No Anti-Semitism in Sight

To the Jew First, Then Also to the Greek

Amongst the Founders of the US Republic, the Jewish people were held in very high regard and respect in general.  This position was consistent with the extremely high respect maintained for God Himself. 

John Adams serves as a prime example:

Adams held the Jewish people and their religion in the highest esteem.  Such an appreciation for Judaism--and the contribution of Jews to the making of a better world--is most evident in his private letters sent to close friends.  In the whole of his political writings, Adams drew heavily on Greek and Roman political experience but did not ignore the patrimony of the Hebrews.   He wrote in 1809:

"I will insist that the Hebrews have done more to civilize men than any other nation.  If I were an atheist, and believed in blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations.  If I were an atheists of the other sect, who believe or pretend to believe that all is ordered by chance, I should believe that chance had ordered the Jews to preserve and propagate to all mankind the doctrine of a supreme, intelligent, wise, almighty sovereign of the universe, which I believe to be the great essential principle of all morality, and consequently of all civilization."

  . . . . In a missive dated December 31, 1808, he confessed being appalled by Voltaire's derogatory comments about the Hebrew Bible and the Jewish people.  Adams commented:

"How is it possible this old Fellow [Voltaire} should represent the Hebrews in such contemptible light?  They are the most glorious Nation that ever inhabited this Earth.  The Romans and their Empire were but a Bauble in comparison of [sic] the Jews.  They have given Religion to the quarters of the globe and have influenced the affairs of mankind more, and more happily, than any other Nation ancient or modern."

[Augusto Zimmermann, Christian Foundations of the Common Law: Volume 2: The United States (Brisbane: Connor Court Publishing, 2018), p. 100f.]

The Common Law and European Law Pass As Ships in the Night

The Common Law and Brexit

Ted Malloch
BreitbartLondon

It is inane to ignore the distinction between common law and civil law or between the English definition of Rule of Law and the European Rechtsstaat. The two are radically different.

This is directly challenged by the Brexit vote, wherein citizens of the UK voted to secede from the European Union for a reason. There should be no turning back.

Under the European Union, life has become increasingly regulated by legislation issued, centralized, and administered by Brussels. The EU is “not merely an economic union” but is intended to “ensure social progress and seek the constant improvement of the living and working conditions of their peoples,” thus it has encompassed the continental conception of Rechtsstaat, wherein government is conceived of as an enterprise, as opposed to, a civil association. This is a world apart.

EU legislation is proposed and drafted by the Commission (consisting of EU officials nominated by the Parliament, who are not elected) and then passed by the EU Council and Parliament. EU legislation comes in two forms:  Directives and Regulations. Directives order a member country or countries to adopt legislation according to certain parameters. Regulations, once passed, are immediately effective without implementing legislation. . . . 

U.S. businessman Ted Malloch, Donald Trump’s potential choice as envoy to the EU, speaks to The Associated Press during an interview in London, Thursday, Feb. 9, 2017. Malloch said the bloc is anti-American and the U.S. will try to build bilateral relationships with European countries instead. Ted Malloch says the U.S. is “critical and suspicious” of the EU project. He says “we would prefer, certainly in the Trump administration, to work with countries bilaterally.” (AP Photo/Frank Augstein)

The Brexit vote surprised and astonished people in Europe and around the world who could not – and still cannot – understand why citizens of the United Kingdom would vote to secede from the European Union.

The Erosion of Common Law

Going Backwards

In his magisterial volume, The English and their History [New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2014] Robert Tombs describes the emergence of what came to be known as the English Law.  One presumes that when it was first instituted there was little expectation that it would evolve into such a significant institution, but such was the case.  It was a feature which separated England from the Continent.  Common Law was decidedly different from law on the Continent.

Henry II ascended to the throne of England in 1154 at the age of 21.  Tombs describes how the Common Law began.

Henry II's drive for law and order saw the introduction in the 1160's of travelling royal judges, who were increasingly professional lawyers, on "eyres" (journeys) to hear cases involving the Crown, and in the 1170's permanent royal courts began to sit at Westminster, developing standardized "writs" (court orders in the King's name) to initiate a range of procedures before royal judges.  Writs were the basis of the system, and could be purchased for a modest sum by any plaintiff to summon an adversary before a royal court.

Thus originated in practice as well as in theory the universal primacy of royal justice: the "Common Law."  It was gradually extended to cover every place and every free layman within the kingdom, irrespective of ethnicity.   [Ibid., p. 68.  Emphasis, ours.]

This was a radical, positive development.  It meant that access to the courts and to the rule of law was made accessible to the common man (hence Common Law).  Justice was not just for the rich, or the connected, or the political and ecclesiastical elites.  This is a great benefit which we, these days, take for granted--yet it is vital, if society is to be just.

Madness Replacing Reason

Indictments From the Common Lawyers

What does a Christian society look like?  What might be some of the key features of the Second Christendom when it emerges in redemptive history?  There are many.  One central feature will be the grounding of civil and criminal law upon the higher law of God.  This, of course, is not novel.  It is the way it used to be in the First Christendom.

F E Dowrick describes how biblical law (both written and inscribed in the creation itself) was deeply embedded in the English legal tradition.  He writes:

The Christian Heritage of Justice

 Being Treated Fairly Before the Court

It is a great boon to live in a just society--and, no, we are not thinking of the faux "justice" of egalitarianism, now so very popular amongst the ignorant and those riddled with the canker of envy.  Rather, we have in view the system of justice which enables citizens to seek redress or get their actions judged properly and fairly.

Justice is often difficult to define. The traditions of English common law, however, have developed over many centuries the concept of a fair trial and the principles which undergird it.  F.E. Dowrick [Justice According to the English Common Lawyers (London: Butterworths, 1960)], courtesy of a series of lectures by Lord Denning, has provided a summary of the essential principles which make up a fair trial.