Books

The responsibilities of children are much less and less onerous than the responsibilities of adults. If a child doesn't clean his room, big deal. If the parents don't pay the mortgage, the child won't have a room to clean. Children have a type of wisdom, but not much worldly wisdom required for responsibility.

I don't think I'd ever have gone to the front of the class.

She was also very generous. That very collection sits not one foot from my head. Time-Life. Hardcover. A succinct collection of pictures and information that you will just not find online (I've tried).

What's more! They progress according to a certain timeline so the relics and ruins tell the story of the civilizations. I consider them works of art in their own right.

Being wise means responsibility and a loss of a certain type of freedom. I was actually talking about this last night with a friend. Think about children and adults. Children have no responsibility, no wisdom. So they have a certain amount of freedom that we do not have. Being wise is not about being happy. That's the point I'm trying to make, with wisdom comes responsibility and it tempers a certain type of freedom.

Oh, wow. That's so cool. I'm rather jealous of you (in a Christian kind of way).

I'll soon be living in either AR or TN on a more permanent basis, if you're ever in town, I'll let you see my toys.

Ahh, I see what you are getting at. In that context what you're saying makes a sense.

Wisdom does not confer a belief in infinite possibilities or freedom from harm. They wreck that childish freedom. But they are important for adults to get a handle if they want to safeguard a decent future and present for children. It would follow then that wisdom is necessary for what we associate with political liberty.

Is this what you were getting at with the Jefferson quote?

Awesome, awesome. I hope to visit the US within a few year's time. I'm thinking Texas and the Kentucky/Tennessee areas. Thanks.

No, it isn't. The quote is fine for a nation, but not for individuals. As a nation, yes, wisdom and liberty go hand in hand. If we are not aware of our rights, we may lose them. This is one thing among many. What I meant was the quote is not good for individuals- in other words I don't think your teacher should have truncated it. It lost the meaning. Did she post "a people" or "people"? That makes a difference. Just like with God, now that we know what sin is, we are responsible and not free to continue. The law was our schoolmaster. That's what I mean.

I'm fixing to start reading Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges by Antonin Scalia and Bryan A. Garner.

Also I'm curious on his position on the relationship between the states and the federal authorithies. Need to find something about that too.

I wonder whether his successor will be a protestant? Ain't had no protestant in the SCOTUS for some time now.

This took a little bit of digging, but I wanted to extract Jefferson's quote contextually before expounding on the meaning of it or deciding on a particular interpretation.

if a nation expects to be ignorant & free, in a state of civilisation, it expects what never was & never will be. the functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty & property of their constituents. there is no safe deposit for these but with the people themselves; nor can they be safe with them without information.

So Mrs. Science was faithful to the meaning of the sentence when she chose "A people..."

But even if she posted "People," it's arguable that she would've been even more faithful to spirit of the quote, given Jefferson's pretty consistent belief that free, enlightened individuals make for a free nation and not the other way around. If it is possible to summarize his lifelong core convictions in a sentence, that's probably as close as we'll come.

Her paraphrasing was more faithful to the meaning than most Bible paraphrases for sale at Lifeway. And I think she smart enough not to post something willy nilly. It was something she believed to the core. I can tell looking back (and about a foot away from me).

So Mrs. Science and Jefferson rest on two premises that (I gather) you reject or at least find troublesome: that a population of individuals composes a nation and that they cannot be free while being ignorant.

Upon further review I don't necessarily agree with them either, but I'll write about that and where we may personally disagree tomorrow. When it isn't 3:00AM and I am not looking forward to another fun day of civic duty.

If you find interpretative flaws, please let me know. In the meantime, I'll dream about that next trip to Monticello.

I have high hopes his successor will be a strict constructionist. That is what really matters.

I will not make a secret out of the fact that I have a high grade of admiration of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, and he once said,

"A text should not be construed strictly, and it should not be construed leniently; it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means."[SUP][

[/SUP][SUP]I think that too. Then the courts will not be limited to being strict contructionists or judicial activists.[/SUP]

I'm just afraid that one person's idea of what is reasonable is not objective. The only way to be really objective is to interpret the law as a strict constructionist. I have no problem with a judge using his reasonableness if he is reasonable, the problem lies in what is defined as reasonable. I have the highest respect for Scalia, but I am afraid of judges who use their own definition of how to reasonably interpret a text.

I think that's always an issue.
That's why legal contracts are written with great specificity.

However, this isn't an argument that will ever go away.

As soon as you put something in writing, people will begin to say,
"Alright, but what are all the ways we could interpret that?"

I think that's always an issue.
That's why legal contracts are written with great specificity.

However, this isn't an argument that will ever go away.