Tag: Constitution
Hegel’s dialectic in the Age of Obama
My writing inspiration comes from two primary sources – God and Life. God, through the Holy Spirit, gives me the prompting to go in this direction or that direction … then I go. My other source of inspiration comes from just living life. For example, in early June on my radio show, “Joshua’s Trial,” a caller asked me pointedly, “Professor Washington, what do you think about Hegel’s theories? You need to write an article on Hegelian dialectic.”
Happy 65th birthday, Justice Clarence Thomas
Justice Thomas was born 65 years ago this day in the little town of Pin Point, Ga. This tribute essay celebrates the Natural Law and originalist jurisprudence of Thomas, which mandates a synthesis between legality and morality. For 23 years now, Justice Thomas has almost single-handedly upheld a reverential respect, reliance and expertise for the original ideals and intent of the constitutional framers that is tantamount to the transcendent.
Symposium: Cult of acceptance
Socrates (470-399 B.C.) was a famous Greek philosopher from Athens who taught Plato. Plato taught Aristotle, and Aristotle taught Alexander the Great. Socrates used a simple but cleverly profound method of teaching by asking revelatory, piercing questions. The Greeks called this form “dialectic” – starting from a thesis or question, then discussing ideas and moving back and forth between points of view to determine how well ideas stand up to critical review, with the ultimate principle of the dialogue being veritas – truth.
75 years of progressive regression
Welcome to President Obama’s brave new dystopian world of anti-Fourth Amendment fascism where he is pushing radical policies allowing the IRS to read your emails without a warrant; Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., recently had his private office conversation illegally bugged, possibly by Democratic Party agents and published in Mother Jones (a la Nixon’s Watergate); and tens of thousands of drones are watching, recording and armed to bomb American citizens on American soil without judicial oversight or due process.
A 5th Amendment ‘right’ to same-sex marriage?
On March 26, during oral argument in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the controversial same-sex marriage case, Justice Scalia repeatedly questioned attorney Ted Olson on when restricting marriage to one man-one woman became unconstitutional.
Progressives’ 6th Amendment
![washington130323[1]](https://www.elliswashingtonreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/washington1303231.jpg "washington130323[1]")
In their notes on the Sixth Amendment, O’Connor and Sabato’s textbook, “American Government: Roots and Reform,” wrote that it was “the centerpiece of the constitutional guarantees afforded to individuals facing criminal prosecution … [and] sets out eight specific rights, more than any other provision of the Bill of Rights.” Here is the full text of the Sixth Amendment:
Progressives’ 6th Amendment
In their notes on the Sixth Amendment, O’Connor and Sabato’s textbook, “American Government: Roots and Reform,” wrote that it was “the centerpiece of the constitutional guarantees afforded to individuals facing criminal prosecution … [and] sets out eight specific rights, more than any other provision of the Bill of Rights.” Here is the full text of the Sixth Amendment:
The 2nd and 7th Amendments: History triumphs
>
The Seventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States was ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights; it formally established the rules governing civil trials. The amendment’s objective was to preserve a distinction between the responsibilities of the courts (such as deciding matters of law) and those of juries (such as deciding matters of fact). Virtually all of the Seventh Amendment’s provisions originated in the English common-law tradition and with few exceptions have experienced only marginal revisions.
The 2nd and 7th Amendments: History triumphs
>The Seventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States was ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights; it formally established the rules governing civil trials. The amendment’s objective was to preserve a distinction between the responsibilities of the courts (such as deciding matters of law) and those of juries (such as deciding matters of fact). Virtually all of the Seventh Amendment’s provisions originated in the English common-law tradition and with few exceptions have experienced only marginal revisions.
When SCOTUS rules 9-0 against Obama
Continue Reading