Podcasts about William Blackstone

Who was William Blackstone? What did he contribute to English law, and how did his contributions directly impact the ideas in the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution? How is it that a British noble who opposed the American Revolution ended up serving as a major source of inspiration to the American Founders? Learn the […]

Who was William Blackstone? What did he contribute to English law, and how did his contributions directly impact the ideas in the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution? How is it that a British noble who opposed the American Revolution ended up serving as a major source of inspiration to the American Founders? Learn the details from this episode of The American Idea.#blackstone #williamblackstone #commonlaw #americanfounding Host: Jeff SikkengaExecutive Producer: Jeremy GyptonSubscribe: https://linktr.ee/theamericanidea

In this episode of The Learning Curve, co-hosts U-Arkansas Prof. Albert Cheng and Ret. MN Justice Barry Anderson speak with Wilfrid Prest, Emeritus Professor and Visiting Research Fellow in History and Law at the University of Adelaide in Australia, and biographer of Sir William Blackstone, among the most influential figures in the history of English common law. Prof. Prest discusses Blackstone's […]

In this episode of The Learning Curve, co-hosts U-Arkansas Prof. Albert Cheng and Ret. MN Justice Barry Anderson speak with Wilfrid Prest, Emeritus Professor and Visiting Research Fellow in History and Law at the University of Adelaide in Australia, and biographer of Sir William Blackstone, among the most influential figures in the history of English common law. Prof. Prest discusses Blackstone's formative years in mid-18th-century London and at Pembroke College, Oxford, where a classical education, Enlightenment thought, and legal scholarship shaped his intellectual path. He describes Blackstone's early legal and academic career, including his role as the first Vinerian Professor of English Law and author of An Analysis of the Laws of England. Prest explores how Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England brought clarity and coherence to England's centuries old legal tradition, drawing from foundational documents like Magna Carta and formative figures such as Bracton, Fortescue, and Coke. He examines the Commentaries' lasting impact on American Founding Fathers, including both admirers like Alexander Hamilton and Chief Justice John Marshall and critics like Thomas Jefferson. Prest concludes with reflections on Blackstone's enduring legacy in promoting the rule of law and legal education worldwide. In closing, Prof. Prest reads a passage from his book, William Blackstone: Law and Letters in the Eighteenth Century. 

Today's episode demonstrates why William Blackstone and Lord Coke said those who don't have an education in the rudiments of common law mess up the law with their statutes. Proof of their proposition is in the legal advice given the NRB to oppose legislation in Florida addressing slander (and libel). The situation also shows how Christian legal advocates have effectively capitulated to the transgender movement and, because of that, are arguably urging their clients to do so as well. But, there is a way back, and this legislation provides a way to do it.

Today's episode demonstrates why William Blackstone and Lord Coke said those who don't have an education in the rudiments of common law mess up the law with their statutes. Proof of their proposition is in the legal advice given the NRB to oppose legislation in Florida addressing slander (and libel). The situation also shows how Christian legal advocates have effectively capitulated to the transgender movement and, because of that, are arguably urging their clients to do so as well. But, there is a way back, and this legislation provides a way to do it.

Send us a textUnlock the secrets of civic engagement from a Christian perspective as we sit down with Josiah Magnuson, author and legislator for District 38, to discuss his compelling book, "Biblical Civics." This episode promises to equip evangelical Christians with the tools they need to actively participate in government, overcoming misconceptions about the separation of church and state. Magnuson takes us through his 12-week course designed to inspire Christians to be "salt and light" in society, addressing the pervasive influence of pietism and misconceptions that have long kept believers out of political spheres. Together, we explore how Christians can infuse biblical principles into the public arena with courage and conviction.In a thought-provoking discussion, we dive into a biblical perspective on government and citizenship, stripping away partisan bias to uncover governance principles according to God's will. Drawing from the wisdom of historical figures like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, as well as insights from Dr. Keith Sherlin and William Blackstone, we emphasize the importance of virtue, character, and active civic engagement. Our conversation with Dr. Jackson adds another layer of depth, thanking him for his contributions and looking forward to his future appearances. We close with an invitation to our listeners to explore more about Dr. Jackson's work and continue this meaningful journey with us on "More Than Medicine.https://biblicalcivics.study/https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BVPTNZL6https://www.instagram.com/biblicalcivicshttps://www.jacksonfamilyministry.comhttps://bobslone.com/home/podcast-production/

Having explored the ways in which the arguments of a leading Christian legal advocate conform to the way the godless think about the world we live in, David raises two objections that might be made against his analysis. He answers them with the help of William Blackstone and a conversation between his friends at Choc Knox Unplugged. Getting a free copy of David’s short monograph, Toward Christian Nihilism-A Short Study in Contrasting Policy Approaches, will make clearer what’s going on.

Having explored the ways in which the arguments of a leading Christian legal advocate conform to the way the godless think about the world we live in, David raises two objections that might be made against his analysis. He answers them with the help of William Blackstone and a conversation between his friends at Choc Knox Unplugged. Getting a free copy of David's short monograph, Toward Christian Nihilism-A Short Study in Contrasting Policy Approaches, will make clearer what's going on.Support the show: https://www.factennessee.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Having explored the ways in which the arguments of a leading Christian legal advocate conform to the way the godless think about the world we live in, David raises two objections that might be made against his analysis. He answers them with the help of William Blackstone and a conversation between his friends at Choc Knox Unplugged. Getting a free copy of David’s short monograph, Toward Christian Nihilism-A Short Study in Contrasting Policy Approaches, will make clearer what’s going on.

Is it a “legal strategy” or a Fifth Commandment problem when Christian legal advocates eschew common law and its application to current legal issues involving human sexuality? David uses an amicus brief recently filed by a leading Christian legal advocacy organization with the U.S. Supreme Court and William Blackstone to answer that question and shows how its rights-based legal argument conforms to the way the ungodly think about rights.

Is it a “legal strategy” or a Fifth Commandment problem when Christian legal advocates eschew common law and its application to current legal issues involving human sexuality? David uses an amicus brief recently filed by a leading Christian legal advocacy organization with the U.S. Supreme Court and William Blackstone to answer that question and shows how its rights-based legal argument conforms to the way the ungodly think about rights.Support the show: https://www.factennessee.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Is it a “legal strategy” or a Fifth Commandment problem when Christian legal advocates eschew common law and its application to current legal issues involving human sexuality? David uses an amicus brief recently filed by a leading Christian legal advocacy organization with the U.S. Supreme Court and William Blackstone to answer that question and shows how its rights-based legal argument conforms to the way the ungodly think about rights.

Common law authority William Blackstone said that man “must in all points conform to the will of his nature,” and this will was called the “natural law.” Today, David explains how he overlooked the most fundamental law of human nature because he read the Bible like a disciple of legal positivist Jeremy Bentham. From his experience, David offers a proposition about the state of evangelicalism in America.

Common law authority William Blackstone said that man “must in all points conform to the will of his nature,” and this will was called the “natural law.” Today, David explains how he overlooked the most fundamental law of human nature because he read the Bible like a disciple of legal positivist Jeremy Bentham. From his experience, David offers a proposition about the state of evangelicalism in America.Support the show: https://www.factennessee.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Common law authority William Blackstone said that man “must in all points conform to the will of his nature,” and this will was called the “natural law.” Today, David explains how he overlooked the most fundamental law of human nature because he read the Bible like a disciple of legal positivist Jeremy Bentham. From his experience, David offers a proposition about the state of evangelicalism in America.

Welcome to the Instant Trivia podcast episode 1254, where we ask the best trivia on the Internet. Round 1. Category: R.I.P. In Alabama 1: This man who ground up a lot of peanuts is buried on the grounds of the Tuskegee Institute. George Washington Carver. 2: Eddie Kendricks, famed as an original member of this legendary singing group, is in Elmwood Cemetery. The Temptations. 3: Hooterville's Mr. Haney, he's in a Haleyville, Alabama cemetery. Pat Buttram. 4: This country singing legend's tombstone reads, "Praise the Lord I Saw the Light". Hank Williams, Sr.. 5: Her marker reads, "Governor, State of Alabama 1967-1968". Lurleen B. Wallace. Round 2. Category: Just Hit Play. With Play in quotation marks 1: You don't need to tickle the ivories on this device that uses a roll of perforated paper to activate the keys. a player piano. 2: This soft modeling clay for kids was introduced in 1955. Play-Doh. 3: This 2-word TV innovation premiered in the 1963 Army-Navy game. instant replay. 4: How often a particular song is broadcast on the radio. airplay. 5: To pretend to be asleep or dead, like a New World marsupial. play possum. Round 3. Category: Lawyer Billboards 1: Prisoner Release Negotiations and Patriotic Poetry A SpecialtyServing The Greater Washington/Baltimore Area. Francis Scott Key. 2: Ask Sextus RosciusThe Innocent Have Nothing To Fear When I Spin My Oratory. Cicero. 3: Bostonians, You Love My Dad's Poetry.Try My Pleading On For Size.. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.. 4: Socialists...Science Teachers...Accused Murderers...No CauseToo Unpopular!. Clarence Darrow. 5: I Wrote The BookOn English Law(My Famous "Commentaries")and I Can Help You!. William Blackstone. Round 4. Category: The Caldecott Medal 1: In the 1980s Chris Van Allsburg won 2 Caldecotts: for "Jumanji" and this story of a northbound train. The Polar Express. 2: 1955's medal went to Marcia Brown for the illustrations of this tale subtitled "Or, the Little Glass Slipper". Cinderella. 3: Ed Young's Caldecott winner "Lon Po Po", which means "granny wolf", is a Chinese version of this fairy tale. Little Red Riding Hood. 4: This 1963 Maurice Sendak book won the Caldecott as well as the Lewis Carroll Shelf Award. Where the Wild Things Are. 5: "Chanticleer and the Fox", the 1959 winner, was adapted by Barbara Cooney from this 14th century work. The Canterbury Tales. Round 5. Category: Words Before Words 1: Bean, market, widow. black. 2: Carpet, saucer, colors. flying. 3: Climbing, salt, star. rock. 4: Clip, towel, money. paper. 5: Winter, family, option. nuclear. Thanks for listening! Come back tomorrow for more exciting trivia!Special thanks to https://blog.feedspot.com/trivia_podcasts/ AI Voices used

In this riveting episode of History Rage, host Paul delves into the gruesome details of executions in early modern Britain with the expert insights of historian Blessin Adams. Covering a wide range of topics from heresy trials to the role of executioners, the discussion provides a unique and unsettling perspective on the historical practices of punishment.Key Points:Heresy Trials and Executions:John Foxe, a contemporary theologian, collected accounts of heresy trials and executions, particularly in his work known as "Foxe's Book of Martyrs."The punishment for heresy was intentionally designed to be horrific due to the perceived severity of the crime.Blessin highlights the biases in historical accounts, urging caution in interpreting firsthand narratives.Burning at the Stake for Heresy:The descriptions of heretics burning at the stake often glorify the martyrs, with a balance of horror and strange beauty portrayed by Fox.Blessin explores the unintended consequence of encouraging admiration for martyrs, possibly influencing others to face a similar fate.Petty Traitors and True Crime Presses:Execution accounts of petty traitors differ significantly from those of heretics, emphasizing societal disgust and fear towards women who committed violent acts.True crime presses in the early modern period sensationalized these executions for entertainment and profit.Execution Methods:Blessin discusses the absence of professional executioners like Pierpoint and Marwood in the early modern period.Hangings were a common method, and Blessin describes the disturbing scene of multiple hangings at the Tyburn tree.Attempts to Hasten Executions:The discussion touches on historical attempts to hasten death using substances like tar pitch on the condemned's clothes.William Blackstone's argument that women were burned to maintain modesty due to concerns about nudity is explored.Modesty and Execution Practices:Blessin shares insights into the strange dichotomy of modesty in executions, citing instances of women being buried alive to maintain decency.The discussion also addresses the myth of the executioner's mask.Witnessing Executions:Blessin sheds light on the role of prison ordinaries who had unique access to condemned individuals and provided firsthand accounts of executions.The fascination with executions extended to public interest in final speeches and confessions, leading to a profitable market for printed accounts.The Harsh Reality of Hangings:Blessin explores the brutal aspects of hangings, including family members attempting to expedite the deaths of their loved ones and the hangman's involvement.Connect with Blessin Adams:WebsiteTwitter: @adams_blessinGreat and Horrible News: Murder and Mayhem in Early Modern Britain [History Rage Bookshop]Support History Rage on Patreon:Patreon Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

THE FAMILY CAN BE THOUGHT OF AS HORIZONTALLY SPEAKING A MINI NATION AND VERTICALLY SPEAKING AS A MINI CHURCH. TO OUR CHILDREN OUR FAMILY IS THE FIRST MINI CHURCH AND MINI NATION OR GOVERNMENT THEY WILL KNOW. AS WE HAVE MENTIONED IN MANY OTHER MESSAGES WE HAVE A CHOICE AS AMERICANS TO PUT OURSELVES UNDER GOD'S LAWS OF FREEDOM AND HAPPINESS OR MAN'S LAW WHICH EVENTUALLY LEADS TO TYRANNY. THE SAME IS TRUE WITH THE FAMILY: WILL WE PUT OUR FAMILY UNDER GOD'S LAWS OF FREEDOM AND HAPPINESS OR MAN'S LAWS OF TYRANNY? BY DEFINITION EVERY LAW HAS A CREATOR OR SUPERIOR OF THAT LAW WHO ENFORCES THAT LAW AND AN INFERIOR WHO OBEYS THAT LAW. WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, WHO WROTE A VERY INFLUENTIAL BOOK AT THE TIME OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION ENTITLED COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND, AND HE WROTE IN THAT BOOK THE FOLLOWING: “MAN, confidered as a creature, muft neceffarily be fubject to the laws of his creator, for he is entirely a dependent being. A being, independent of any other, has no rule to purfue, but fuch as he prefcribes to himfelf; but a ftate of dependance will inevitably oblige the inferior to take the will of him, on whom he depends, as the rule of his conduct.” SO IT IS OBVIOUS FROM THIS DEFINITION THAT OUR CHILDREN ARE THE INFERIOR, THE DEPENDENT AND WE THE PARENTS ARE THE SUPERIOR. NOW THE QUESTION IS, WILL WE AS THE SUPERIOR PUT OUR FAMILY UNDER GOD'S LAWS OF FREEDOM AND HAPPINESS OR OUR OWN LAWS THAT WE PRESCRIBE TO OURSELVES, AND OUR FAMILY, MAKING OURSELVES SUPERIOR OVER GOD'S LAWS OF HAPPINESS AND FREEDOM. BUT TO PUT OURSELVES AS THE SUPERIOR UNDER GOD'S LAWS OF HAPPINESS AND FREEDOM WE HAVE TO KNOW GOD'S LAWS OF HAPPINESS AND FREEDOM, AND KNOW THE DIFFERENCE IN HOW THE LAW IS USED VERTICALLY AND HOW THE LAW IS USED HORIZONTALLY. BUT IF WE ARE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT NOT ONLY THE TEMPORAL NEEDS OF OWN SOULS WILL WE BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE TEMPORAL NEEDS OF CHILDREN'S SOULS AND LIKEWISE WITH THE VERTICAL. MOST OF US AMERICANS WILL TAKE CARE OF THE TEMPORAL NEEDS OF OUR CHILDREN, BUT WILL OUR HORIZONTAL LAWS FOR OUR FAMILY REST THEIR ULTIMATE AUTHORITY UPON DIVINE LAWS. SECONDLY IF WE AS PARENTS ARE NOT WORRIED ABOUT OUR SOULS VERTICALLY WILL WE BE WORRIED ABOUT THE SOULS OF CHILDREN VERTICALLY SPEAKING? IF THEIR IS NO ABSOLUTE TRUTH CONCERNING OUR SOULS, THEN THEIR IS NO ABSOLUTE RIGHT OR WRONG AND THUS OUR GUESS IS JUST AS GOOD AS THE NEXT GUY'S GUESS, AND THUS WE ARE ALL AS AMERICANS JUST GUESSING ABOUT OUR SALVATION AS WELL AS THE SALVATION OF OUR CHILDREN'S SOULS. BUT IS THERE ANY WAY TO KNOW THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH FOR IF ONE OF US AMERICANS READS THE BIBLE, HE GETS ONE OPINION, AND ANOTHER OF US AMERICANS READS THE BIBLE, HE GETS ANOTHER OPINION, SO WHO IS TO SAY ONE PERSONS OPINION IS BETTER THAN THE OTHER'S OPINION. BUT COMMON SENSE TELLS US THERE IS AN ABSOLUTE TRUTH, FOR JUST THE LAWS OF PHYSICS ALONE TELL US THERE IS AN ABSOLUTE TRUTH FOR HOW ELSE COULD WE HAVE PUT A MAN ON THE MOON. BUT IT IS ONE THING TO KNOW THERE IS AN ABSOLUTE TRUTH AND ANOTHER THING TO “KNOW” THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH, FOR MAYBE THERE IS SUCH A THING AS: “ALL THE LIGHT THAT WE CANNOT SEE.” SO AS WE LISTEN TO GEORGE WHITEFIELD'S MESSAGE ON, THE GREAT DUTY OF FAMILY RELIGION, MAYBE WE CAN KEEP IN THE BACK OF MINDS THE COMMENTS ON THE FAMILY WRITTEN ABOVE.

A married woman living during the American colonial era would have lived under the legal doctrine called "coverture," where her legal identity was subsumed under that of her husband. William Blackstone wrote, "By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in the law: that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs every thing." This was governed by colonial law before independence and state law after independence. It would not change substantially after the Revolution in most states, but divorce and child custody laws would change. Center for Civic Education

HAVE WE EVER ASKED OURSELVES WHY WE, THE INHABITANTS OF THIS EARTH DO NOT SPEAK THE SAME LANGUAGE AND HAVE A ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT RATHER THAN SEPARATE NATIONS WITH DIFFERENT LANGUAGES. WAS THERE EVER A TIME WHEN WE ALL SPAKE THE SAME LANGUAGE. AFTER THE FLOOD THERE WERE ONLY 8 HUMAN SAPIENS LEFT ON THE EARTH, NOAH AND HIS FAMILY, IN WHICH HE HAD 3 SONS AND THEIR WIVES, WHO WERE COMMANDED TO BUILD 3 SEPARATE NATIONS. SO WE HAD 4 FAMILIES MAKING UP THE 8 WHO SURVIVED THE FLOOD WHO ALL SPAKE THE SAME LANGUAGE. Gen.9 [1] And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. [2] And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. 18] And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan. [19] These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread. Gen. 10: 32] THESE are the FAMILIES of the SONS of NOAH, after their generations, in their NATIONS: and by these were the NATIONS DIVIDED in the EARTH after the FLOOD. Gen.11 [1] And the WHOLE EARTH was of ONE LANGUAGE, and of ONE SPEECH. [4] And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. [5] And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. [6] And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now NOW NOTHING will be RESTRAINED from them, which they have IMAGINED to do. [7] Go to, let us(TRINITY) go down, and there CONFOUND their LANGUAGE, that they may NOT UNDERSTAND one another's SPEECH. [8] So the LORD SCATTERED them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and THEY LEFT to BUILD the city(ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT). [9] Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there CONFOUND the LANGUAGE of ALL the EARTH: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth. WHAT WE JUST READ IS THE LONG WAY, WITH RECEIPTS, TELLING US THAT GOD BELIEVES IN INDIVIDUALS, FAMILIES, AND NATIONS AND DESPISES A ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT. THIS MESSAGE IS A PICK AND SHOVEL DISCOURSE ON BUILDING A FOUNDATION FOR THE FAMILY WHERE WE WILL INTEGRATE THE THOUGHTS OF FISHERMAN JOHN, FORMER MR. MORALITY, ISAIAH, ABRAHAM LINCOLN, GEORGE WASHINGTON, ST. AUGUSTINE, WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, AND JOHN BUNYAN AS WE BEGIN TO BUILD A FRAMEWORK OF LAWS FOR THE FAMILY, THE BLUEPRINT OF THE FAMILY IF WE PLEASE!!!

S7 E29 Susana Blamire and the Season Finale Tunes: Eliza Ross: Miss Mary____, Unnamed, Will you Take a Wife Donald, Christian Dalrymple (via James Watlen): Miss Watson's Favorite Anna Gordon: Clark Colven David Young: Tibbie Fowler of the Glen, Hey My Nanny, Ewan Maccoll: Tibbie Fowler Susana Blamire: I'm Tibby Fowler of the Glen, Oh Jenny Dear I've Courted Lang, Oh Donald! Ye are Just the Man, Jack Lattin, Cumberland Scold, Dear Nancy, Oh Jenny Dear the Word is Gane, Henderson: Lucy Campbell William Blackstone: Commentaries on the Laws of England William Vickers: Cold and Raw If you want to watch two stellar webinars hosted by the Woodsworth Grasmere https://wordsworth.org.uk/ , which houses Blamire's Archive I'd recommend these videos: https://youtu.be/6BhNwSddNuo?si=CF8RyqIkJrhbLhhB https://youtu.be/suAcu0xfGp4?si=DslPwim5BeCCGZF5 Order: Low F Women's Set 1812: (Miss Mary___, and Unnamed Jig From Eliza Ross's Manuscript http://web.archive.org/web/20230204123514/https://www.ed.ac.uk/information-services/library-museum-gallery/cultural-heritage-collections/school-scottish-studies-archives/archive-pubs/eliza-ross-manuscript You can buy the New Book version here from the National Piping Centre: https://www.thebagpipeshop.co.uk/products/the-eliza-ross-collection-pre-order +X+X+ 1791: Miss Watson's Favorite from John Watlen's Celebrated Circus Tunes https://archive.org/details/Shand11/page/n100/mode/1up?view=theater +X++X++X+ Late Eighteenth Century: Clark Colven I arranged this based on how it appears in the rather expensive book “The Ballad Repertoire of Anna Gordon, Mrs. Brown” https://www.google.com/books/edition/TheBalladRepertoireofAnnaGordonMrs/6MHWzAEACAAJ?hl=en I'm away from my copy at the moment, but you can see similar lyrics here: https://mainlynorfolk.info/frankie.armstrong/songs/clerkcolvill.html +X+X+X+ Susana Blamire: The Remainder of the Tunes and songs come from the Poetical Works of Susanna Blamire, which were first published in 1842, nearly fifty years after Susanna Died in 1794: Song from Susanna Blamire's Poetical Works https://archive.org/details/poeticalworksmi00maxwgoog/page/n6/mode/2up?view=theater +X+X+ Tibbie Fowler 1737 Tibbie Fowler in the Glen from Drummond Castle Manuscript (Ross's Music Page: https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/musicfiles/manuscripts/drummond1.pdf +X+ 1787: Tibbie Foweler from Scots Musical Museum by Johnson (and Burns and others) https://digital.nls.uk/special-collections-of-printed-music/archive/87803282 Pre 1794: I'm Tibby from Susanna Blamire's Poetical Works https://archive.org/details/poeticalworksmi00maxwgoog/page/n6/mode/2up?view=theater +X+X+X+X+X+X+ Pre 1794: Oh Jenny Dear I've Courted Lang (Lucy Campbell from Henderson) from Susanna Blamire's Poetical Works https://archive.org/details/poeticalworksmi00maxwgoog/page/n6/mode/2up?view=theater 1900: Lucy Campbell From Henderson's Tutor for the Bagpipe and Collection of Pipe Music https://ceolsean.net/content/Hendo/Hendo_TOC.html +X+X+X+ Pre 1794: Oh Donald! Ye are just the man from Susanna Blamire's Poetical Works https://archive.org/details/poeticalworksmi00maxwgoog/page/n6/mode/2up?view=theater 1812: Will you Take a Wife Donald From Eliza Ross's Manuscript http://web.archive.org/web/20230204123514/https://www.ed.ac.uk/information-services/library-museum-gallery/cultural-heritage-collections/school-scottish-studies-archives/archive-pubs/eliza-ross-manuscript You can buy the New Book version here from the National Piping Centre: https://www.thebagpipeshop.co.uk/products/the-eliza-ross-collection-pre-order Pre 1794: Cumberland Scold (Jack Lattin) From Susanna Blamire's Poetical Works https://archive.org/details/poeticalworksmi00maxwgoog/page/n6/mode/2up?view=theater +X+X+X+ 1737: Hey My Nanny from Drummond Castle Manuscript (Ross's Music Page: https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/musicfiles/manuscripts/drummond1.pdf Pre 1794: Dear Nancy from From Susanna Blamire's Poetical Works https://archive.org/details/poeticalworksmi00maxwgoog/page/n6/mode/2up?view=theater +X+X+X+ 1766: Commentaries on the Laws of England from William Blackstone. Read in full https://archive.org/details/bimeighteenth-centurycommentaries-on-the-lawsblackstone-sir-william1766/page/430/mode/2up . You can Read the Abigail and John Adams Letter Exchange from 1776 here: https://www.masshist.org/digitaladams/archive/doc?id=L17760331aa +X+X+X+ Pre 1794: Oh Jenny the Word is Gane (Cold and Raw) From Susanna Blamire's Poetical Works https://archive.org/details/poeticalworksmi00maxwgoog/page/n6/mode/2up?view=theater 1776: Cold and Raw from William Vickers' Manuscript: http://www.farnearchive.com/show_images.asp?id=R0303904&image=1 +X+X+X+ FIN Here are some ways you can support the show: You can support the Podcast by joining the Patreon page at https://www.patreon.com/wetootwaag You can also take a minute to leave a review of the podcast if you listen on Itunes! Tell your piping and history friends about the podcast! Checkout my Merch Store on Bagpipeswag: https://www.bagpipeswag.com/wetootwaag You can also support me by Buying my First Album on Bandcamp: https://jeremykingsbury.bandcamp.com/album/oyster-wives-rant-a-year-of-historic-tunes or my second album on Bandcamp! https://jeremykingsbury.bandcamp.com/album/pay-the-pipemaker or my third album on Bandcamp! https://jeremykingsbury.bandcamp.com/album/bannocks-of-barley-meal You can now buy physical CDs of my albums using this Kunaki link: https://kunaki.com/msales.asp?PublisherId=166528&pp=1 You can just send me an email at wetootwaag@gmail.com letting me know what you thought of the episode! Listener mail keeps me going! Finally I have some other support options here: https://www.wetootwaag.com/support Thanks! Listen on Itunes/Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/wetootwaags-bagpipe-and-history-podcast/id129776677 Listen on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/5QxzqrSm0pu6v8y8pLsv5j?si=QLiG0L1pT1eu7B5_FDmgGA

With economic recession, inflation and increasing national debt, how are Christians supposed to think about their money and building wealth to leave an inheritance? In this episode, we interview Jonathan Wellum from Rocklinc Investment Partners Inc. on how God's Law helps us understand economics from a Christian perspective. He talks about how the Bible's economic principles help build strong economies, the problems with inflationary fiat currency, and what's the better (more Biblical) alternative. We also talk about how Christian entrepreneurs can build thriving businesses even in a time of economic hardship and how Christians in full-time ministry can build equity and wealth. Finally, Jonathan exposes some of the most common misconceptions about economics and gives some advice on how pastors can help equip their flocks to think Christianly about economics. Don't miss this episode! -------------------

Today David notes a pervasive aspect of social order and law that seems to be wholly missing from the Christian worldview or, more broadly, Christian cosmology. He uses Herman Bavinck, A.W. Pink, William Blackstone, the U.S. Constitution, and a familiar 1992 SCOTUS decision to demonstrate his point. Faithful politics must begin to deal with this forgotten cosmological reality.

Today David notes a pervasive aspect of social order and law that seems to be wholly missing from the Christian worldview or, more broadly, Christian cosmology. He uses Herman Bavinck, A.W. Pink, William Blackstone, the U.S. Constitution, and a familiar 1992 SCOTUS decision to demonstrate his point. Faithful politics must begin to deal with this forgotten cosmological reality.Support the show: https://www.factennessee.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

David uses a quote from William Blackstone’s famous Commentaries about common law that explains the two foundations for human law and how they were applied to various kinds of social issues. He uses it to test the legal arguments being made in court by leading pro-family advocates in defense of laws involving children and medical procedures affecting their reproductive systems. The contrast may shock you.

David uses a quote from William Blackstone's famous Commentaries about common law that explains the two foundations for human law and how they were applied to various kinds of social issues. He uses it to test the legal arguments being made in court by leading pro-family advocates in defense of laws involving children and medical procedures affecting their reproductive systems. The contrast may shock you.Support the show: https://www.factennessee.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

George Wythe is one of the most interesting, important, and least known of the founders.  The second law professor in the English-speaking world (the first was William Blackstone), he taught the law to Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall, Henry Clay, and others.  He also was one of the few Virginia leaders to free the people he owned, and he taught at least one Latin, Greek, and the Law before being poisoned, at the age of 80, by a jealous nephew.  George Wythe, signer of the Declaration of Independence, deserves to be better known, and Wythepedia is where to begin.  Join us in conversation with Steven Blaiklock and Linda Tesar from the Wolf Law Library at the College of William and Mary in a conversation about George Wythe, the law, and the Revolution in Virginia. 

Although women were not admitted to UVA Law as students until 1920, their presence on Grounds helped shape the legal curriculum of the 19th century. Professor Laura Edwards discusses the Black and white women who lived and labored at UVA, and the ways in which they navigated the repressive limitations on their legal power. 

A legal remedy, also referred to as judicial relief or a judicial remedy, is the means with which a court of law, usually in the exercise of civil law jurisdiction, enforces a right, imposes a penalty, or makes another court order to impose its will in order to compensate for the harm of a wrongful act inflicted upon an individual. In common law jurisdictions and mixed civil-common law jurisdictions, the law of remedies distinguishes between a legal remedy (for example a specific amount of monetary damages) and an equitable remedy (for example injunctive relief or specific performance). Another type of remedy available in these systems is declaratory relief, where a court determines the rights of the parties to action without awarding damages or ordering equitable relief. The type of legal remedies to be applied in specific cases depend on the nature of the wrongful act and its liability. In international human rights law, there is a right to an effective remedy. In the legal system of the United States, there exists a traditional form of judicial remedies that serve to combat juror biases caused by news coverage. The First Amendment of the United States forbids the government from censoring and restraining the freedom of expression, which allows the ever-expanding news media to influence the legal process. The entangled relationship between mass media and the legal system presents challenges to the Sixth Amendment that guarantees the rights of criminal defendants to receive fair trials. Trial-level remedies are in place to avoid pretrial publicity from affecting the fairness of a trial. To minimize the impacts of pretrial publicity, there are six kinds of judicial remedies at the disposal of judges: voir dire, change of venue, change of veniremen, continuance, admonition, sequestration. In English and American jurisprudence, there is a legal maxim (albeit one sometimes honored in the breach) that for every right, there is a remedy; where there is no remedy, there is no right. That is, lawmakers claim to provide appropriate remedies to protect rights. This legal maxim was first enunciated by William Blackstone: "It is a settled and invariable principle in the laws of England, that every right when with-held must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress." In addition to the United Kingdom and the United States, legal remedy is a concept widely practiced in the legal system of a variety of countries, though approached differently. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Professor John Barbee Minor led the Law School from 1845 to his death in 1895. Dr. Randi Flaherty discusses Minor's role in not only expanding the law curriculum and UVA Law's regional prominence, but also in promulgating a curriculum that justified slavery and white supremacy.

Slavery was always a part of Thomas Jefferson's vision for the University of Virginia. Professor Justene Hill Edwards discusses the lived experience of slavery on Grounds as well as the intersections of slavery and legal pedagogy at UVA Law. 

At its founding in 1819, Thomas Jefferson wanted UVA Law to prepare leaders and lawyers to serve the new nation, but students desired more practical legal training. Professor David Konig joins us to describe the shifting landscape of early nineteenth-century legal education.

In June, the United States Supreme Court decided a 2nd Amendment controversy and reversed Roe v. Wade citing William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England as authority. After you listen, you will be astounded to learn how much the cosmology of Genesis Chapters 1 through 3 informed Blackstone’s description of the nature of law. You will know what even most Christian lawyers don’t know about law.

In June, the United States Supreme Court decided a 2nd Amendment controversy and reversed Roe v. Wade citing William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England as authority. Listen and you will be astounded to learn how much the cosmology of Genesis Chapters 1 through 3 informed Blackstone's description of the nature of law. You will know what even most Christian lawyers don't know any more about law.Support the show: https://www.factennessee.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In June, the United States Supreme Court decided a 2nd Amendment controversy and reversed Roe v. Wade citing William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England as authority. After you listen, you will be astounded to learn how much the cosmology of Genesis Chapters 1 through 3 informed Blackstone’s description of the nature of law. You will know what even most Christian lawyers don’t know about law.

Ann & Hope… were two women. Then the words became the name of a ship, followed by a mill, and later a store. This week, I'll bring you along as I learn the story of the Ann & Hope Mill and the discount department store that shared its name. And along the way, we'll even uncover a bit of a mystery. Episode Source MaterialAnn and Hope Store Complex (Ann and Hope Mill, Lonsdale Mill) | SAH ARCHIPEDIAAnn & Hope mill sells for $3.5 million | News | valleybreeze.comDevelopers unveil proposal for old Ann & Hope building | WPRI.comHistoricandArchitectural Resources of Cumberland, Rhode IslandThe Hermit of Study Hill: Where are Blackstone's bones? – Rhode's GalleryBrown and IvesLonsdale Company Records (MSS 9 SG 2)Ann & Hope - WikipediaPassages: Irwin Chase, co-founder of Ann & Hope department store, paved way for Walmart, KmartThe Wal-Mart RevolutionHow to be a Billionaire: Proven Strategies from the Titans of WealthCaptain Wilbur Kelly - Blackstone River ValleyThe Landmark | BVHS HistoricandArchitectural Resources of Cumberland, Rhode IslandThe mysterious case of William Blackstone's remains | News | valleybreeze.comWilliam Blackstone Memorial Park | quahog.orgNational Register of Historic Places Inventory-Nomination Form 1. Name 2 Location 3. Classification 4. Owner of Property 5. LocaBlackstone River State Park, Bikeway, and Visitor's Center HistoryMill Preservation in the Blackstone River ValleyRhode Island Jewish Historical Notes | 1972Ann & Hope: America's First Superstore | Down the Rhode #11993 Annual ReportDiscount store - Wikipedia

William Blackstone's explanations of English law, published between 1765 and 1769, were incredibly influential on the formation of basic rights in America. Listen to today's episode to learn more! Center for Civic Education

William Blackstone's explanations of English law, published between 1765 and 1769, were incredibly influential on the formation of basic rights in America. Listen to today's episode to learn more! Center for Civic Education

McConnell Center Director Dr. Gary Gregg and Dr. Khalil Habib, Associate Professor of Politics at Hillsdale College, explore four of the leading intellects of the Eighteenth Century who influenced American Order: Baron de Montesquieu, Edmund Burke, William Blackstone, and David Hume. Corresponding Reading  Chapter 10, pp. 347-391 of Russell Kirk, The Roots of American Order Important Links  Download the corresponding reading guide to The Roots of American Order here Learn more about The Roots of American Order at https://louisville.edu/mcconnellcenter/programs-events/bic Subscribe to our newsletter and receive McConnell Center updates directly in your mailbox Russell Kirk, Edmund Burke: A Genius Reconsidered This podcast is a production of the McConnell Center at the University of Louisville. For more information, including upcoming events, please visit us online at mcconnellcenter.org or on social media at:  Facebook: @mcconnellcenter  Instagram: @ulmcenter  Twitter: @ULmCenter Contributors  Host: Dr. Gary L. Gregg II, McConnell Center Director Guest: Dr. Khalil Habib, Hillsdale College Producer and Editor: Will Randolph, McConnell Scholar 

Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human with malice aforethought. This state of mind may, depending upon the jurisdiction, distinguish murder from other forms of unlawful homicide, such as manslaughter. Manslaughter is killing committed in the absence of malice, brought about by reasonable provocation, or diminished capacity. Involuntary manslaughter, where it is recognized, is a killing that lacks all but the most attenuated guilty intent, recklessness. Most societies consider murder to be an extremely serious crime, and thus that a person convicted of murder should receive harsh punishments for the purposes of retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, or incapacitation. In most countries, a person convicted of murder generally faces a long-term prison sentence, a life sentence, or capital punishment. Use of the term. In many countries, in news reports, out of concern for being accused of defamation, journalists are generally careful not to identify a suspect as a murderer until the suspect is convicted of murder in a court of law. After arrest, for example, journalists may instead write that the person was "arrested on suspicion of murder", or, after a prosecutor files charges, as an "accused murderer". Opponents of abortion consider abortion a form of murder. In some countries, a fetus is a legal person who can be murdered, and killing a pregnant woman is considered a double homicide. Definition. The eighteenth-century English jurist William Blackstone (citing Edward Coke), in his Commentaries on the Laws of England set out the common law definition of murder, which by this definition occurs when a person, of sound memory and discretion, unlawfully kills any reasonable creature in being and under the king's peace, with malice aforethought, either express or implied. The elements of common law murder are: unlawful, killing, through criminal act or omission, of a human, by another human, and, with malice aforethought. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

Property law in the United States is the area of law that governs the various forms of ownership in real property (land and buildings) and personal property, including intangible property such as intellectual property. Property refers to legally protected claims to resources, such as land and personal property. Property can be exchanged through contract law, and if property is violated, one could sue under tort law to protect it. United States property law is primarily an area for state law, although there are also federal laws (for example, on patents and copyright) and some local laws involvement (on areas such as zoning and tenancy). Property law in the states generally originate from the common law and have been modified by statutes. The Restatements on Property gives an overview of certain areas of property law in the United States. Theory of property rights. Definition of property rights. There are two main views on the right to property in the United States, the traditional view and the bundle of rights view. The traditionalists believe that there is a core, inherent meaning in the concept of property, while the bundle of rights view states that the property owner only has bundle of permissible uses over the property. The two views exist on a spectrum and the difference may be a matter of focus and emphasis. William Blackstone, in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, wrote that the essential core of property is the right to exclude. That is, the owner of property must be able to exclude others from the thing in question, even though the right to exclude is subject to limitations. By implication, the owner can use the thing, unless another restriction, such as zoning law, prevents it. Other traditionalists argue that three main rights define property: the right to exclusion, use and transfer. An alternative view of property, favored by legal realists, is that property simply denotes a bundle of rights defined by law and social policy. Which rights are included in the bundle known as property rights, and which bundles are preferred to which others, is simply a matter of policy. Therefore, a government can prevent the building of a factory on a piece of law, through zoning law or criminal law, without damaging the concept of property. The "bundle of rights" view was prominent in academia in the 20th century and remains influential today in American law. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

Property law in the United States is the area of law that governs the various forms of ownership in real property (land and buildings) and personal property, including intangible property such as intellectual property. Property refers to legally protected claims to resources, such as land and personal property. Property can be exchanged through contract law, and if property is violated, one could sue under tort law to protect it. United States property law is primarily an area for state law, although there are also federal laws (for example, on patents and copyright) and some local laws involved (on areas such as zoning and tenancy). Property law in the states generally originate from the common law and have been modified by statutes. The Restatements on Property gives an overview of certain areas of property law in the United States. Theory of property rights. Definition of property rights. There are two main views on the right to property in the United States, the traditional view and the bundle of rights view. The traditionalists believe that there is a core, inherent meaning in the concept of property, while the bundle of rights view states that the property owner only has a bundle of permissible uses over the property. The two views exist on a spectrum and the difference may be a matter of focus and emphasis. William Blackstone, in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, wrote that the essential core of property is the right to exclude. That is, the owner of property must be able to exclude others from the thing in question, even though the right to exclude is subject to limitations. By implication, the owner can use the thing, unless another restriction, such as zoning law, prevents it. Other traditionalists argue that three main rights define property: the right to exclusion, use and transfer. An alternative view of property, favored by legal realists, is that property simply denotes a bundle of rights defined by law and social policy. Which rights are included in the bundle known as property rights, and which bundles are preferred to which others, is simply a matter of policy. Therefore, a government can prevent the building of a factory on a piece of law, through zoning law or criminal law, without damaging the concept of property. The "bundle of rights" view was prominent in academia in the 20th century and remains influential today in American law. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

Should Christians unconditionally obey all decrees, mandates, or laws- even if the said law contradicts the Supreme Law of God? Should we obey God or should we obey man? Topics Discussed The words of the great William Blackstone on the meaning of the word “law”. What exactly is natural law and why is it important? What is the revealed law, and who is the Author of it? Should we obey human laws if they are in opposition to God's law? Ezekiel 16:20-21, and the breakdown of the paternal authority into the most savage tyranny that ever was, and now is. The “mystical” value of the sacrament of Satan. Abortion-tainted products and medicines for Christians to avoid and boycott. Government agencies are purchasing “fresh, not frozen” baby body parts- and they want us to believe that care about our safety? All civil authority's power is delegated from God, is jurisdictional, and conditional in nature. God always has the last word. Much, much more! Please like, share, and subscribe! Video- https://ugetube.com/@misanthropic_monk Video- https://www.bitchute.com/channel/BbJnmmsNdL5Q/ Video- https://odysee.com/@MisanthropicMonk:b Video- https://rumble.com/c/c-652607 Social Media- www.gab.com/MisanthropicMonk Email- misanthropicmonk@protonmail.com

Our nation and our first educational institutions were founded on the principles of Christ.  Our Declaration proclaims this to the world and our colleges and universities has these principles sewn into their very fabric.  The farther we stray from these principles the more and more our nation and our system of education unravels.

Another of the unsung heroes of the pre-Revolutionary era of the United States - Sir William Blackstone. His ideas and work on the history of the laws of England inspired generations of American lawyers up through the mid-20th Century until activist judges entered the scene. One of the generations he inspired wrote our Constitution. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/paideia-ponderings/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/paideia-ponderings/support

What were the key texts, authors, and sources the framers looked to when drafting the Constitution? Scholars Richard Albert of the University of Texas at Austin, Jonathan Gienapp of Stanford University, and Colleen Sheehan of Arizona State University explore what books were on the shelves of founders like James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, and where some of the ideas behind the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution came from, in a conversation moderated by National Constitution Center President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen. They discuss the influence of ancient and contemporaneous philosophers, thinkers, and writers—including Plutarch, Aristotle, Montesquieu, Jean-Jacques Barthélemy, John Locke, Emer de Vattel, William Blackstone, David Hume, and more. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library

A married woman living during the American colonial era would have lived under the legal doctrine called "coverture," where her legal identity was subsumed under that of her husband. William Blackstone wrote, "By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in the law: that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs every thing." This was governed by colonial law before independence and state law after independence. It would not change substantially after the Revolution in most states, but divorce and child custody laws would change. Center for Civic Education

Who is William Blackstone? Levi Hazen provides an overview of the life and legacy of a man that has impacted the lives of many - but is only known to a few.

On this 'Ask Charlie Anything' edition of The Charlie Kirk Show, Charlie answers the audience questions you send him from Freedom@CharlieKirk.com including: Is America founded on Christian values? Who is William Blackstone? Are Republicans trending well or ill in 2022? Will the government soon move to ban or highly regulate homeschooling? And what are Charlie's favorite books?  As always—email Freedom@CharlieKirk.com for your chance to have Charlie answer your question in an upcoming episode of Ask Charlie Anything.  Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/support Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/support See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

“Roe v. Wade has no foundation in either law or logic; it is on a collision course with itself.”  Edward Lazarus, a former law clerk to Roe's author, Justice Harry Blackmun, who writes: As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible. I say this as someone utterly committed to the right to choose, as someone who believes such a right has grounding elsewhere in the Constitution instead of where Roe placed it, and as someone who loved Roe's author like a grandfather. . . . . What, exactly, is the problem with Roe? The problem, I believe, is that it has little connection to the Constitutional right it purportedly interpreted. A constitutional right to privacy broad enough to include abortion has no meaningful foundation in constitutional text, history, or precedent. ... The proof of Roe's failings comes not from the writings of those unsympathetic to women's rights, but from the decision itself and the friends who have tried to sustain it. Justice Blackmun's opinion provides essentially no reasoning in support of its holding. And in the almost 30 years since Roe's announcement, no one has produced a convincing defense of Roe on its own terms.7 Ten Legal Reasons to Condemn Roe v. Wade 1.    The umpires are there to call balls and strikes. In real baseball they cannot be players as well.   The Roe Court far exceeded its constitutionally designated legal purpose and authority.  Under the U.S. Constitution, the power to make laws is vested in Congress and retained by state legislatures. Elected representatives are the proper ‘makers of law.’ These elected officials then answer to the voters. The role of the judiciary in constitutional review is to determine if the law being challenged infringes on a constitutionally protected right. It is not the role to then somehow come up with new laws of their own tastes and inclination. Justice O'Connor, quoting Chief Justice Warren Burger: Irrespective of what we may believe is wise or prudent policy in this difficult area, "the Constitution does not constitute us as 'Platonic Guardians' nor does it vest in this Court the authority to strike down laws because they do not meet our standards of desirable social policy, 'wisdom,' or 'common sense.'"8 In Roe v. Wade and its companion, conjoined case, Doe v. Bolton, the Court struck down criminal laws of Texas and Georgia which outlawed certain abortions by finding that these laws (and those of the other 48 states) violated a "right of privacy" that "is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." But such a right is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution nor even derivable from values embodied in it. It was a preference to have such a right and Justice Blackmun’s writings actually set themselves to devise the ‘rules’ that would then ‘emanate’ from such a preferred right. He simply made up new, substitutionary laws and imposed them on all the states!  In his dissenting opinion in Doe v. Bolton, Justice Byron White, joined by Justice William Rehnquist, wrote: I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers ... and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 states are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court. 2. The Roe Decision seriously misrepresents the history of medicine and society’s view of abortion. Justice Blackmun admitted to a serious fascination with the medical profession. Later in Doe v. Bolton we will see an almost passionate commitment to ‘protect the physician from the cloud of possible prosecution.’ The Mayo Clinic, for whom he served as legal counsel, admits to Blackmun’s unique obsession with the medical profession.  Proceedings of the Mayo Clinic Francis Helminski, J.D. Volume 69, Issue 7, p 698-699, July 01, 1994 Although three previous justices of the United States Supreme Court have had formal medical training, none has had more influence on medicine than Justice Harry A. Blackmun. Blackmun, a mathematics major at Harvard College, considered medical school but instead chose legal training. After becoming familiar with the legal work of the Mayo Clinic while practicing with a Minneapolis firm, he was internal legal counsel for the clinic from 1950 to 1959. Blackmun's work contributed to the development of the clinic, especially in the establishment of Rochester Methodist Hospital. As a Supreme Court Justice, Blackmun's concern for medicine was evident in many of his judicial opinions, including Roe v Wade and Regents of the University of California v Bakke. In Roe, he rested much of the constitutional foundation for legalized access to abortion on the integrity of the physician-patient relationship. The apparent purpose of the Roe opinion's long historical excursion is to create the impression that abortion had been widely practiced and unpunished until the appearance of restrictive laws in the prudishly-Victorian 19th Century. One example is adequate to show the distortion of Justice Harry Blackmun's version of history. He must overcome a huge hurdle in the person of Hippocrates, the "Father of Medicine," and his famous Oath which has guided medical ethics for over 2,000 years. The Oath provides in part: "I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion."9 This enduring standard was followed until the Roe era and is reflected in Declarations of the World Medical Association through 1968: "I will maintain the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception. ..."10 But Justice Blackmun dismisses this universal, unbroken ethical tradition as nothing more than the manifesto of a fringe Greek sect, the Pythagoreans, to which Hippocrates is alleged to have belonged! 3. Roe wrongly characterizes the common law of England regarding the status of abortion. The Court's language in Roe offers a plastic analysis and conclusion – "it now appears doubtful that abortion was ever firmly established as a common-law crime even with respect to the destruction of a quick fetus" – is patently false on its face. The Common Law drew its principles from Natural Law. Until quickening there were no objective signs that a human life was present. Quickening, the moment that movement can be detected, was considered objective scientific fact that the fetus was indeed definitively alive.11 William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769), an exhaustive and definitive discussion of English common law as it was adopted by the United States shows that the lives of unborn children were valued and protected, even if their beginning point was still thought to be "quickening" rather than conception: Life is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as the infant is able to stir in the mother's womb.    For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb ... this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter. But at present it is not looked upon in quite so atrocious a light, though it remains a very heinous misdemeanor.12 Until well into the 19th century, it was assumed that a child's life may not begin – and certainly could not be proven to have begun to satisfy criminal evidentiary standards – prior to the time the child’s movements were felt by the mother ("quickening"), at approximately 16-18 weeks' gestation. The science of the time was being applied to the enforcement of the law. After the invention of the modern microscope (1836) and the widespread, objective scientific revelation that mammalian life begins at conception, English law then increased the penalties for killing a child before quickening. Consistent with the principle that the law needs to follow objective, observable facts, in 1861 Parliament passed the Offences Against the Person Act. This law extended protection of the life of the child throughout pregnancy. This law was gradually whittled-away starting in the 1980’s. But the Act continued to protect pre-born life in Northern Ireland until 2019.20 The Roe Court looks at the distinction in early common law concerning abortions attempted before or after "quickening," wrongly. It falsely assumes that the law allowed women great latitude to abort their children in the early months of pregnancy. This is like saying people had an unspecified right to hack websites before such acts were criminally prosecuted. The law is designed to enforce known and demonstrable crimes. A law could not protect a human being it did not know to be alive. But as demonstrated by the Offences Against the Person Act, when the facts are known, then the law can be enforced. 4. In Roe, the Court downplays and distorts the purpose and legal weight of state criminal abortion statutes that had been deliberated and passed by the several states In the 19th Century, in virtually every state and territory, laws were enacted to define abortion as a crime throughout pregnancy. They contained only narrow exceptions, generally permitting abortion only if necessary to preserve the mother's life. The primary reason for stricter abortion laws, according to their legislative history, was to afford greater protection to unborn children. This reflected a heightened appreciation of prenatal life based on new medical knowledge. (See the Offenses Against the Person Act in the U.K.) Dr. Horatio R. Storer… etc is significant that the medical profession spearheaded efforts to afford greater protection to unborn lives than had been recognized under the common law's archaic "quickening" distinction. The existence of such laws, and their clear purpose of protecting the unborn, rebuts the Court's claim that abortion has always been considered a liberty enjoyed by women. These laws show broad acceptance of the view that the life of an unborn child is valuable and should be protected unless the mother's life is at risk. In that case, of course, both mother and child were likely to perish, given the primitive care then available for infants born prematurely. How does the Court get around the impressive body of laws giving clear effect to the state's interest in protecting unborn lives? It attempts to devalue them by ascribing a completely different purpose: the desire to protect the mother's life and health from a risky surgical procedure. Applying the maxim "if the reason for a law has ceased to exist, the law no longer serves any purpose," the Court declares that abortion is now "safer than childbirth." Therefore, laws banning abortion have outlived their purpose.   5. A privacy right to decide to have an abortion has no foundation in the text or history of the Constitution. Roe v. Wade locates a pregnant woman's "constitutional" right of privacy to decide whether or not to abort her child either "in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty ..., as we feel it is, or ... in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people." The Court does not even make a pretense of examining the intent of the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment, to determine if it was meant to protect a privacy interest in abortion. Clearly it was not. The Fourteenth Amendment was not intended to create any new rights, but to secure to all persons, notably including freed slaves and their descendants, the rights and liberties already guaranteed by the Constitution. Several rhetorical devices are used to mask this absence of constitutional grounding. The Court mentions several specifically enumerated rights which concern an aspect of privacy, for example, the Fourth Amendment's "right of the people to be secure in their houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." However, the Court fails to connect these to the newly found "right" to abortion, because no logical connection exists. Justice Blackmun attempts to graft abortion onto the line of decisions recognizing privacy/liberty rights in the following spheres: marriage (Loving v. Virginia, striking down a ban on interracial marriage); childrearing (Meyer v. Nebraska and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, upholding parental decision-making regarding their children's education); procreation (Skinner v. Oklahoma, finding unconstitutional a state law mandating sterilization of inmates found guilty of certain crimes); and contraceptive use by a married couple (Griswold v. Connecticut). Certainly marriage, and building and raising a family are fundamental aspects of human life that predate human laws and nations. They are implicit in the concept of liberty and the pursuit of happiness, though even these rights are subject to state limitation, such as laws against bigamy, incest, and child abuse and neglect. But abortion does not fit neatly among these spheres of privacy. It negates them. Abortion is not akin to childrearing; it is child destruction. A pregnant woman's right to abort nullifies the right to procreate upheld in "Skinner." He no longer has a right to bring children into the world, but only a right to fertilize an ovum, which his mate can then destroy without his knowledge or consent. The fear of government intruding into the marital bedroom by searching for evidence of contraceptive use drove the Griswold Court to find a privacy right for couples to use contraception in the "penumbras, formed by emanations from" various guarantees in the Bill of Rights. But, however closely abortion and contraception may be linked in purpose and effect, they are worlds apart in terms of privacy. Abortions do not take place in the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms, preventing them does not require investigation of private sexual behavior, and they involve personnel other than the spouses. A "privacy right" large enough to encompass abortion could also be applied to virtually any conduct performed outside the public view, including child abuse, possession of pornography or using illicit drugs. The liberty interest to be protected from state regulation is never really defined in Roe. Instead the Court describes at some length the hardships some women face, not from pregnancy, but from raising children: Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by childcare. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. By this reasoning, one might argue that Roe's liberty encompasses ridding oneself of unwanted toddlers! Ordinarily, the defense of rights requires us to forgo lethal methods and use means likely to create the least harm to others. We may not, for example, surround our house and yard with a high voltage fence to deter trespassers. This principle is upended in the abortion context. Adoption, for example, would effectively eliminate all the "hardships" of raising "unwanted" children by non-lethal means. 6. Although it reads the 14th Amendment extremely expansively to include a right of privacy to decide whether to abort a child, the Court in Roe adopts a very narrow construction of the meaning of "persons" to exclude unborn children. Much is made of the fact that "person" as used elsewhere in the Constitution does not refer to unborn children when, for example, discussing qualifications for public office or census-taking. That point proves nothing. The Supreme Court has held that corporations are "persons" within the meaning of the 14th Amendment and they are not counted in the census, nor can a corporation grow up to be president. The Roe Court also ignored the clear and uncontested biological evidence before them that individual human lives begin at conception: "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins." This is question determined by science, not philosophers or theologians or politicians. But while seeming to sidestep the question, the Court in fact resolved the question at birth, by allowing abortion to be legal throughout pregnancy. In the same vein, the Court refers to the unborn child as only a "potential life" (indeed, an actual life) from the moment of his or her conception. The Roe opinion states that a contrary finding on "personhood" would produce the opposite result (presumably foreclosing the mother's privacy right to an abortion). One does not have to be a "person" in the full constitutional sense, however, for a state to validly protect one's life. Dogs can be protected from killing although they are not "persons."13 And under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), people are prosecuted, fined and jailed for acts that may harm creatures, such as sea turtles, that are not "persons" in the full constitutional sense. Sea turtles are protected not only after they are hatched, but even while in the egg. In fact, each sea turtle egg removed from its nest constitutes a separate violation under the ESA, regardless of whether the sea turtle egg contained an embryo that was alive or "quick" or "viable" or even already deceased at the time of the taking.   7. The Roe Court assumed the role of a legislature in establishing the trimester framework. Roe holds that in the first trimester of pregnancy, the mother's "privacy interest" in an abortion trumps state regulation. From the end of the first trimester to the child's "viability" – which the Court presumed to be no earlier than 26 weeks – the state can regulate abortion practice only in ways reasonably related to advancing the mother's health. In the final trimester, the state – in the interest of protecting the "potential life" of the child – can regulate and even proscribe abortion, except where necessary to preserve the mother's "life or health." Health (see point 8 below) is the exception that swallows the rule. Pre-decision memoranda among members of the Roe Court acknowledged the serious flaw in establishing arbitrary, rigid time frames. Justice Blackmun himself admitted it was arbitrary.14 A reply memorandum from Justice Potter Stewart stated: One of my concerns with your opinion as presently written is ... in its fixing of the end of the first trimester as the critical point for valid state action. ... I wonder about the desirability of the dicta being quite so inflexibly "legislative." My present inclination would be to allow the States more latitude to make policy judgments. ..."15 Geoffrey R. Stone, a law clerk to Justice Brennan when Roe was decided, was recently quoted as saying: "Everyone in the Supreme Court, all the justices, all the law clerks knew it was 'legislative' or 'arbitrary.'"16 Justices O'Connor, White and Rehnquist denounced the arbitrary trimester framework in O'Connor's dissenting opinion in Akron: [There] is no justification in law or logic for the trimester framework adopted in Roe and employed by the Court today. ... [That] framework is clearly an unworkable means of balancing the fundamental right and the compelling state interests that are indisputably implicated. The majority opinion of Justice Rehnquist in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services states: The key elements of the Roe framework – trimesters and viability – are not found in the text of the Constitution or in any place else one would expect to find a constitutional principle. ... the result has been a web of legal rules that have become increasingly intricate, resembling a code of regulations rather than a body of constitutional doctrine. As Justice White has put it, the trimester framework has left this Court to serve as the country's "ex officio medical board with powers to approve or disapprove medical and operative practices and standards throughout the United States."   8. What Roe gives, Doe takes away. Many Americans believe that abortion is legal only in the first trimester (or first and second trimester). Many pollsters and media outlets continue to characterize Roe v. Wade as the case which "legalized abortions in the first three months after conception."17 In a recent television appearance, NOW's former president Patricia Ireland falsely claimed that "thirty-six states outlaw abortion in the third trimester." As noted above, under Roe state laws banning late-term abortions must contain a "health" exception. Health is defined in Roe's companion case, Doe v. Bolton, as including "all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health." This definition negates the state's interest in protecting the child, and results in abortion on request throughout all nine months of pregnancy. The fact that the Court buries its improbably broad definition of health in the largely unread opinion in Doe v. Bolton makes it no less devastating.   9. The Court describes the right to abortion as "fundamental." The Supreme Court has found certain rights fundamental. Expressed or implied in the Constitution, they are considered "deeply rooted in the history and traditions" of the American people or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," such as the free exercise of religion, the right to marry, the right to a fair trial and equal protection. A state law infringing on a fundamental right is reviewed under a rigorous "strict scrutiny" standard. In effect, there is a presumption against constitutionality. The Roe Court claims abortion is fundamental on the ground that it is lurking in the penumbras and emanations of the Bill of Rights or the 14th Amendment, along with privacy rights like contraceptive use. It's ludicrous to claim abortion is deeply rooted in American history or traditions or that our governmental system of "ordered liberty" implicitly demands the rights to destroy one's child, but it was an effective way to foreclose state regulations of abortion. The strict scrutiny test was later abandoned in Casey.   10. Despite the rigid specificity of the trimester framework, the opinion gives little guidance to states concerning the permissible scope of abortion regulation Abortion decisions that followed Roe chronologically have not followed Roe jurisprudentially. Many decisions have five separate opinions filed, often with no more than three justices concurring on most points. Eight separate opinions were filed in Stenberg v. Carhart (which effectively nullified laws in over two dozen states banning partial-birth abortion). The 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey could have resulted in Roe's reversal. The Casey Joint Opinion (there being no majority opinion) comes close to conceding that Roe was wrongly decided: We do not need to say whether each of us, had we been Members of the Court when the valuation of the state interest came before it as an original matter, would have concluded, as the Roe Court did, that its weight is insufficient to justify a ban on abortions prior to viability even when it is subject to certain exceptions. The matter is not before us in the first instance, and, coming as it does after nearly 20 years of litigation in Roe's wake we are satisfied that the immediate question is not the soundness of Roe's resolution of the issue, but the precedential force that must be accorded to its holding. Instead they jettisoned Roe's trimester framework and standard of legislative review, but kept Roe alive: Chief Justice Rehnquist's dissent in Casey, in which he is joined in part by Justices White, Scalia and Thomas states: Roe decided that a woman had a fundamental right to an abortion. The joint opinion rejects that view. Roe decided that abortion regulations were to be subjected to "strict scrutiny," and could be justified only in the light of "compelling state interests." The joint opinion rejects that view. ... Roe analyzed abortion regulation under a rigid trimester framework, a framework that has guided this Court's decision-making for 19 years. The joint opinion rejects that framework. ... Whatever the "central holding" of Roe that is left after the joint opinion finishe[d] ... Roe continues to exist, but only in the way a storefront on a western movie set exists: a mere facade to give the illusion of reality. And later in that dissent: Roe v. Wade stands as a sort of judicial Potemkin village, which may be pointed out to passers-by as a monument to the importance of adhering to precedent. But behind the façade, an entirely new method of analysis, without any roots in constitutional law, is imported to decide the constitutionality of state laws regulating abortion. Neither stare decisis nor "legitimacy" are truly served by such an effort. Roe makes no legal sense whatsoever. It is Doe v. Bolton, handed down the same day, and 'interlocked' by Justice Blackmun, it is Doe that explicitly authorizes medical killing, "without the shadow of possible prosecution."

Discussions ranging from Captain Thomas Preston & 29th Regiment to William Blackstone's 4 Volume Series on Commentaries Of The Laws Of England, Patriot & Loyalist Narrative/Account Reports Of Massacre, and Prosecution/Defense Measures. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/kirk-monroe/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/kirk-monroe/support

What is reasonable doubt? Can it be defined? Who does it really help?Covered topics: Caylee Anthony, Reasonable Doubt, Standard of Proof, William Blackstone, Victor V. Nebraska, Rene Descartes, Cartesian DoubtFurther Reading:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvIdgW74LCkhttps://www.reuters.com/article/us-crime-anthony-reaction/anthony-verdict-a-victory-for-reasonable-doubt-experts-say-idUSTRE7646U820110705http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2011/07/nancy_grace_explains_what_the.htmlhttps://abcnews.go.com/US/casey_anthony_trial/casey-anthony-juror-jury-sick-stomach-guilty-verdict/story?id=14005609https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UD3rqRwPPckhttps://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/10/supreme-court-nonunanimous-juries-oral-argument.htmlhttps://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/15/magazine/split-jurors.html Our GDPR privacy policy was updated on August 8, 2022. Visit acast.com/privacy for more information.

The 9th Amendment says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." What are the "other rights"? Our Founders' understanding of government and law at the time of the nation's founding was deeply rooted in common law and the idea that our rights are pre-governmental. And, the government's role is to secure those rights. Professor Adam MacLeod of Faulkner University discusses the common law and its role in our government and lives even today. Support the show.

In this episode of Liberty Unveiled (Teshuah Unveiled), Bradley Hopp introduces the Podcast, the Teshuah Tea Company, and its rescue mission in communist Asia. He sits with Pastor Sam as they go through the roles and importance of the Bible in the founding of America. Listen in now and be edified Conversation Highlights [00:38] Brad introduces Teshuah Unveiled Podcast and describes the Teshuah Tea Company, including their work with rescue and rehabilitation of girls from sex trafficking, with help from their missionary partner Andrew [11:34] Teshuah addresses both the physical needs and spiritual needs of these ladies [12:02] Some Teshuah Tea Company products [16:00] Each institution was created by God(individual, family, church, and government) is made better by following God [17:30] The Cranberry Twilight Tea [20:04] Pastor Sam and Brad disclose that the Super bowl and Ice fishing periods give occasion for a large percentage of sex trafficking. [22:08] 2000 students a month are trafficked in Georgia [23:24] If you are thinking of ways to help, apart from working in the field as a missionary, you can support the missionary fighting sex trafficking by donating or buying Tea from Teshuah grown by the rehabilitated girls. [32:16] Upon these two foundations; the laws of nature and the laws of revelation(found only in the scriptures), depend all human laws - William Blackstone [35:42] We all have a choice [49:54] God designed rest [53:53] America and the Bible had great success tied together, but we move away from the Bible our success is steeply dropping [52:43] Quotes from past American presidents regarding the role of the Bible in the foundation of America   Remarkable Quotes: [16:06] “An individual should be a better individual if he is a Christian” [26:25] "When you put your best work forward, the market will reward you for that" [36:30] "Without a choice, there is no presentation of hope" [39:39] "When the family is weakened, society crumbles" [50:27] "Rest is not a part of sin; even if sin and death never entered, we would still have to rest"

In this episode of Liberty Unveiled (Teshuah Unveiled), Bradley Hopp introduces the Podcast, the Teshuah Tea Company, and its rescue mission in communist Asia. He sits with Pastor Sam as they go through the roles and importance of the Bible in the founding of America. Listen in now and be edified Conversation Highlights [00:38] Brad introduces Teshuah Unveiled Podcast and describes the Teshuah Tea Company, including their work with rescue and rehabilitation of girls from sex trafficking, with help from their missionary partner Andrew [11:34] Teshuah addresses both the physical needs and spiritual needs of these ladies [12:02] Some Teshuah Tea Company products [16:00] Each institution was created by God(individual, family, church, and government) is made better by following God [17:30] The Cranberry Twilight Tea [20:04] Pastor Sam and Brad disclose that the Super bowl and Ice fishing periods give occasion for a large percentage of sex trafficking. [22:08] 2000 students a month are trafficked in Georgia [23:24] If you are thinking of ways to help, apart from working in the field as a missionary, you can support the missionary fighting sex trafficking by donating or buying Tea from Teshuah grown by the rehabilitated girls. [32:16] Upon these two foundations; the laws of nature and the laws of revelation(found only in the scriptures), depend all human laws - William Blackstone [35:42] We all have a choice [49:54] God designed rest [53:53] America and the Bible had great success tied together, but we move away from the Bible our success is steeply dropping [52:43] Quotes from past American presidents regarding the role of the Bible in the foundation of America   Remarkable Quotes: [16:06] “An individual should be a better individual if he is a Christian” [26:25] "When you put your best work forward, the market will reward you for that" [36:30] "Without a choice, there is no presentation of hope" [39:39] "When the family is weakened, society crumbles" [50:27] "Rest is not a part of sin; even if sin and death never entered, we would still have to rest"

Welcome back to another episode of Liberty Revealed, the show dedicated to revealing personal liberty to all who listen. I am your host, Mike Mahony, and today I want to talk to you about censorship.What exactly is censorship? Defining this term properly will help you decide if it is ever a good thing. Censorship is the coercive silencing of dissenting views by political authorities generally in order to protect an official orthodoxy or to prevent the spread of ideas not authorized by the powers that be. As Alberto Manguel writes in A History of Reading, censorship “is the corollary of all power, and the history of reading is lit by a seemingly endless line of censors’ bonfires.”It should be noted that censorship has been and continues to be a common feature of oppressive regimes. John Milton, whose Areopagitica (written in protest of the censorship of his writings on divorce) remains the most eloquent defense of the free press written in English, provided a history of censorship from 411 B.C., when the works of Protagoras were burned in Athens on the grounds that they taught agnosticism. In the Republic, Plato advocates censorship of poetry and music that fail to promote the state’s interests. This tradition has continued in modern times. Beginning in 1933, Josef Goebbels oversaw mass book burnings, which became a trademark of the Nazi regime. In the Soviet Union, an agency called Glavlit oversaw all printed publications, including even food labels, to prevent the dissemination of unacceptable material. Today, officials in China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and other countries have implemented censorship of books, periodicals, television, radio, and the Internet to ensure that political dissent, religious heterodoxy, or sexually provocative material are not disseminated to the general public.The introduction of the printing press and the Protestant injunction for believers to read the Bible for themselves made censorship an increasingly important subject of debate in Reformation Europe. In 1559, the Catholic Church issued the first Index Liborum Prohibitorum, which lists books forbidden as dangerous to the faith; the Index was not eliminated until 1966. Protestant nations were no less censorious. Henry VIII ordered the burning of Reformation books prior to his own break with Rome, including English translations of the New Testament, and established the licensing requirement for publishing that Milton would protest a century later in Areopagitica.In the ensuing decades, the English common law gradually developed a principle of free expression that barred the government from engaging in “prior restraint” (i.e., the forcible prevention of publication). But no rule protected authors from punishment after publication. Thus, although William Blackstone explained in his Commentaries that the prohibition on prior restraints was of the essence to English liberty, there was no “freedom from censure for criminal matter when published.” Dissidents could print their views, but the threat of prosecution for “seditious libel” and other political crimes helped temper criticism of the government. In America, however, the famous 1735 acquittal of John Peter Zenger largely eliminated seditious libel as a threat to colonial printers. Prosecutions for the publication of indecent material did continue, however. The first book to be banned in the United States was John Cleland’s pornographic novel, Fanny Hill, or Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure, which was prohibited in Boston in 1821 and, when republished in 1964, was again banned, leading to an important Supreme Court decision defining obscenity.Because the common law defined freedom of the press by the absence of prior restraints, the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects the freedoms of press and speech, has been interpreted as an almost absolute prohibition on prior restraints. Some have argued that the 1st Amendment goes no further, whereas others contend that it goes further than common law and prohibits certain forms of post-publication punishment or other government actions intended to limit the dissemination of information. American courts have identified three broad categories of censorship other than prior restraint: (1) the punishment of those who produce material—such as obscenity or extraordinarily intimidating threats—which is determined not to qualify as “speech” or “press” as the terms were understood by the authors of the 1st Amendment, (2) the use of libel and slander to punish those who utter falsehoods or unflattering comments, and (3) the removal of books from public libraries.It is widely conceded that certain material is so obscene that it contains no ideas or expression worthy of constitutional protection. However, defining the word obscene has proven extremely difficult for courts because too broad a definition might well threaten the dissemination of provocative, but serious, material. In 1973, the Supreme Court defined obscenity as material that, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest in sex, that portrays sex in a patently offensive way, and that lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. This definition has proved difficult to apply, and in recent decades, governments in the United States have largely given up the efforts to ban pornography. Worse, it can be dangerous to declare that certain forms of expression are not protected forms of speech. Prohibitions of “hate speech,” or of expressive actions thought to be extraordinarily offensive, such as flag-burning, are similar in that they can often be justified on the grounds that such forms of expression communicate sentiments that are unworthy of legal protection. The dangers of such a rationale are evident in the area of sexual harassment laws, which in recent years have been expanded so as to intimidate some speakers or to prohibit some forms of expression that, whatever their merit, are clearly communicative and not obscene or threatening. In addition, this effort to define certain categories of expression as outside constitutional protections has spawned legal theories that seek to define certain categories of speech as deserving “lesser” constitutional protection. This regime of diminished protection prevails in the realm of commercial speech, defined to be speech that proposes a commercial transaction. Although the Constitution provides no warrant for such discrimination, the Supreme Court has found that commercial expression can be extensively regulated because it is not considered part of the political or cultural dialogue thought essential to democratic decision making. Likewise, campaign finance regulations, although often restricting the rights of individuals to express their political preferences, are frequently defended on the grounds that limiting the expressive opportunities of wealthy groups fosters broader democratic debate.Libel and slander laws have regularly been abused to stifle criticism of political authorities, but in the United States these efforts were severely curtailed by the 1964 Supreme Court decision New York Times v. Sullivan, which held that “public figures,” such as government officials or those who choose to partake in matters of public concern, can only rarely prevail in libel cases. Even publication of obviously false and obscene material about a public figure has been held protected by the 1st Amendment, as when pornographer Larry Flynt successfully defended his right to publish a counterfeit interview suggesting that minister Jerry Falwell had lost his virginity to his mother in an outhouse. Although public figures can virtually never succeed when suing media for such libel in the United States, European countries, particularly England, do not prohibit such suits. As a result, criticism of political figures in England is still often hampered. Worse, because publications produced in the United States are easily available in England, public figures who have been criticized have brought suit against American writers in English courts and recovered, although these suits would be constitutionally barred under American law. This “libel tourism” has become a matter of increasing concern in the age of the Internet.One common source of debate over freedom of expression in the United States involves the removal of controversial books from public libraries and libraries in public schools. Although not strictly a form of censorship—because the publications remain legal and available elsewhere— such attempts to prevent reading are common and are monitored by the American Library Association’s Office of Intellectual Freedom. The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled that such removals are prohibited by the 1st Amendment, but in Board of Education v. Pico, a plurality of justices held that while school boards have broad discretion to choose what books are appropriate for curriculum or classroom use, and to choose what books may be placed in a library, they may not remove books that are already in the library on the basis of the ideas contained in those books or in an attempt to prescribe orthodox opinions.To me, it would appear that the vast majority of censorship is bad. I feel like going down the path of allowing censorship is an extremely slippery slope that leads to some very dangerous situations. If you allow censorship of things you define as bad, what stops others from defining as bad things you see as good? How do we determine what does and does not get censored? Perhaps we should use similar standards to our libel and slander laws? Many look towards protecting children as a good reason to censor things. Marjorie Heins does not argue that unfettered access to all forms of expression would benefit children. Even as some studies have claimed that violent images may help create violent children, Heins cautions against simplistic conclusions. “When you look at it, the definitions of violent entertainment are all over the lot,” she said. “There’s very little attempt to put violence in context, so it would be impossible to frame any kind of censorship legislation that would pinpoint what the harm is.”Rather than “intellectual protectionism,” Heins advocates media literacy programs and sexuality education to help children cope with their surroundings. She also questions the efficacy of “forbidden speech zones,” which may attract children to the very material that adults would deny them. Better, she said, to teach children to make the best choices than to pretend those choices don’t exist.“Kids are going to make some choices about culture, and those choices can be influenced by their interaction with their parents and their teachers,” said Heins. “It’s sort of similar to food. I think when your kid is a baby you can feed them good healthy baby food. Once they get into nursery school, they’re going to start learning about the other temptations, so the most parents can do is to try to continue to make some rules and try to explain why they’re the right rules.”Heins concludes that concerns about violence, language, and sex “have more to do with socializing youth than with the objective proof of psychological harm.” Censorship on behalf of children, she believes, is really done for the adults who demand it.I have to agree with Heins. We don’t censor to protect children, we do it because adults demand it. I say we should handle this very carefully. We should consider that the vast majority of censorship is simply wrong and should not be allowed. Tell me your thoughts on this by leaving a voicemail on the Yogi’s Podcast Network hotline at (657) 529-2218.That’s it for this episode of Liberty Revealed. .If you like what you’ve heard, please rate us 5 stars on Apple Podcasts and Google Play. If you’d like to learn more about personal liberty, grab your free copy of my book “Liberty Revealed” by heading over to http://yogispodcastnetwork.com/libertyrevealed. Until next time...stay free!

In 1835, Abraham Lincoln was starting his political career; beginning his law studies; working two jobs and struggling with debt. The death of a young woman would help push him to his first nervous breakdown.

Stephen Presser and I go from William Blackstone, whose Commentaries on the Laws of England played such a central role in influencing early American ideas about the law, all the way to the Marxist-inspired Critical Legal Studies movement, the feminist legal critique, and back again to the originalism movement.

Herman Bianchi (1924-2015) In 1992, as a result of an introduction from Ivan Illich, I visited Norwegian criminologist Nils Christie in Oslo and recorded several days of interviews that would be broadcast the following year as “Crime Control as Industry.” This set off an unexpected chain of consequences which kept me for a nearly a decade preoccupied with the question of crime and punishment. A number of series already posted on this site reflect this interest. They include, as well as the aforementioned “Crime Control as Industry,” “Prison and Its Alternatives” (1996), “To Hurt and To Heal,” (2000") and “In Search of Security” (2004). One of the most interesting books I came across during these amateur forays into criminology was Justice as Sanctuary by Dutch criminologist Herman Bianchi. It was first published in English in 1994 and has, happily, been kept in print by Wipf and Stock who republished it in 2010. At the time the book appeared in the English-speaking world, Bianchi was one of many thinkers who were then questioning the cruelty and irrationality of modern criminal justice “systems.” What I found striking in his work was his recuperation of Biblical concepts of justice and mercy, and his pointing out that monolithic conceptions of law are of relatively recent date. William Blackstone, for example, writing in his 18th Century Commentaries on the Laws of England says that ten different bodies of law were then in force in England, each exerting distinct but overlapping jurisdictions. The types of law he mentions range from the “divine law” to the “law merchant.” The right of sanctuary from which Bianchi’s book takes its title is a case in point. Churches afforded sanctuary because within their walls the divine law applied, not the criminal law. From such a sanctuary someone who had committed a wrong could attempt to negotiate restitution and settlement. The contemporary offender stands in the dock without initiative or dignity. The fact that he or she has committed a personal wrong that might in some way be remedied hardly matters - it is “society” and its monolithic law that must be satisfied. I was fascinated by Bianchi’s book, and, in the spring of 1997, I arranged to interview him. He received me, very hospitably, in his snug converted farmhouse in Friesland, a northern province of The Netherlands. There over two days as his guest I recorded the interviews that make up this series. It was broadcast in the fall of that year. Herman Bianchi died in 2015. I never met him again and never really found out what he thought of the programs I made. It seems to me that they remain as interesting and challenging today as they were twenty years ago.

The Essentials: Scriptural Christianity: Defining scriptural Christianity as “heart religion” and “the religion of love” that is ever associated with the Holy Spirit, Wesley was intent in 1744 upon applying the same pointed questioning to his Oxford congregation that Spangenberg had employed earlier with respect to him so effectively in Georgia. After a number of pointed and embarrassing accusations, Wesley concluded his sermon by calling the youth in that place “a generation of triflers, triflers with God, with one another, and with your own souls." William Blackstone, the famous judge and author, recorded of the event: “His [Wesley’s] notes were demanded by the Vice-Chancellor [William Hodges], but on mature deliberation it has been thought proper to punish him by a mortifying neglect." And Wesley himself noted in his Journal: “I preached for the last time before the University of Oxford. I am now clear of the blood of these men. I have fully delivered my own soul.”

Is legal writing narrative? How about judgments, appeals, testimony? We talk with Simon Stern about narrative and its techniques and effects, suspense, dicta, authorial purposes, a crazy idea for a novel, mathematical proofs, and more. This show’s links: Simon Stern’s faculty profile and writing Simon Stern, Narrative in the Legal Text: Judicial Opinions and Their Narratives William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book II: Of the Rights of Thing (Simon Stern, ed.); Simon’s introduction to the volume William Brewer and Edward Lichtenstein, Event Schemas, Story Schemas, and Story Grammars About the Paradox of Suspense Jonathan D. Leavitt et al., Story Spoilers Don’t Spoil Stories; Jonathan D. Leavitt et al., The Fluency of Spoilers: Why Giving Away Endings Improves Stories Circles Disturbed: The Interplay of Mathematics and Narrative (Apostolos Doxiadis and Barry Mazur, eds.) (Introduction to the book) Mitchel Lasser, The European Pasteurization of French Law Owen Barfield, This Ever Diverse Pair Wikipedia on epistolary novels Julie Schumacher, Dear Committee Members Oral Argument 48: Legal Truth (guest Lisa Kern Griffin) Special Guest: Simon Stern.

In March 2016, Professor Kathryn Temple of Georgetown University visited the Centre for the History of Emotions as a Distinguished international visitor. While primarily based at the University of Adelaide during her stay, in March she visited the University of Melbourne for a study day on 'The Heart' to deliver a paper on "Terror, Torture and Tenderness: The ‘Feeling Heart’ of English Justice". While in Melbourne, she was interviewed by education and outreach officer Penelope Lee on her research, methods and sources. In this podcast, she discusses her work on William Blackstone and English Law, the clash between reason and emotion, the interdisciplinary turn, and the role of emotions in the upcoming US election.

Caleb and Mike really want to talk to William Blackstone and they're committed to getting him on the Ghostphone--even if it means hanging up on a couple of historical figures along the way. This week we talk about how riding a bull feels between a man's legs, potable water and how annoying the Puritans were.