New Castle News
NEW CASTLE —
Editor, The News:
Answering Bonnie Humphrey’s challenge in a recent letter:
1. The undergirding ground of any argument is the efficacy of the human mind.
2. The human mind can no more justify itself than one may pull oneself by bootstraps.
3. The human mind has relations with “things;” either “creations” of the human mind (idealism, therefore irrational) or independent of the human mind (classical realism, thus rational, the Founders’ position).
If you embrace idealism, and understand its implications, the Constitution can be used to justify anything — eventually — because there is no certainty in the mind’s relation to what is not the mind; thus, unalienable rights e.g., become absurdities, all then is based on how people feel.
Unfortunately, feelings change, sometimes dramatically in short amounts of time. Sentiment informing/determining law is the antithesis of a rule of law.
4. U.S. Constitution presupposes a rational moral order — as the necessary ground for establishing rule of law.
5. The preamble of the U.S. Constitution presupposes — as a necessary condition for approximation of its principles to be realized — dispositions of virtue, i.e., moral dispositions, i.e., beings which limit their appetites to their “final-causality” which is natural law.
6. The Founders — much wiser than all of us moderns — knew that human sentiment is in flux, and can be “pied-pipered” into sentimentally surrendering the constitutional checks and balances — as we have — for transient un-reason.
7. We arrogant modern dimwits have created our problems (e.g., financial collapse, political grid-lock, ubiquity of government, etc.) because we think we know better than the founders — issues like homosexual “marriage” would never reach federal courts if states appointed senators — as they did before the 17th Amendment’s ratification.
Thomas J. Donegan