Another is: A+B=B+A.
Roderick T. Beaman,D.O.
Board Certified Family Physician
Protect freedom. Disarm the government.
________________________________
From: Roderick T. Beaman <crazylibertar...@yahoo.com>
To: LibertarianExchange@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, May 19, 2010 7:31:44 PM
Subject: Re: [LibertarianExchange] Elena Kagan
Thank you for that embellishment, John. It's another way of illustrating what
I was trying to say.
I think mathematics is a good analogy. The entirety of mathematics is based
upon five (I think it's five) basic axioms none of which themselves can be
proved but which, to carry the analogy further, are self-evident, as Thomas
Jefferson wrote in The Declaration. Mathematics is a series of conclusions
therefrom.
The set of axioms are:
1. (A+B) + C = A+(B+C).
2. For every A, there is a -A such that A+(-A)=0.
3. Ax(B+C) = AB+AC.
There are two others and from those, the entirety of higher math is derived;
trigonometry, calculus, algebra, linear algebra, differentials, etc.
Thus with constitutional law.
Roderick T. Beaman,D.O.
Board Certified Family Physician
Protect freedom. Disarm the government.
________________________________
From: "jwsmith42000@ aol.com" <jwsmith42000@ aol.com>
To: LibertarianExchange @yahoogroups. com
Cc: jon.rol...@constitu tion.org
Sent: Wed, May 19, 2010 12:15:20 PM
Subject: Re: [LibertarianExchang e] Elena Kagan
This is correct in that if a mistake is made in the original problem (case)
then the mistake is perpetual until someone has the brains to re do the problem
(case) from scratch.
No case that is presented to the Supreme Court should rely solely on case law
except the items presented only in this case and the original intent of the
Constitution.
All cases presented to the Supreme Court should be start with "Where in the
Constitution can anything that would reference this be found"
Only when you get back to the "bedrock" and examine all of your assumptions can
you come to a "Constitutional Decision"
The problem with case law is that damages can be perpetuated forever until
someone has the brass to go back and re-do the problem.
John Wayne
In a message dated 5/19/2010 6:56:13 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
crazylibertarian@ yahoo.com writes:
>
>
>Constitutional law is supposed to be legitimized by the
>Constitution. Nominees should be versed in how decisions are arrived at, not
>just the decisions.
>
>Our philosophy of law should be stated. And if judges have to cite the
>philosophy, they might arrive at a different decision.
>
>It would be like this. If there is one fault in the chain of reasoning, all
>the following conclusions are incorrect. Math would be an example. If there
>is a flaw, then the rest of the conclusions are suspect.
> Roderick T. Beaman,D.O.
>Board Certified Family Physician
>Protect freedom. Disarm the government.
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: earl reese <earljre...@gmail. com>
>To: LibertarianExchange @yahoogroups. com
>Sent: Wed, May 19, 2010 3:42:46 AM
>Subject: Re: [LibertarianExchang e] Elena Kagan
>
>
>Agreed but what is the difference between the law which the Constitution makes
>possible and the philosophy of law as allowed by the Constitution? I'm a
>little slow and this question is not meant to be rhetorical. I need help here.
>
>
>On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Roderick T. Beaman <crazylibertarian@
>yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>When Pres. Barack Obama presented Elena Kagan as his next Supreme Court
>>nominee, he cited her expertise in constitution law. He did not cite her
>>expertise in the Constitution, only constitutional law.
>>
>>As one pundit has observed, I think it was Gary North, law schools teach case
>>law, not philosophy of law. I think something is wrong with that.
>>
>>Roderick T. Beaman,D.O.
>>Board Certified Family Physician
>>Protect freedom. Disarm the government.
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>Earl
>
>One hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the most skillful. Seizing
>the enemy without fighting is the most skillful.
>
>Never will those who wage war tire of deception.
>
>Sun Wu (Tzu)
>
>
>
>
