Suchergebnisse

This Article replies to Professor' Jaffa's article, "What Were the 'Original Intentions' of the Framers of the Constitution of the United States?," and book, The Crisis of the House Divided. The Article argues that Professor Jaffa's method throughout his indictment of legal scholars has three flaws. First, the Article argues that Professor Jaffa takes statements of sensible political compromises-such as support for judicial restraint, British traditions, and local self-government-and treats them as if they were philosophical statements. Second, the author contends that Professor Jaffa assembles a composite indictment, which in law is appropriately applied only to an indictment against a proven conspiracy, the existence of which Professor Jaffa has not proved. Third, the Article shows in detail that each of the statements of the four steps almost certainly was not intended as such by its author. Therefore, the Article concludes that Professor Jaffa's indictment fails to meet its burden of proof.

Thomas T. Meadows, an experienced British diplomat in China during the nineteenth century and author ofThe Chinese and Their Rebellions, wrote: "Of all nations that have attained a certain degree of civilization, the Chinese are the least revolutionary and the most rebellious." Meadows had ample opportunity to make such a remark since he was witness to some of China's fiercest rebellions, those committed by the Taipings, the Nien and Moslem groups during the time of his tour. These revolts, although mass-based and widespread, were put down with particular ferocity by the Qing monarchy. Meadows's remark directs attention to the delicate question of when does a rebellion become a revolution? In the case of these movements, they did not become revolutions because there was no transformation either in the structure of Chinese society or in the system of political power. These incidents may have been "revolutionary situations", but they did not have "revolutionary outcomes".