Constitutional Illusions and Anchoring Truths: The Touchstone of the Natural Law

I read the book, and then read the reviews. Looking at the review by Peter P. Fuchs, I went to page 61 (as he invited his readers to do). I conclude his remarks as a reviewer exhibit a one-star mind! Move on, nothing to learn from this one.I would not argue that Arkes is always an "easy read." But, I never found it to be a "difficult read" either.

The author presents a compelling case for natural law as the foundation of our constitutional law and all that flows from it. The argument I would rate as five stars. His writing style unfortunately is ponderous and badly in need of an editor.

Outstanding.

I have been alighting on some of these "natural law manifestoes" , a phrase recently coined by Richard Garnett, and they are not very lovely flowers. The whole idea of these things is so forced and wrong, and this is just one more of the type I have made fun of and highlighted before. Aquinas is brought in for no discernible scholarly reason. Check out p. 61 of this book. It is astonishing to any fair minded person. These people are operating is some sort of alternate universe where coherence matters not. Simply put, it is a word salad. First the author cites "Aquinas and Lincoln" as if they somehow historically belonged together. But no matter he moves on to Burlamqui, as if quoting him would say something definitive about the age. That is like choosing to analyze the depths of Leibizian thought only by way of Christian Wolff. But no matter, he then slithers into a quote by Hooker, and all that in a few paragraphs. And then suddenly -- I am NOT making this up!!! -- he is suddenly back to the "Church Fathers" ! Huh?? What in the world. He then glosses on the Patristics. How is this word salad even an argument. This is just pure nonsense as an historical argument. And it is only published as purest polemics. But much more interesting is a recent comment by the author online, where he helpfully admits the shadowy nature of this sort of argumentaion in the light of our republic:"I want to thank our readers for their comments. Mr. JSmitty touches on a sensitive matter, and it may interest him, as well as others among our readers, that we announced, on June 4th, the establishment of a new Center for Natural Law in Washington, D.C., under the Claremont Institute, with my own writings figuring in the curriculum. But we hope to draw together a number of federal judges, along with lawyers and professors who want to bring natural law out of the shadows and bring it forth with a sense of its practical and pressing importance. Our purpose would in fact be to offer an alternative to that positivism that has taken a dominant hold even among conservative--and Catholic--jurists in our own day. And so, to our friends in the Catholic Thing, I say "stay tuned."Natural Law wants to come "out of the shadows" eh?. How interesting. In other words, this type of forced, ridiculous argumentation wants to come out of the shadowy world of bought-and-paid-for academic pseudo-scholarship and wants to be taken seriously. Good luck, fellas. If page 61 of this book is any indication you belong in the dark, shadowy gloom of reactionary swamps with a pile of Summas.