The Incorporation Doctrine down at the ArchAngel Institute
August 24th, 2010Wednesday afternoon: Updating with links at end
Tonight a class of more than 20 bright eyed students met in air conditioned comfort in the top floor of the former abortion clinic to continue the study of the Foundations of American Order. We have studied the Natural Law, Roman Republic, Founding Fathers, Declaration of Independence, US Constitution, Bill of Rights and Incorporation Doctrine — and even more — over the past eight weeks.
It has been an honor to pass on the fruit of my research on these topics.
Tonight’s discussion of the Incorporation Doctrine and how it has led to American disorder was challenging and personally rewarding. We read Supreme Court cases and discussed the history of the American Left in the very room where young women once waited to have their children killed. It is the room that was to be my law office (and my means for supporting my wife and five minor children) had I not suffered the substantial setback dealt to me by the Indiana Board of Law Examiners, Indiana Supreme Court and Defendants in Brown v. Bowman for refusing to deny my Lord Jesus Christ and the teachings of His Church. (See posts gathered at category Brown v. Bowman and accessible here)
It felt right to teach constitutional law in that room, and especially to present the following prophetic foreshadowing from one the greatest American jurists of the 20th Century:
There are many appeals these days to liberty, often by those who are working for an opportunity to taunt democracy with its stupidity in furnishing them the weapons to destroy it as did Goebbels when he said: ‘When democracy granted democratic methods for us in times of opposition, this (Nazi seizure of power) was bound to happen in a democratic system. However, we National Socialists never asserted that we represented a democratic point of view, but we have declared openly that we used democratic methods only in order to gain the power and that, after assuming the power, we would deny to our adversaries without any consideration the means which were granted to us in times of (our) opposition.’ 1 Nazi Conspiracy & Aggression (GPO 1946) 202, Docs. 2500-PS, 2412-PS. [337 U.S. 1 , 36] Invocation of constitutional liberties as part of the strategy for overthrowing them presents a dilemma to a free people which may not be soluble by constitutional logic alone.
But I would not be understood as suggesting that the United States can or should meet this dilemma by suppression of free, open and public speaking on the part of any group or ideology. Suppression has never been a successful permanent policy; any surface serenity that it creates is a false security, while conspiratorial forces go underground. My confidence in American institutions and in the sound sense of the American people is such that if with a stroke of the pen I could silence every fascist and communist speaker, I would not do it. For I agree with Woodrow Wilson, who said:
‘I have always been among those who believed that the greatest freedom of speech was the greatest safety, because if a man is a fool, the best thing to do is to encourage him to advertise the fact by speaking. It cannot be so easily discovered if you allow him to remain silent and look wise, but if you let him speak, the secret is out and the world knows that he is a fool. So it is by the exposure of folly that it is defeated; not by the seclusion of folly, and in this free air of free speech men get into that sort of communication with one another which constitutes the basis of all common achievement.’ Address at the Institute of France, Paris, May 10, 1919. 2 Selected Literary and Political Papers and Addresses of Woodrow Wilson (1926) 333.
But if we maintain a general policy of free speaking, we must recognize that its inevitable consequence will be sporadic local outbreaks of violence, for it is the nature of men to be intolerant of attacks upon institutions, personalities and ideas for which they really care. In [337 U.S. 1 , 37] the long run, maintenance of free speech will be more endangered if the population can have no protection from the abuses which lead to violence. No liberty is made more secure by holding that its abuses are inseparable from its enjoyment. We must not forget that it is the free democratic communities that ask us to trust them to maintain peace with liberty and that the factions engaged in this battle are not interested permanently in either. What would it matter to Terminiello if the police batter up some communists or, on the other hand, if the communists batter up some policemen? Either result makes grist for his mill; either would help promote hysteria and the demand for strong-arm methods in dealing with his adversaries. And what, on the other hand, have the communist agitators to lose from a battle with the police?
This Court has gone far toward accepting the doctrine that civil liberty means the removal of all restraints from these crowds and that all local attempts to maintain order are impairments of the liberty of the citizen. The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.
TERMINIELLO V. CITY OF CHICAGO , 337 U.S. 1, 37 (1949)(Jackson, J., dissenting, joined by Burton, J.)(emphasis added)
GOD BLESS GREAT PATRIOT JURISTS LIKE JUSTICE ROBERT H. JACKSON! He tried to warn his peers — they did not listen and continued to crash through the gates to the Age of Obama (i.e. the summit of the collectivist suicide pact).
Pictured above: Robert Houghwout Jackson (February 13, 1892 – October 9, 1954) was United States Attorney General (1940–1941) and an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court (1941–1954). A “county-seat lawyer“, he remains the last Supreme Court justice appointed who did not graduate from any law school (though Justice Stanley Reed who served from 1938–1957 was the last such justice to serve on the court), although he did attend Albany Law School in Albany, New York for one year. . He was also the chief United States prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials.
MORE from Justice Robert Jackson on this website here and here











