shock to lawyers, it may be mildly surprising to many that no state has yet passed a statute to regulate paralegal training programs or paralegal activity in general. This article is written on the assumption that some states may take legislative action with regard to paralegal regulation.

The exercise of individual conscience under military compulsion is an issue revived by the My Lai courts martial. Natural law jurists saw a place for individual conscience, but the positivist school's dominance changed that. The Nuremberg doctrine denied the defense of superior orders, and now the debate is raging again.

The Third Edition of Individual Rights and the American Constitution is designed for a two- or three-semester-hour course on the intellectual sources of and cases dealing with individual human rights, including especially religion, speech, and economic liberties, as well as the concepts of due process and equality. This book explores how government power is expressly or impliedly limited to protect individual interests in religious exercise, speech, the freedom from irrational discrimination, and autonomy, as well as economic liberty. It is designed to meet the needs of professors of political science, government, history, and public policy by supplying a casebook that is at once accessible to study by virtue of generous chapter overviews, skillful case selection and editing, and extended introductions and following notes and questions. In addition, out of abundant respect for the rich intellectual tradition that exists within the university, this book fully reflects that Supreme Court cases emerge from history, and history itself reflects centuries of political and philosophical understanding. ; https://scholarship.law.edu/fac_books/1055/thumbnail.jpg