Comments on: Laws, Not Men

By: Ken Grunstra

Ken Grunstra — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 14:52:02 +0000

“One of the core tenants of his pamphlet…” I believe the word you were looking for is “tenets” not “tenants”. A tenant is someone who rents your apartment. A tenet is a principle, belief, or doctrine generally held to be true.

By: Bokolis

Bokolis — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 21:48:28 +0000

All laws, no matter how well-intentioned, are, to some degree, political, necessary to reshape the imperfect circle made by men, who make the world go ’round.

I say “political” because the men who forge legislation, to suit some agenda or political ends, rather than the common good, are necessarily in the best position to, as you put it, “…technically avoid the legal requirements…”

That our Constitution has “stood the test of time” is an ancillary effect, better attributed to leaders’ ability to bend the law. Its chief use was probably closer to protecting Washington from Jefferson, Jefferson from Washington and both from Adams, as the Adams family was well-known to be burning the loyalty candle at both ends.

As someone who has seen too many back doors built into too many laws, and believes that his character is such that fulfills the spirit of laws, I don’t worry too much about conforming to the letter. Along those lines, your post, despite its title, better argues that the character of men, not laws, makes this nation what it is.

By: Aden Nak

Aden Nak — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:15:24 +0000

It’s admittedly been a long time since I’ve read Montesquieu, probably almost ten years. There’s no doubt in my mind, however, that most of the founding fathers were both aware of reverent of Montesquieu’s body of work. Ah, for the days when American populists and French populists cheered each other on.

And my good fellow, being a wise-ass is an integral part of this website! No offense is taken!

By: HawaiianPun

HawaiianPun — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:49:54 +0000

I have an overwhelming urge to end my reading of this post with a hearty, “hear hear!” Sooo… hear hear! (And I know that may not look very hearty, but it’s the best I can do given the limited interface.)

By: kingOwning

kingOwning — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:21:19 +0000

First of all I like your blog.
Quite juxtaposed topics… but most of them well thought out and well written.

I thoroughly disagree though that any nation can be a nation of laws, not men. A nation is always first and foremost about the people living within that natioin. But one of the things that holds a nation together are the laws. It’s like the US government telling people not to spend so much anymore… it quite fankly will never stick. So yes, I wholly agree with your whole diatribe, I just don’t agree with your end sentence.

As a side note, John Adams didn’t come up with the idea of distinction of powers and roles for the legislative, executive and judicial branches of the government.
It was a Frenchman called Charles Montesquieu (1689 – 1755) In 1748 he publicized “De l’esprit des lois” in which he stated that the ‘trias politica’ was the way in which power should be divided for freedom to come to it’s adulthood.

So John Adams took these enlightened ideas and encorporated them… he didn’t invent them. Just so you (and all others who read this) know.

I know it sounds very wise-ass…. but from the point of view on this side (European… I’m not French… I dislike them as much as the average American because people from Paris are more stuck-up than geisha ball you-know-where) not mentioning it seems as wise-ass or uninformed.