Fred Hutchison
Jurisprudence by feelings instead of reason
By Fred Hutchison
Letter to the Editor, The Columbus Dispatch
Andy Bowers wrote in his op-ed piece (4/18/07) that the education funding increases brought about by the DeRolphe case in Ohio are adequate. He disagrees with another group who feels that the increases are not adequate. However, neither he nor the group he opposes has put forward a logical case for how much spending is enough. All they offer are anecdotes.
During the DeRolfe era of perpetual constitutional crisis, the court instructed the legislature to spend more on education, but was vague about how much more spending is enough. Each time the baffled legislature spent more, the imperial court responded that it is not enough, but could offer coherent guidance.
The DeRolfe decision had nothing to do with the vague "thorough and efficient" clause in the Ohio Constitution, as the court claimed as a pretext for the case. The liberal justices on the court were moved by social justice theory and felt that an unequal spending per pupil violated the rights of pupils in poor school districts. Unfortunately, social justice "rights" cannot be rationally defined and must be decided by subjective feelings. That is why the court could not coherently explain to the legislature why the spending level was not enough. Jurisprudence by feelings is always incoherent.
In contrast to arbitrary, feelings-based jurisprudence, natural law rights can be rationally discovered and clearly set down in law. The founding fathers relied upon natural law theory to create a rational government of laws and not men and to escape the tyranny of arbitrary law.
One of the natural law rights claimed by the founding fathers is that there shall be no taxation without representation. A court which bullies the legislature into spending more money violates this right of the citizenry. A court which creates arbitrary law based on their feelings is what the founders would call a tyrant.
© Fred Hutchison
Letter to the Editor, The Columbus Dispatch
Andy Bowers wrote in his op-ed piece (4/18/07) that the education funding increases brought about by the DeRolphe case in Ohio are adequate. He disagrees with another group who feels that the increases are not adequate. However, neither he nor the group he opposes has put forward a logical case for how much spending is enough. All they offer are anecdotes.
During the DeRolfe era of perpetual constitutional crisis, the court instructed the legislature to spend more on education, but was vague about how much more spending is enough. Each time the baffled legislature spent more, the imperial court responded that it is not enough, but could offer coherent guidance.
The DeRolfe decision had nothing to do with the vague "thorough and efficient" clause in the Ohio Constitution, as the court claimed as a pretext for the case. The liberal justices on the court were moved by social justice theory and felt that an unequal spending per pupil violated the rights of pupils in poor school districts. Unfortunately, social justice "rights" cannot be rationally defined and must be decided by subjective feelings. That is why the court could not coherently explain to the legislature why the spending level was not enough. Jurisprudence by feelings is always incoherent.
In contrast to arbitrary, feelings-based jurisprudence, natural law rights can be rationally discovered and clearly set down in law. The founding fathers relied upon natural law theory to create a rational government of laws and not men and to escape the tyranny of arbitrary law.
One of the natural law rights claimed by the founding fathers is that there shall be no taxation without representation. A court which bullies the legislature into spending more money violates this right of the citizenry. A court which creates arbitrary law based on their feelings is what the founders would call a tyrant.
© Fred Hutchison
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
