US Supreme Court. Side-stepping the Constitutional by means of the evolutionary "case-precedent" method.

welkin

Matthew 10:28
In 1859, Charles Darwin published his Origin of Species. His theory that species could evolve inspired a political theorist named Herbert Spencer, who coined the term "survival of the fittest." Spencer advocated applying Darwin's evolutionary theory to other areas of academia.

Beginning in 1870, Harvard Law Professor Christopher Columbus Langdell pioneered applying evolution to the legal process.

He innovated the "case precedent" method of practicing law, which made it no longer necessary to study the intent of those who wrote the Constitution, instead just look at the most recent cases and expand its reach a little at a time. No other law school in the nation at the time taught this.

Evolutionary law grew in acceptance after 1902 when Harvard graduate Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., was put on the Supreme Court. His biographer described in The Justice from Beacon Hill: The Life and Times of Oliver Wendell Holmes (1991), that Holmes' theory of "legal realism": ... shook the little world of lawyers and judges who had been raised on Blackstone's theory that the law, given by God Himself, was immutable and eternal and judges had only to discover its contents.

It took some years for them to come around to the view that the law was flexible, responsive to changing social and economic climates ...

Holmes had ... broken new intellectual trails ... demonstrating that the corpus of the law was neither ukase [an edict] from God nor derived from Nature, but ... was a constantly evolving thing, a response to the continually developing social and economic environment.

Justices began to fall into two general categories: 1) those who hold that laws should keep the meaning of those who wrote them; and 2) those who hold that laws can evolve to have new meanings at the justice's discretion.

The evolutionary "case-precedent" method provided a way for activist justices to use the 14th Amendment, together with an "expanded" interpretation of the "commerce clause," to side-step the Constitutional means of changing the Constitution through the Amendment process.

Soon Federal judges began to take jurisdiction away from the states over issues such as unions, strikes, railroads, farming, polygamy, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly.
-
Copyright 2016, 08/04/2020 William J. Federer. All rights reserved. Conditions of Use: Permission granted to duplicate less than 5,000 words provided acknowledgment is given to: Who is the King in America? And Who are the Counselors to the King? —An Overview of 6,000 Years of History & Why America is Unique by William J. Federer
 
Last edited:

Everlasting Life

Through Faith in Jesus
Just because leeches have been a previous precedent for healthcare in the past and held to for a length of time (or uranium toothpaste & face creams) doesn't mean the idea should be clung to.

Instead, the original intent of making patients well must be the guiding force here, with new ideas for better health held to and filtered through this guiding intent. Otherwise malpractice and bad, unhealthy ideas would not be checked.

Same with the Constitution.
 
Top