A Question of Jurisprudence

Today we look at abortion from a natural law perspective.  In our opinion, looking at it an any other way is at best a misdirection, and at worst a serious strategic and tactical error.  In particular, making it a religious issue does little good in the long run, although in the short run it makes it easier to get emotional support and raise funds.

How Everyone Can Win in November, Part I

      What with all the acrimony, even hysteria about the upcoming presidential election in the United States, we thought it might be useful to present a plan that would guarantee (as far as is humanly possible) that everybody would win, even people not voting and those residing in every country in the world.  Yes, and even the “losers,” who would lose nothing substantive under our proposal.

Building a Strategic Plan, Part II of II

As we noted in the previous posting on this subject, CESJ does not support or endorse any candidate for public office.  Any opinions expressed on these matters are personal and represent the views of people as individuals, not as members or representatives of CESJ.  The mention of any specific candidate(s) is purely expedient.

The Labor Theory of Value

“It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good wife, must be in want of a job.”  That, of course, is the famous opening line from fictional author Gianny Austin’s apocryphal novel, Property and Prejudice, a comedy of manners in which ownership of the means of production (except for an economic or political élite) is depicted as being not quite polite, and the characters spend all their time cleverly positioning themselves for higher wages and fixed benefits, and then wondering why prices are so high and why other people keep telling them what to do.

The Highest Form of Work

Continuing our blog series examining the Core Values of the interfaith Center for Economic and Social Justice (CESJ), we follow up on yesterday’s posting on our little explication of “Nothing should stand between God and the human person,” with a dissertation on the meaning of work.  As it says in the CESJ Core Values,

A Pro-Life Valentine

We realize that on this particular (Saint) Valentine’s Day we’re supposed to wail and moan the fact that it falls by coincidence on “Ash Wednesday,” which many Christians observe as the start of Lent and is therefore a day of “fast and abstinence.”  That means no chocolate or other goodies for your sweetie.

Day of Reckoning

Today we have a posting that we hope will get you to look a little differently at the Annual March for Life, scheduled for Friday, January 19, 2018.  You know . . . the annual event in which a gazillion people descend on Washington, DC, and the media wave a magic wand and they all disappear. . . .

And This Is Important . . . Why?

This past Tuesday, November 15, 2016, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops elected His Eminence Daniel Cardinal DiNardo, Archbishop of Galveston-Houston, Texas, as their new president for a three-year term.  Archbishop Jose Gomez of Los Angeles, California, was elected vice president.

World Meeting of Families, II: Second Day Report

Yesterday was a bit more lively than the first day.  Judging from the various scheduled book signings and interviews at the various exhibitors’ booths, the first day, Tuesday, was more of a get-your-bearings day than anything else.  Yesterday, Wednesday, business picked up quite a bit, even over on the far side where we are.

World Meeting of Families, I: First Day Report

Yesterday was our first day at the World Meeting of Families here in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  We had a brief trip up on Monday and set up portions of the combined CESJ/CCC/EEI/CAFFAF booth on Monday afternoon.  We were pleased to see that we are right next to “Priests for Life,” a group with name recognition that we thought might bring a few people over to where we are to see what “Economic Justice for the Family” might be.

What’s Wrong with the Pro-Life Movement?

We interrupt our regularly scheduled series of postings on standards (and lack thereof) in modern society to offer a few comments about what we think is wrong with the Pro-Life movement.  Lest you be turned off already, please note that we fully support the goal: an end to abortion.  We just want to offer a few comments and observations on how the effort might be more effective and less confrontational . . . at least, up to a point.

In Your Face

A while back in ancient times (i.e., September 16, 2014) there was an article about how “the rich” who were tired of associating with us peasants were starting their own social network called “Netropolitan.”  Netropolitan bills itself as a sort of Facebook for the elite, as “the online country club for people with more money than time.”  We’re reminded of Robert (formerly “Bob”) Hope’s opening to Fancy Pants: “No popcorn during my performance, peasants.”

A Legal Amateur’s Look at Roe v. Wade

Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, or even if you just plain don’t care, you should be concerned with the legal reasoning in the landmark case, Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)).  The decision was a remarkable one in many respects, at least as it appears to someone who, while not an attorney, has some familiarity with constitutional law and basic logic.

Womb With a View

Last week the buzz around some FaceBook groups was all about recent advances in the technology of artificial wombs.  With reservations, we think that this could be a good thing.  It has the potential to address certain concerns that come up when discussing a “pro-life economic agenda” geared toward removing all economic pressure or justification for abortion.

Galloping Into Moral Relativism

There has been some talk recently (i.e., over the past century or so) about the need to call a halt to all the judicial activism that’s been going on, what some people have called “legislation by judiciary.”  The fact is that Congress (whether it meant to or not) has lost a great deal of the power the people grant to it in the Constitution, that the Executive (the president) and, especially, the Supreme Court have picked up.

“Raw Judicial Power” IV: Roe v. Wade, 1973

In yesterday’s posting we saw how in 1857 and in 1873 the U.S. Supreme Court managed to change the meaning of the Constitution by the simple expedient of asserting an effective change in the source of rights from human beings to the State.  Exactly a century later the Supreme Court used that change (which nullified the Fourteenth Amendment it was allegedly upholding) as the basis for the decision in Roe v. Wade.

“Raw Judicial Power” III: Slaughterhouse, 1873

The United States Congress enacted two “Reconstruction Amendments” after the Civil War.  The first of these, the 13^th, abolished chattel slavery, that is, human beings owned as private property by other human beings.  (If you read the amendment carefully, you’ll see that it didn’t abolish slavery altogether. People convicted of crimes can still lose their rights; a slave is legally defined as a human being without rights.)

“Raw Judicial Power” II: Scott v. Sandford, 1857

As we saw in yesterday’s posting, the “issue behind the issue,” that is, the true significance of Roe v. Wade, was not the particular decision of the United States Supreme Court in 1973.  It is, rather, the fact that the Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade reflected a prior bad resolution to a serious problem: the question as to what, exactly, is a human person, and who decides who or what is a person?

“Raw Judicial Power” I: “The Beginning of the Quarrel”

Given that today is the annual “March for Life” in Washington, DC, and that the Just Third Way as applied in Capital Homesteading can (at least in one sense) be described as a “Pro-Life economic agenda,” it seems appropriate to post a few comments about what, from a natural law point of view, must be regarded as a fundamental human right, that of life.

America Delenda Est?

The worse things get in American society, the more frequently you hear comparisons with ancient Rome.  Evidently unaware that (assuming you accept the traditional date for the founding of the city) “Rome” lasted from 753 BC to AD 1918, albeit much transformed (still a pretty good record), people today — as they have for thousands of years — claim that these are the worst times that the world has ever experienced, and there is absolutely no hope of recovery.  The world is doomed.