Most of us Attended John Dewey’s Socialist Public Schools

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Samuel Blumenfeld and Alex Newman wrote a book back in 2014 called Crimes of the Educators which was published by World Net Daily. In it they devoted considerable space to John Dewey, who I have commented on in recent articles. They noted, at the start of the book that “John Dewey is generally lauded as the father of progressive education. but unfortunately he is the father of much more. In the late 1800s,  he and his socialist colleagues decided to embark on a long-range conspiracy to radically change America by imposing their own utopian vision of a collectivist society…Dewey stated that the only way to undermine the capitalist system was to get rid of the emphasis primary schools placed on the development of high literacy and independent intelligence. Why? Because both of these sustained individualism. What was needed, they believed, was a new curriculum that emphasized socialization and taught children to read by a whole-word method that would lower the nation’s literacy level and make its children more amenable to collectivist values…They considered themselves peerless intellects and socialism a morally superior way of life.”

Bet they never told you any of this about Dewey in any of the books you may have read about him, did they? Today, if you want to see just how “morally superior” socialism is, take a good look at Venezuela or Cuba. Trump, in his State of the Union speech noted how Venezuela had once been a thriving country. Now that the socialists have take it over they can’t even feed themselves. And there are people in our Congress that have plans for this country to go the way Venezuela has gone. Doesn’t that sound just delightful? This is what they have planned for us if we continue to slumber on and don’t watch everything those people try to  pull on us. Think about that.

As far as John Dewey’s educational methods, we ought to consider that all of us who attended public schools since Dewey’s heyday were all educated in John Dewey’s socialist public schools and today’s kids are stills being educated in them. Anyone remember those “Dick and Jane” books they gave us to read in first grade? They were part of Dewey’s “whole word” method, where they teach you to memorize the whole word rather than teaching you the phonics so you can learn to sound out long words on your own. It’s a subtle way of dumbing your kids down so they never really learn to read anything where they can’t pronounce some of the words, hence, they read less and learn less–and that’s the name of the game. Your kids are easier to bamboozle if they don’t know too much. We all suffered under Dewey’s questionable methods, foisted upon us by a socialist “educator.”

I recently read an article on the American Thinker for October 1, 2012, written by a Bruce Deitrick Price, the title of which was John Dewey is a Fraud. Had I not already known as much, his article would have gone a long way toward convincing me.

Price noted: “The problem with the labels is that John Dewey, albeit a genius, was not an educator in the sense that most people use that word…Dewey was not primarily concerned with teaching new information. He was concerned with inculcating new attitudes. John Dewey was a social engineer–one might even say a community organizer. He believed that socialism was the future. His self-appointed mission was to implement the transition to this brave new world. All of his grand theories, his scores of books, and his hundreds of articles can be summed up as a program for making America socialist.” This was his vision for the public education system in this country–making it even more socialist than it already had been under Horace Mann’s Unitarianism.

Price continued: “There is one little problem at this point: almost nobody in America was asking for this transformation. So Dewey was in the awkward position of redecorating your house when you didn’t ask for it to be redecorated, or more precisely seducing your kids when you don’t want your kids to be seduced. Dewey basically had to ignore law, precedent, tradition, legislatures, voters, elections, expectations of families, and needs of society. He attempted an end-run, and thus a conspiracy. His project is best called Socialism on the Sly…He was doing something on the sly because the public didn’t ask for his ideas and would have rejected them if they had had the chance…It’s worth noting that the entire Dewey machine was operating full-speed by 1890, before the Russian Revolution. Far-left ideology was a force, and the United States had homegrown Marxists eager to join Dewey’s crusade.” Some of them were, no doubt, taught by those socialist and communist revolutionaries that came over here in 1848 in their quest for a socialist America.

And Price made another revelatory statement. He said: “John Dewey wasn’t interested in education as you and I understand this term. Everything he did was in fact intended to subvert and diminish traditional education.” Go back and read that one again. Price was right on the money here. Think about what that means to your kids in school today. As I think about what it meant to my generation–it means that when it came to real education, we got stiffed. The potential may have been there, but Leftist propaganda prevailed to cloud our learning processes. I’m not saying there aren’t or weren’t ever any good teachers–there were and are, but their efforts to truly educate have been blunted by the prevalence of Dewey’s socialist vision.

Another article I ran across was on for July 31, 2018 and written by Craig Biddle.  Mr. Biddle observed: “Dewey and the other social engineers in the so-called ‘progressive education’ movement understood not only that politics is downstream from culture–but also that culture is downstream from early childhood education. They knew where to turn and what to do in order to advance socialism big time. They focused on inculcating  socialism in the minds and souls of children.”

Now you can begin to see what public schools have really been all about since the beginning–teaching your kids how to become good little socialists without either you or them being aware of it. I guess you could say that public schools are “stealth socialism.” As such, they are no place for Christians to educate their kids. Their kids, if they can find any other possible way to teach them, do not belong in public schools and if, for some reason, they are forced to attend, their parents need to get them out asap. And don’t think for a New York minute that an hour of Sunday School on the Lord’s Day is going to be enough to combat what goes on in public schools for 30 hours of prime time every week. To do such is to be prone to delusion.

4 thoughts on “Most of us Attended John Dewey’s Socialist Public Schools

  1. Roscoe Pound Chapter in “BETRAYED BY THE BENCH” Book By John A. Stormer One eye-opening reference I found was in a little paper-back non-descript book titled “BETRAYED BY THE BENCH” 2005, by John A. Stormer, Liberty Press, Florissant, Missouri 63032. One of the chapters Mr. Stormer wrote, Chapter VI: “How Sociological Jurisprudence Has Changed The Law and Culture”…and destroyed Individualism in the United States… Fair Use, Copyright and Disclaimer Notice It is important to understand: This is SPECULATIVE DATA. Use it for hints and pointers, but DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH! Everyone won’t like this book. If you are a practicing Progressive it tears down your revisionist ideological house of cards of the American people’s history one card at a time using period events, facts and documents… FAIR USE NOTICE: This document may contain copyrighted material from the World Wide Web as well as my own thoughts and beliefs, the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This writer distributes this material without profit to those who have an interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes only. This use constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Federal Statute 17 U.S.C § 107. “How Sociological Jurisprudence Has Changed The Law and Culture”…pg. 67 American schools, under the influence of Pound’s contemporary “John Dewey”, have dumbed down and are still dumbing down successive generations of American citizens… Except: “BETRAYED BY THE BENCH” We are back to the state as the unchallengeable authority behind legal precepts. The state takes the place of Jehovah handling the tablets of the law of Moses.–Roscoe Pound, Dean Harvard Law School, 1924 Socialist Jurisprudence (Law) Socialist law, or Soviet law, denotes a general type of legal system which has been used in communist and formerly communist states. It is based on the civil law system, with major modifications and additions from Marxist-Leninist ideology. There is controversy as to whether socialist law ever constituted a separate legal system or not. If so, prior to the end of the Cold War, socialist law would be ranked among the major legal systems of the world. Sociological jurisprudence is a term coined by the socialist American jurist Roscoe Pound to describe his socialist approach to the understanding of the law. This socialist philosophical approach to law stresses the actual social effects of legal institutions, doctrines and practices. It examines the actual effects of the law within society and the influence of social phenomena on the substantive and procedural aspects of law. This is also known as “sociology of law”, or “socialism”… ROSCOE POUND WAS A STUDENT of Langdell and Ames at Harvard. He learned his lessons well. Pound never earned his law degree at Harvard, but he was never-the-less admitted to the bar. From 1916 to 1936 he was the influential socialist activist Dean of Harvard Law School. He was described by the Encyclopedia Britannica as the eminent pioneer and champion of modern “sociological jurisprudence” in the United States. (But what it truly was, was “socialist jurisprudence”!–Al Barrs) One account of Pound’s life asked: How did this child, born in Lincoln, Nebraska on the Western Frontier of the United States in 1870, change not only the teaching of the law, in law schools, but the interpretation of the law itself by practicing lawyers and judges…? Pound saw the necessity for the law to change to face the challenge of the profound changes of the twentieth century. His ideas were foundational too much of the “New Deal” legislation sponsored by Progressive Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Pound was the chief advocate in the United States of adjusting the law to social conditions. Some today argue that the U.S. Constitution could not possibly contain all issues that would be necessary for the Central Government and its Supreme and Inferior Courts at the time of its ratification in 1787. That’s true, but it is not all of the story! Our Founders were also astute enough to include the 9th and 10th Amendments in our new Constitution (1787 and our individual citizen’s Bill of Rights 1791), which were included in the Bill of Rights of individual citizens, which was ratified in 1791. What these “socialist justice” advocates either don’t know or purposefully conveniently ignore is the fact that our Founders designed a Central Government of limited delegated powers, and with the inclusion of Amendments 9 and 10 directing that all issues not delegated to the Central Government in 1791 are defaulted to the State and/or their citizens, the People. Between the Constitution and Bill of Rights there are no issues that can come up that either the Central Government, the States or the People don’t have the inherent constitutional power and right to address and resolve.–Al Barrs Nine years before he became head of Harvard Law School Pound spelled out his views for turning America’s Bible-based legal system upside down… In two presentations to the American Bar Association pound spoke on “The Need for a Sociological Jurisprudence”. Pound proposed alternatives to the abstract philosophy and principles on which the age-old common law in America was built. Pound said that teachers; …While teaching the actual law by which courts decide, should give their teaching the color which will fit new generations of lawyers to lead the people as they should…(into Marxist style socialism!–Al Barrs) To this end it is the duty of teachers of law, while they teach scrupulously the law that the courts administer, to teach it in the spirit and from the standpoint of the political, economic and sociological learning of today. It is their task to create in this country true sociological jurisprudence. Sociological jurisprudence advocated that laws should be changed (a living document) to (social scientists) theorized where the needs and wants of society. Judges would substitute the teachings of sociologists, psychologists and other social scientists for the traditional common law emphasis on protecting the freedom of the individual and his property. This was to be done partially through legislation but more through judge-made law (Judicial Activism, i.e. “Legislating from the Bench”!) In the writings, Pound admitted that only through guile and deceit could judge-made laws be used to transform America’s legal system. Replacing the common law justice system handed down from the time of America’s founding was his goal. Basically the law would be changed through the case law approach developed at Harvard by C. C. Langdell, as was explained in the previous chapter (V). Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., known as the Great Dissenter, Louis Brandeis, a student of Langdell at Harvard, and Benjamin Cardozo were Supreme Court justices. They used their positions on the nation’s court to promote Pound’s sociological jurisprudence approach to changing the law. By the end of the 20th Century and the start of the 21st, eighty years of sociological jurisprudence had transformed America’s law, culture, marriage and families! To understand how the sociological jurisprudence goals were accomplished, one must study Roscoe Pound, his life and his writings. Pound’s impact on America’s courts, justice system and culture continues even today. It is carried on by thousands of future lawyers, judges, law school professors and political office holders. Pound had a part in training them at Harvard. After studying law under Langdell and James Barr Ames at Harvard, Pound studied botany. Earning a Ph.D. in botany at the University of Nebraska grounded Pound in Darwin’s theories of biological evolution (Darwin’s theory of species evolution has never been proven and conflicts directly with DNA research…). By the time Pound became dean of the Harvard law school, he was also enthralled with the philosophy of the mid-1800s Masonic leader Albert Pike. Pike merged occult mysticism, the teaching of the German philosopher Hegel and traditional Masonry. Pound, like Pike, was deeply influenced by Hegel’s dialectic theory. Hegel said that everything is in a constant state of change. This background undermined any view of God and His absolutes with which Pound might have grown up. Therefore, he was well prepared to accept and then expound and teach the theory that law, like biological species, should and must evolve. (Note by Al Barrs: The only problem with this evolution theoretical thinking is that Darwin’s theory of species evolution had never been proven, and the emergence of scientific DNA facts will never allow Darwin’s evolution theory to be scientifically proven! While Darwin’s thinks was plausible he was nevertheless wrong.) For law to ‘evolve and change’ requires a tremendous departure from the absolutes of the Biblically-based Common Law and Blackstone-based jurisprudence. “Blackstone’s Commentaries” were the standard of the legal system from the time of the USA founding until after the U.S. War of 1861. [Emphasis Added] Pound’s efforts—and their results brought both praise and criticism. One individual summed up Pound’s goal this way: …the jurist should act as an “engineer” to mold society to the ends he thinks proper…constructing legal history (by their decisions) in a way calculated to put their social goals into practice. (NOTE by Al Barrs: The jurist should act as inscribed and prescribed by our Founding Fathers–interpret the Constitution as written by our Founders.) Much of Pound’s legal writing, lecturing and teaching was directed to that end. Pound’s significant books included “The Spirit of the Common Law”, “Law and Morals, Social Control Through Law”, and “Law and Liberty”. As a proponent of sociological jurisprudence Pound opposed what he called “Mechanical Jurisprudence”. Pound regarded mechanical jurisprudence as applying the law or the Constitution as it was written. [Emphasis Added] For this reason, a disdain for Blackstone and traditional common law teachings runs through Pound’s books. Biography of William Blackstone (1723-1780) On October 25, 1758 as William Blackstone approached the podium in the Oxford lecture hall he knew he was a failure. The thirty year old lawyer, nearsighted, already portly, chronically ill, now ready to read his notes in his grating voice, had spent the last seven years before the Bar in London with, a sympathetic biographer wrote, “little notice or practice.” Now addressing the students assembled before him to hear the first of his lectures on English law, Blackstone began with an apology. Speaking in the third person Blackstone worried aloud that if his plan was “crude or injudicious, or the execution of it lame or superficial” he would set back the study of law. “And this he must more especially dred, when he feels by experience how unequal his abilities are to complete, in the manner he could wish, so extensive and arduous a task; since he freely confesses, that his former more private attempts have fallen very short of his own ideas of perfection.” Little could Blackstone know that the lectures he began so tentatively that day would be published as Commentaries on the Laws of England, a work that would dominate the common law legal system for more than a century. Nor could he foresee that his words would shape the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and primal laws of a land he considered no more than conquered territory of the British crown. He could not forsee another failure in life studying his Commentaries in the frontier village of New Salem, Illinois, teaching himself law. And little could he imagine that two hundred years later gangsters would call their lawyers by his name. Blackstone spoke and wrote in the times of Oliver Goldsmith and Samuel Johnson, Edward Gibbon and Adam Smith, David Hume and Benjamin Franklin. Cultural institutions such as the British Museum, that today seem ancient, were in their infancy. The law then, as now, was rooted in everyday life but removed by lawyers and courts from most people’s lives. Blackstone’s task, and his ultimate accomplishment, was to open the law to many for whom it had been closed. Despite his initial misgivings, the lectures were an immediate success, breathing life into a dry and poorly taught subject. Blackstone’s lectures were published as the Commentaries in England between 1765 and 1769. An American edition published in Philadelphia, between 1771-72, sold out its first printing of 1,4OO and a second edition soon appeared. The Commentaries were translated into French, German and Russian. During his lifetime the work earned an estimated 14,OOO pounds, an enormous amount of money at the time. His work would also earn him belated success as a lawyer, politician, judge and scholar. Blackstone, however, more than paid for his success; he and his book became the targets of some of the most vitriolic attacks ever mounted upon a man or his ideas. In trying to comprehend the whole of British law and present it logically Blackstone divided the law into four volumes and themes. Book I covered the “Rights of Persons,” a sweeping examination of British government, the clergy, the royal family, marriage, children, corporations and the “absolute rights of individuals.” Book II, on the “Rights of Things,” should more properly have been called the Rights that people have in Things. It begins with the observation that “There is nothing which so generally strikes the imagination and engages the affections of mankind, as the right of property.” In hundreds of pages of arcane analysis he then disproves the point. Book III covers “Private Wrongs,” today known as torts. Book IV covers “Public Wrongs,” crimes and punishment, including offenses against God and religion. Blackstone had no illusions that he had covered every important aspect of the law adequately; his lectures and the books were designed as an introduction to the whole of the law. Human laws, Blackstone believed, were like scientific laws. They were creations of God waiting to be discovered just as Issac Newton had discovered the laws of gravity a century before. “Thus we say, the laws of motion, of gravitation, of optics, or mechanics, as well as the laws of nature and of nations.” Law flowed from the superior to the inferior, be it God, monarch or nation, and the inferior was compelled to obey. He acknowledged humans as “the noblest of all sublunary beings, a creature endowed with both reason and freewill” but decreed that there were “certain immutable laws of human nature, whereby freewill is in some degree regulated and restrained” and that God gave “the faculty of reason to discover the purport of those laws.” In Blackstone’s more worldly scheme a King could do no wrong. “The king,” he wrote, “is not only incapable of doing wrong, but even of thinking wrong: in him there is no folly or weakness.” A law could, however, could be illogical and therefore irrational and open to criticism. “Thus the statute of king Edward IV, which forbad the fine gentlemen of those times (under the degree of a lord) to wear pikes upon their shoes or boots of more than two inches in length, was a law that savored of oppression; because, however ridiculous the fashion then in use might appear, the restraining it by pecuniary penalties could serve no purpose of common utility.” Blackstone was not a pure monarchist. In his perfect world, which he believed the United Kingdom of his day closely resembled, Parliament played a central role as the source of legislation, and within Parliament the House of Commons and the House of Lords balanced each other. Blackstone did not invent the concept of separation of powers but he made the idea concrete and accessible for others to use. Blackstone, who according to James Boswell in his Life of Johnson “had a bottle of port before him” during the composition of the Commentaries finding his mind “invigorated and supported in the fatigue of his great work,” often lead his readers through a maze of conflicting absolutes. In Book I he wrote: “To bereave a man of life, or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole kingdom. But confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to goal, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government.” But in the same paragraph he contends that such actions may be necessary and proper. Blackstone may be said to have loved humanity and disliked people. He saw nothing wrong with restricting the vote to property owners because he thought those without property would have too little interest in public affairs and would be easily mislead. He abhorred the very idea of slavery in England (“indeed it is repugnant to reason, and to the principles of natural law,”) declaring that anyone brought in slavery to England was immediately freed, but was indifferent to its practice in America. He flatly declared that “Christianity is part of the laws of England” but stated that the law of England “gives liberty, rightly understood, that is, protection to a jew, turk, or a heathen, as well as to those who profess the true religion of Christ.” Blackstone may have proved his best and worst critic when he wrote: “It is well if the mass of mankind will obey the laws when made, without scrutinizing too nicely into the reasons of making them.” William Blackstone, however, had no shortage of critics, then or now. Lord Ellenborough said of Blackstone “it might be said of him, at the time he was composing the book, that it was not so much his learning that made the book, as it was the book that made him learned.” A contemporary British writer known only by the pseudonym “Junius” wrote “For the defense of truth, of law and reason the Doctor’s book may be safely consulted: but whoever wishes to cheat a neightbour of his estate, or to rob a country of its rights, need make no scruple of consulting the Doctor himself.” Philosopher Jeremy Bentham attended Blackstone’s lectures as a student. Blackstone, he wrote, was a “formal, precise and affected lecturer – just what you would expect from the character of his writings: cold, reserved and wary.” Blackstone’s comments on the King, Bentham said “stuck in my stomach.” Bentham went on to be Blackstone’s harshest enemy, denouncing his work as “ignorance on stilts.” Another prominent critic was Joseph Priestley, best known to history for his electrical and chemical discoveries. Some passages in the Commentaries on religious dissenters prompted Priestley to write a pamphlet attacking Blackstone, starting a series of published replies, countercharges and letters. Blackstone seemed confused why the scientist should attack him “I must first of all correct a mistake, which Dr. Priestly seems to have fallen into, by fancying that the offensive passages in my book were personally leveled at him.” William Blackstone was born on July 10, 1723, four months after his father died. After his mother died when he was 12, his uncle provided for him, securing through some influence admission to a good school. Blackstone entered Oxford at 15, studying the classics as well as mathematics and logic. He developed a talent as a minor poet. At 18 he entered the Middle Temple Inn of Court, one of the training grounds for English lawyers in London. Upon leaving Oxford for his law training he wrote a long poem called “The Lawyer’s Farewell to His Muse” which reads in part: Then welcome business, welcome strife Welcome the cares and thorns of life, The visage wan, the pore-blind sight, The toil by day, the lamp by night, The tedious forms, the solemn prate, The pert dispute, the dull debate, The drowsy bench, the babbling hall, For thee fair Justice, welcome all. Blackstone completed his legal studies and was called, or admitted, to the Bar in 1746. James Clitherow, his biographer and brother-in-law, blamed his failure in the law on “not having any powerful friends or connections to recommend him.” The truth lies closer to his indifferent abilities in court. “My temper, constitution, inclinations and a thing called principle, have long quarreled with active life,” he wrote in July 1753, “and have assured me that I am not made to rise in it.” During his time in London Blackstone was drawn back to Oxford, actively participating in the university’s activities. He applied for a position but lost it for political reasons, having backed the wrong candidate for Parliament, a mistake he would not repeat again. When he began the lectures on English law the “intervening cloud” of his life disappeared and his “great genius…broke forth, with so much splendor” according to his admiring brother-in-law. In 1761 Blackstone married Sarah Clitherow, with whom he had nine children. In that same year he was appointed a King’s Counselor and elected to the House of Commons. Blackstone was a loyal if undistinguished Tory, voting, for example, against the repeal of the Stamp Act directed against the American colonies. Some of his colleagues called him a “toady” for his willingness to curry favor with the establishment that once rejected him. In one debate the opposition turned the words of the Commentaries against Blackstone’s argument. In the next edition Blackstone rewrote the passage. In 177O Blackstone was knighted and accepted an appointment as a Justice of the Court of Common Pleas. Blackstone was often in poor health, and was irritable and impatient on the bench. As a judge his record was no more distinguished than his time at the Bar. He died of dropsy on Feb 14, 1780 at the age of 57, four years after the American Revolution he unintentionally inspired. In his 1941 book The Mysterious Science of the Law Daniel Boorstin wrote that no other book except the Bible played a greater role in the history of American institutions. The Founders of the country found their philosophy in John Locke and their passion in Thomas Paine, but they found the blueprint for a new nation in Blackstone. To be sure, they did not construct the government as Blackstone would have designed it; they added and subtracted from it as they went along but the foundation was built on Blackstone. The philosophy of the Declaration of Independence asserting the “self-evident” “unalienable Rights” of people granted by “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” could have come, and probably did, from Blackstone’s description of the rights of Englishmen under the British Constitution. The indictment against the Crown, the bulk of the Declaration, recites many of the absolute rights of individuals covered by Blackstone including the prohibition of taxation without consent. Thomas Jefferson, the chief drafter of the Declaration, was certainly familiar with Blackstone. Jefferson had a love- hate relationship with the Commentaries. In 1812 he wrote that it was the “most elegant and best digested of our law catalogue,” but in the same letter complained that it had been “perverted” and responsible for “the degeneracy of legal science.” Jefferson said that Blackstone and David Hume’s History of England “have done more towards the suppression of the liberties of man, than all the millions of men in arms of Bonaparte,” because both books glorified the systems Jefferson had devoted his life to fighting. Yet on two occasions Jefferson listed the Commentaries as required reading for law students. Jefferson’s animosity toward Blackstone grew in part out of his disdain for the superficial treatment of the law. Jefferson learned law by reading Coke upon Littleton, a tedious book that lead Jefferson to write to a friend, ” I do wish the Devil has old Cooke, (sic) for I am sure I never was so tired of an old dull scoundrel in my life.” Coke, a heroic figure who as a judge defied the king in a face to face confrontation and supported Parliament over royalty, improved with age in Jefferson’s eyes. Coke was “uncouth but cunning learning” but more comprehensive than Blackstone. “A student finds there” Jefferson wrote of Blackstone. “a smattering of everything, and his indolence easily persuades him that if he understands that book, he is master of the whole body of law. The distinction between these, and those who have drawn their stores from the rich and deep mines of Coke on Littleton, (sic) seems well understood even by the unlettered common people, who apply the appelation of Blackstone lawyer to these emphemeral insects of the law.” Jefferson’s core disagreement with Blackstone, however, was Jefferson’s opposition to adopting English common law in America. He was not alone in this view. Many advocated adopting a civil code along ancient Roman and contemporary European lines, and saw it as a final break away from England. In the early 1800s New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Kentucky passed ‘noncitation’statutes barring the adoption of English common law. However, both common law and Blackstone were too pervasive to be suppressed, and the centuries of precedents embodied in the Commentaries still influence American law today. A typical example is the Illinois statute adopting common law “prior to the fourth year of James the First,” or 16O7, with certain exceptions from the reigns of Elizabeth I and Henry VIII. Common law precedents can at times create problems in modern law that states have to correct by statute. The leading example is the widespread abolition by statute of the Rule in Shelley’s Case, an obscenely obscure point of law on the transfer of property originating in the 13OO’s. “It is revolting,” wrote Oliver Wendel Holmes in 1897 of ancient precedents in general “to have no better reason for a rule of law than that so it was laid down in the time of Henry IV.” Revolting or not this feature remains a central part of the law and Blackstone is still the guide. Jefferson gave up the practice of law to the Blackstone lawyers and despaired of the profession in words as true today as they were in 1810. Writing to a friend who asked his advice on his son’s career, Jefferson said “Law is quite overdone. It is fallen to the ground, and a man must have great powers to raise himself in it to either honor or profit. The mob of the profession get as little money and less respect, than they would by digging the earth.” Another Blackstone critic James Wilson, a signer of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and later a Supreme Court Justice. Wilson published several tracts and lectures on Blackstone praising him for his “uncommon merit” as a writer but damning him for his philosophy. Wilson’s opinion on Blackstone found a practical expression in the case Chisholm v.Georgia, decided in the Supreme Court in 1793. A British citizen employed two South Carolinians to recover property confiscated by the state of Georgia. The case was brought to the Supreme Court. Georgia refused to answer, denying the jurisdiction of the Court to hear the case. The Court ruled that the creation of the United States created a greater sovereignty in the “more perfect Union” and that states had surrendered a part of their sovereignty as the price of adopting the Constitution. In his opinion Wilson attacked Blackstone as the author of the view that the state is sovereign and immune from suit. “The sovereign,” Wilson wrote, “when traced to the source, must be found in the man.” The nub of Wilson’s opposition to Blackstone was expressed “Man, fearfully and wonderfully made, is the workmanship of his all perfect CREATOR: A State, useful and valuable as the contrivance is, is the inferior contrivance of man; and from his native dignity derives all its acquired importance.” The Georgia legislature immediately reacted by passing a law prohibiting the execution of the decision. Legislators from other states, also facing claims from British creditors, protested. The reaction to the decision lead to the passage and eventual ratification of the Eleventh Amendment, a curious part of the Constitution now little noticed or understood. The Amendment’s restriction against the federal courts to hear “any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State” is a codification of Blackstone’s teachings and indeed may be considered his fingerprint on the Constitution. Blackstone played an more obscure but important part in the most important case of the Supreme Court. Unlike Wilson, Chief Justice John Marshall, whose father had subscribed to the first American edition of the Commentaries, found much to like in Blackstone, especially when it supported his opinions. Blackstone’s definition of a writ of mandamus, an order directing the state to perform at act, was a linchpin in Marbury v. Madison, the 1803 case first establishing judicial review by the Supreme Court. William Marbury, a last minute appointee of the outgoing Adams administration, sued Secretary of State James Madison seeking a writ to compel the government to carry out the appointment. Marshall, himself appointed Chief Justice in the last three weeks of Adams’ term, blasted Jefferson for denying the commission and ruled that Marbury had an unquestioned right to the appointment. Marshall then performed an act of judicial judo, ruling that Congress had no right to grant the Supreme Court the power to issue a writ of mandamus, as defined by Blackstone. Marshall ruled the act unconstitutional because it granted the Court too much power, at the same time securing the far greater power of judicial review. Marbury lost his battle, but Jefferson lost the war against Marshall. Writing in 1807 on the evidence in the treason trial of former vice-president Aaron Burr, Marshall cited the works of Blackstone and others as “not to lightly be rejected.” “These books,” he wrote, “are in the hands of every student. Legal opinions are formed upon them, and those opinions are afterwards carried to the bar, the bench, and the legislature.” Blackstone played an influential part in the drafting and ratification of the Constitution. In his 1985 book Novus Ordo Seclorum Forrest McDonald called Blackstone’s contributions “pervasive.” The Commentaries were cited if not by name than by inference many times during the constitutional convention. The most direct and lasting force of his ideas concerned ex post facto laws, rules of laws designed to retrospectively regulate conduct. During the debates James Madison questioned whether the provision banning ex post facto laws in the draft of the Constitution would apply to civil cases. The next day delegate John Dickinson announced that he had consulted his Blackstone and found that the illegitimacy of ex post facto laws applied only in criminal cases. The matter was dropped, and Blackstone’s edict remains in force today. In the ratification debate Blackstone was used by both sides. Alexander Hamilton, following his early devotion to Blackstone in the cause of the Revolution, cited the Commentaries in Federalists No. 69 and 84 to bolster the case for the Constitution. Patrick Henry, as passionately opposed to the Constitution as he had been to the George III, argued against adoption in the Virginia Convention because the Constitution failed to provide for jury trials in civil cases as advocated by Blackstone. American lawyers in the early republic relied on Blackstone as the primary and often only source of the common law. American commentaries on the Commentaries appeared, such as 1814’s Law Miscellanies by Hugh Brackenridge, called the Pennsylvania Blackstone. The Americanized versions never supplanted the original. One Commentaries trained lawyer James Kent, later a Chancellor in New York, between 1826- 183O wrote his Commentaries on American Law critical of Blackstone and substituting much Roman law and civil code in place of the traditional common law. Edward Story, who also learned law through reading Blackstone, became the youngest Supreme Court Justice and author of many influential law books. Blackstone was the unseen teacher for uncounted numbers of American lawyers, first among them Abraham Lincoln. A typical Lincoln legend has it that a lawyer migrating west stopped in New Salem, Illinois, and sold a barrel full of law books, including Blackstone, to the rough-hewn storekeeper and surveyor in order to make room in the covered wagon. From this fateful accident, Lincoln is said to have thrown himself day and night into studying law. The truth, however, is, as Lincoln later wrote, he first thought of becoming a blacksmith, rejecting the idea of studying law because of his poor education and slim prospect of success. In 1834 Lincoln, running for state representative, meet fellow candidate and lawyer John Staurt, who encouraged him to take up the profession. Lincoln borrowed Staurt’s books, read the first forty pages of Blackstone on the walk home and “went at it in good earnest.” When Lincoln was running for President in 1860 he replied to an inquiry on “the best mode of obtaining a thorough knowledge of the law.” “The mode is very simple,” Lincoln wrote, “though laborious and tedious. It is only to get the books, and read, and study them carefully. Begin with Blackstone’s Commentaries, and after reading it carefully through, say twice, take up Chitty’s Pleading, Greenleaf’s Evidence, & Story’s Equity &c in succession. Work, work, work, is the main thing.” Despite another set of myths, Lincoln was not a well read man. William Herndon, his law partner and flawed biographer, wrote that Lincoln was not interested in reading his copies of Charles Darwin or other writers. Lincoln’s main intelluctual influences were Blackstone, Euclid and Shakespeare. With the distance of time it is impossible to know exactly how anyone influenced him but in two unpublished fragments on government and slavery written by Lincoln in 1854 there is a trace of Blackstone’s approach. “If A. can prove, however conclusively, that he may, of right, enslave B — why may not B. snatch the same argument, and prove equally, that he may enslave A?–” By a number of such exercises Lincoln plotted out his views on slavery and government. After Lincoln’s time Blackstone’s influence began to fade. American lawyers found his long passages on the royalty irrelevant and his work gave way to more modern writers. At the end of the nineteenth century legal education became more structured and the case study method, still in use today, replaced the text study of early America and England. Today a law student may be barely familiar with the name, reading only a few fragments in casebooks placed there for historical perspective. William Blackstone was by any standard often a failure and the Commentaries were flawed. And yet this failed, flawed man contributed, sometimes in spite of himself, greatly to the Constitution, laws and leaders of the United States. For that, if nothing else, he was a success after all. — In “The Spirit of the Common law” Pound, in 1921, wrote Blackstone off with these words: It was only in the present generation that legal education in the majority of our best schools was divorced from Blackstone… [an] obsolete legal science. (SOTCL-pg. 150) Suppose for almost anything can be found in Pound’s works if they researcher is not careful about the overall context. For example, the Internet World of Quotes, in its “Historic Quotes and Proverbs Archive”, features this seemingly contradictory Pound quote from his 1923 book, Interpretations of Legal History; The law must be stable and yet it must not stand still. [Emphasis Added] In other words, the law as written is important, but it (the law) must evolve. [Emphasis Added] Those words characterize Roscoe Pound… Pound’s views in his book, “Law and Morals”, on the surface also can be confusing. Pound advocated that law should evolve or change [Emphasis Added] to uphold morals. Pound’s position was that the common law upheld justice at the expense of morals. That could be puzzling. Traditional common law justice was based on scripture and natural law which society generally regards as right, decent, proper and moral. Why then should it need to “evolve” to uphold morals? As Pounds book unfolds, it becomes obvious that he does not believe that upholding the common law results in what is moral, even though the common law was based on divine revelation and natural law. Pound’s view of what is moral is that which man and changing society at any time may believe is right no matter what God has said. [Emphasis Added], That’s why Pound wrote that based on justice; …legal precepts sometimes are, and perhaps sometimes must be, at variance with the requirement of morals. (LAM pg. 41) To Explain, Pound Wrote; Under the influence of Hegel [to whom Pound refers often], law came to be thought of as an unfolding or a realizing of the idea of right. Legal history was a record of how the idea of right had realized itself progressively in human experience of the administration of justice. (LAM pg. 17) In other words, because for Hegel and Pound what is “right” or “moral” is in a constant state of change, legal precepts “at times must be at variance with morals”. For Pound and Hegel there are no absolutes, no unchanging standards. This was a total upending of the basic of the common law and precepts on which the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution were based. Pound basically rejected the idea that God thought His Bible has revealed the principles of laws and justice to man. He explains that the long held concept that law came ultimately from God was a theory developed when; …the natural law jurists, in an age of skepticism, were eager to convince all men upon an unimpeachable basis of reason and thus secure a general adherence to the precepts of the legal order. (LAM pg.9) In other words, to get support and acceptance, those who made the law lied when they told society that “God said…” [Emphasis Added] From this viewpoint, those like Blackstone or the writers of the Declaration of Independence also based their work on lies. (Such views permeate many of today’s textbooks.) Pound’s expressed attitude and a study of Pound’s teachings on Masonry shows that he does not accept the God of the Bible. Under the auspices of the Grand Master of the Massachusetts Masonic Temple of Boston, pound delivered a series of five lectures on the Philosophy of Masonry. They were published in the April 1915 Masonic magazine, “The Builder Of Masonry” and Pike’s teaching of it, Pound wrote; Masonry…teaches us to save ourselves by finding for ourselves the ultimate principle by which we shall come to the real [Pound also calls “the real”, the Absolute”]…the responsibility of reaching the real through them [Masonic teachings] is upon each of us…But what a feast! It is nothing less than the whole history of human search for results…And though mastery of it, we shall master the universe. That was Pound’s life work. The theme of Pound’s book “Law and Morals” and his advocacy of sociological jurisprudence show how the universe is to be mastered. Pound saw the goal as; …transferring (law) from individual interests to social interests!!! Satisfaction of human wants has been the watchword rather than general security… [Emphasis Added] (LAM pg. 109) In other words Pound advocated that, laws must be changed from protecting the individual and his property (as the common law did) to protecting the “group”, i.e. ‘socialism’. The change would be made by subordinating the individual and his/her RIGHTS and property ownership to the wants and needs of society, the ‘group’! To do this would require turning aside from the absolutes of the common law and also require discarding the Blackstone concept that law should be interpreted, understood and applied as “it is written”. Traditional principles of law had to be turned upside down to achiever the changes Hegel and Pound looked for! [Emphasis Added] However, as dedicated as he was to change, Pound was no overnight revolutionary. Realizing that moving too fast could provoke reaction and resistance, Pound cautioned; …We must ask now far, if we formulate a precept in terms of our moral principles, it may be made effective in action. Even more we must consider how far it is possible to give the moral principle legal recognition and legal efficiency by juridical action of juristic reasoning, on the basis of the received legal materials and with the received legal techniques, without impairing and with the received legal techniques, without impairing the general security by unsettling the legal system as a whole. [LAM pg. 67] In practice, that meant taking a small step in the desired direction and then resting and consolidating what had been achieved before moving on! Pound, like England’s Fabian Societies, knew that moving too quickly could stimulate reaction and resistance. Pound’s caution often brought him criticism from more radical legal activists. In his book, “The Spirit of the Common Law”, Pound really shows that he understood and spelled out the basis of the common law tradition on which America grew great. It is a valuable book for that reason. However, the book also shows his disdain for that tradition. For example Pound wrote; One the one hand, it [the common law] is characterized by an extreme individualism. A foreign observer has said that its distinguishing marks are “unlimited valuation of individual liberty and respect for individual property”. It is concerned not with social righteousness but with individual rights…it is so zealous to secure fair play to the individual that it often secures very little fair play to the public (THE GROUP!) [SOTCL pg. 13-14] Pound, continuing to speak of the common law, added; It is jealous of all interference with individual freedom of action, physical, mental, or economic. In short, the isolated individual is the center of many of its most significant doctrines (as well it should be!–Al Barrs). [SOTCL pg. 14] Instead of requiring that “what is written” in law, contracts, agreements, etc. be fulfilled, Pound held that the law should be lenient. He wrote; Individualism is a prime characteristic of the stage of legal development to which I have referred as strict law. For example, the strict law insists upon full and exact performance at all events of a duty undertaken in legal form. It makes no allowance for accident and has no mercy for defaulters. [SOTCL pg. 18] By the 21st Century, moving away from “strict law” has filled the courts! The courts are jammed with people who make personal decisions or choices, sign business contracts, enter marriage, etc. They then sue to get their agreements set aside. They often claim that they are “victims” in some way. They demand compensation for their personal failures to make wise decisions. Of Course, there are instances where there can be a total unfairness. That was acknowledged and provided for in the Anglo-American common law tradition. There were courts of equity where a plaintiff could go if there was a total unfairness in application of strict law. By the time of the U.S. Founders, much that came from the common law was regarded as strict law. Pound saw Puritanism in 16th and 17th Century England as the influence which formed the spirit of the common law. [SOTCL pg. 36] The existence of God and His right to rule was the basis of what is called Puritanism. Puritanism, like the God of the Bible, also emphasized that individuals were responsible for their own actions. Those are the reasons it is hated and scorned in today’s (Liberal) academic circles. What were the Puritan standards for which Pound expressed such scorn? Pound detailed the Puritan concepts which he wanted to see “evolve” and changed; No authority might rightfully coerce them (individual choices); but everyone must assume and abide the consequences of the choice he made. [SOTCL pg. 42] The whole (society) is to have no right of control over the individual beyond the minimum necessary to keep the peace. Everything else is to be left to the free contract of a free man… fools who make bad bargains should be held to the consequences of their folly. (SOTCL pg. 49, 53) The Ten Commandments and Scriptures interpreted by individual Christians, furnished sufficient general principles. For the rest, there was a need only of local laws to which those subjects thereto had freely assented. (SOTCL pg. 54) Pound said, “Happily this idea passed its meridian in our constitution law at the end of the last century”. What did Pound, writing in the early 20th Century see as the solution to the problems of Puritanism? He wrote; …it is not the fundamental principles of jurisprudence, but traditional principles of Puritanism, operating out of their sphere, with which American legislatures are struggling. We may abate some of our hostility to legislation, and may be willing to allow lawmakers to take into account the demands involved in social life and formulate in laws the needs of crowded urban industrial communities even in derogation of our traditional law. [Emphasis Added] (SOTCL pg. 58) Legislators, Pound believed, were to be given power to override traditional law (Even if based on the Constitution!). But Pound’s ultimate goal was giving judges the power to make new laws through their decisions. (“Judicial Activism” or “Legislating from the Bench” which is not supported by our Constitution! The Legislative Branch has the Constitutional delegated power to make bill of law…NOT the Judicial Branch of our U.S. Federal Government!–Al Barrs) [Emphasis Added] Pound wrote; …allow the magistrate some power of meeting the exigencies of justice in concrete cases. We may be willing (“We” may have at one period in our U.S. history, but not today! Judges are becoming more and more ideological and political in their rulings, and ignore our Constitution and Bill of Rights!–Al Barrs) to trust a trial judge to use honesty and impartiality the discretion without which trials will always be dilatory, expensive, and unsatisfactory. (SOTCL pg. 58) Such decisions, under the Case Law process, becomes the new basis of law. Pound’s book, “The Spirit of the Common Law”, gives a good overview of the development of law over the centuries. He just disagrees with the premises on which common law, which he termed “strict law”, was based. Pound was looking to and working toward the evolving of law! Sir Edward Coke, a 17th Century English jurist, is known as the “Father of the Common Law”. Under Coke’s principled brilliance came the doctrine that; …it was the function of the common law and of common-law courts to stand between the individual and oppressive action by the state; that the courts were setup and the law existed to guard individual interests against the encroachment of state and society. (SOTCL pg. 74) Advocates of social jurisprudence believed that protection of society [THE GROUP] (as envisioned by the social scientists) has to be supreme even at the expense of the individual and his/her rights… Our U.S. Constitution and our individual Bill of Rights forbid that concept! Words attributed to Patrick Henry makes it clear; The Constitution is not an instrument through which the government restrains the people, it is an instrument through which the people restrain government! [Emphasis Added] Pound disagreed, writing… Suffice it to say here that if, as I shall try to show on another occasion, the classical juristic theory [the common law] as laid down by Coke and developed in the eighteenth century is untenable and must be abandoned by the jurist. (Based on what evidence?–Al Barrs) (SOTCL pg/ 80) Pound’s goal was rule by judges! [Emphasis Added] That would replace the rule of law established by the consent of the governed (the citizens). His proposal was revolutionary and frightening. He supported his idea of having judges rule with these words; Attempts to reduce the judicial office of the United States to the purely mechanical function of applying rules imposed without and of serving as a mouthpiece for the popular will for the moment are now in the line of progress. (SOTCL pg. 84) In those words, Pound called for judges who will rule even though the rulings conflict with established law and “the popular will” of the people. Pound’s proposals have resulted in what is today regarded by many as “Judicial Tyranny” (or Judicial Activism and “Legislating from the bench”, anti-Constitutional–Al Barrs). Pound’s philosophical compatriots included Supreme Court Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes, Benjamin Cardozo and Louis Brandeis. From his Hegelian perspective, Pound saw and believed that change would come from conflict. Pound envisioned that the conflict which would produce change would come from the clash of two desires. The first was the Puritan concept of individual freedom and responsibility. Puritanism support for individual freedom and responsibility strengthens and grew, Pound said, as moved west as pioneers. Summed up, the Puritan concept stated: If man had to be governed, apart from God and individual consciences, it must be by known rules of law…which would tie down the magistrate by leaving as little as possible to his personal judgment and discretion, leaving as much as possible to the intuitive of the individual while keeping all governmental and official action to the minimum required for harmonious coexistence of the individual and of the whole society. (SOTCL pg. 119-120) With insight, Pound saw that the conflict with such traditional “frontier views” of individual freedom and responsibility came with the development of cities and urban life. Pound wrote; Men are saying today that material warfare is the great end to which all institutions must be directed and by which they must be measured. Men are not asking merely to be allowed to achieve welfare; they are asking to have welfare achieved for them through organized society. (SOTCL pg. 109) In other words, as men came to cities they would be willing to trade their personal freedom to have their material wants satisfied (by other taxpayers…). There were other philosophical conflicts which factored into the changing law, justice and culture on which Pound commented. One of them had to do with the view of how law developed. The historical view, as Pound explained, could be summarized this way; Traditionally, the Anglo-American common law concept from Sir Edmond Coke, Blackstone, etc. was that law that was not made, it was to be discovered. Law ultimately come from God through (1) Biblical divine revelation; (2) in pagan and heathen cultures through God’s Romans 2:14-15 work in the hearts of heathen, and (3) through the work of man who discovered law through reason, experience and study of the scriptures. Pound disagreed with this concept! He disagreed because such a concept left no room for the law to evolve and change. If law comes from God and is discovered, it is not, therefore, subject to personal whims of judges, nor the demands of a stirred up pressure group. Pound’s disagreement was not the view of one legal revolutionary. He headed the nation’s most prestigious law school training future attorneys and judges. What Pound did at Harvard, other law schools soon followed… Pound’s influence expanded through his speeches, lectures and voluminous correspondence with U.S. Presidents, Supreme Court justices, judges and most of the prominent legal figures from 1910 through the 1950s. Even with all of that influence, Pound admitted that deceit and guile would be necessary. Deceit and guile were essential if judges were to make the changes in law and the culture, the ultimate goal of Pound and the advocates of sociological jurisprudence. Pound told why deceit and guile would be required when judges came up with new law. He realized that if judges tried to change the law, while men still understood the traditional view of law, people would; …insist upon knowing where the pre-existing rule was to be found before judges discovered and applied it, in what form it existed, and how and whence it derived its form and obtained its authority. And when as a result of such inquiries, the rule seems to have sprung full-fledged from the judicial head, the assumption that the judicial function is one of interpretation and application only leads to the conclusion that the courts are exercising a usurped authority. (SOTCL pg. 171) What was Pound’s answer? How are the absolutes of the law to be overturned? Pound wrote; If all legal rules are contained in immutable form in holy writ or in twelve tablets or in a code or in received corpus juris or in the custom of the realm [laws of nature] whose principles are authoritatively evidenced, not only must new situations be met by deduction and analogical extension under the guise of interpretation but the inevitable changes to which all law is subject must be hidden under the same guise. (SOTCL pg. 171) Pound was maintaining that while laws or the interpretation of them may be changed, the form must be kept the same. He said; In each case the result was infusion of morals [by his definition that’s what people or someone wants] into law a making over of the law, although in theory the old rules stood unaltered. [Emphasis Added] (SOTCL pg. 172) As the law “grew”, Pound spelled out the result of the change. On page 13 of his book, “Law and Morals”, he wrote; …the state is the unchallengeable authority behind legal precepts. The state takes the place of Jehovah handing down the table of the law to Moses. This is exactly what has happened to the Constitution of the United States of America under the pressures of sociological jurisprudence. Pound wrote his words over 80 years ago. Today, so few Americans have any understanding of our true legal traditions and constitutional history that few men… …insist upon knowing where the pre-existing rule was to be found before judges discovered and applied it, in what form it existed, and how and where it derived its form and obtained its authority. Eighty years have passed since Pound acknowledged that the American people’s knowledge of law and tradition was an obstacle to judges making new law. [Emphasis Added] American schools, under the influence of Pound’s contemporary “John Dewey”, have dumbed down successive generations of American citizens. (And that is why we have millions of millennial socialist supporting, rioting on command, and voting for Socialist Bernie Sanders and other Socialists. Our American education institutions, from Kindergarten through Graduate school, was infiltrated and taken over by socialist and their co-conspirator communist elements in the early 1960s, they transformed our traditional conservative curricula into autocratic socialist curricula and have been brainwashing or “dumbing” down our future leaders and voters since 1960…–Al Barrs) Most U.S. citizens no longer recognize the difference between what had been written and established and what judges SAY is law. What has resulted? In the next to last chapter of John A. Stormer’s book, “BETRAYED BY THE BENCH”: The Spirit of the Common Law, Roscoe Pound is quoted as saying; Eight noteworthy changes in the law in the present generation…have been taking place almost unnoticed, and a shifting was in progress in our case law from the individualist justice of the nineteenth century, which has passed so significantly by the name of “legal justice” to the “social justice of today even before the change in our legislative policy became so marked. [Emphasis Added] (SOTCL pg. 185) The “eight changes” Pound saw developing have produced drastic changes in American culture, families and way of life. Pound’s changed included; 1. …limitations on the use of property to prevent anti-social exercise of ownership and accomplish “the interests of society”. (SOTCL pg. 185) A blatant limitation on private property rights came as the Supreme Court ended its 2004-2005 session. The decision in Kelo vs. City of New London ruled that cities (or towns and villages) can use or misuse the power of “eminent domain” to seize private property (including people’s homes, small businesses, etc.) Private businesses, which would, or might, produce more tax revenue for the towns can then be given the use of the property for private profits! This is a full blown socialist jurisprudence decision! [Emphasis Added] Private property rights, which were upheld by the common law and the Constitution, have been abolished “for the good(?) of society”. The Supreme Court’s decision basically eliminated the clear property right provision of the 5th Amendment. That provision allows taking of private property (with compensation [Compensation not determined by the property owner!]) when it is “needed for public use”–building a road, utility lines, etc.–but not for other private owner’s use! For many “eminent domain” is an abstract concept until a developer and a municipality government combine to take the homes and small businesses of hundreds of citizens. Those who have lived in their homes for much of their lives are uprooted (against their will) “for the good(?) of society”. 2. Limitations upon the freedom of contract have been designed by the courts and legislatures to protect those who are subject economic pressure and unfair advantage on the part of those who have greater economic power! (SOTCL pg. 186-187) Rights to freely contract (make agreements) have been limited by wage and hour laws, compulsory unionism, etc. 3. Pound saw courts putting limitations on the power of a creditor or injured party to secure what is due them if it places hardships on the “victims”. (That’s why we call our society today a “victim’s society”.–Al Barrs) (SOTCL pgs. 187-188) Today, Limitations are imposed by law on efforts to collect bad debts and require individuals to face responsibilities. 4. Pound advocated that where there is no blame on either side, social justice will ask, “Who can best bear the loss?”. (SOTCL pg. 188-189) Today, there is “no fault insurance” and “no fault divorces”. No fault divorces have multiplied single family households. (And, Federal Government welfare has fueled ever more single parent families! Female K-12 students are purposely getting pregnant so they can use their children to apply for and receive taxpayer funded welfare and other financial support.–Al Barrs) 5. Pound said that natural resources such as running water (rivers and streams) and wild game are assets of society, which are not capable of private appropriation or ownership, except under regulations that protect the social interest (SOTCL pg. 189) Court oversight of environmental rules is an example. 6. Pound foresaw the day when Courts should no longer make the natural rights of the parents the chief basis of court decisions with respect to children of the parents the chief basis of court decisions with respect to children and their rearing, their education (socialist brainwashing), etc. (SOTCL pg. 189) Today, the law and the views of social scientists have replaced many Bible guidelines for the rearing, training, education and disciplining of children. Parents can’t keep their minor children from getting abortions. One court granted a teenager’s request to “divorce” his parents. The boy didn’t like the religious training his parents were giving him. States too have usurped parental rights in a myriad of ways. (Same too with firearm ownership and use!–Al Barrs) To achieve these goals Pound said a body of law must be developed by judges…(NOT by Congress!!!–Al Barrs) [Emphasis Added] …which will satisfy the demands of society today…apart from the ultra-individualist materials of eighteen century jurisprudence and nineteenth century law…(SOTCL pg. 190) Some changes can be beneficial and MAY help society and individuals. However, such changes should must be made legislatively rather than through judge-made law! Ideas have consequences! Bad ideas, when accepted or even tolerated, can have tragic results! Broken homes, multitudes of babies born out of wedlock, school districts where half of the children come from broken homes are a few of the tragic results of widespread acceptance of Pound’s sociological jurisprudence AIDs and rampant growth of other sexually-transmitted diseases are another tragedy.–Al Barrs
  2. Pingback: Most of us Attended John Dewey’s Socialist Public Schools |

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s