Whatever Happened to Justice Ch 20

What does the author suggest about liberties under political law?

Why does the author mention the Founders' choice of majority rule?

How does John Jay view the state of political power?

What was the role of the Underground Railroad before the Civil War?

According to the content, what was the U.S. government's action against Native Americans prior to the 20th century?

What moral dilemma is presented regarding individuals involved in the Underground Railroad?

What query does the author pose regarding soldiers who refused orders during the Indian Wars?

What is implied about the nature of rights under political law?

How do courts operate under the current legal system described?

What does the author suggest about the threat of lawsuits?

According to the author, how do fundamental rights differ under scientific law compared to political law?

What critique does the author make about attempts to reform the legal system?

What metaphor does the author use to describe the mentality under political law?

In what manner does the author perceive the current legal system?

What do the quotes from John Jay suggest about the historical context of rights?

Current law views rights as granted by the government, making them revocable permissions, not true liberties.
Freedoms like speech, press, and trade are seen as permissions rather than inherent rights.
Revocability of these permissions makes them dependent on the will of those in power.
Majority rule is a factor in this limited perspective of rights.

Modern courts prioritize enforcing laws over seeking justice.
Courts lack a concept of right and wrong, guided only by law.
Lawsuits are now seen as threats and acts of aggression due to prohibitive costs and arbitrary outcomes.
Innocent individuals can be targeted and mistreated through legal processes, even when no wrong was committed.
The legal system has become a tool for causing harm rather than preventing it.

Scientific law views fundamental rights as inherent, gifts from a Creator, not the government.
These rights cannot be taken away by laws.
Political law lacks true liberty, only conditional permissions.
Political law, reliant on the whims of those in power, can easily be reversed, even amidst reforms.

The text questions morality, innocence, and guilt within the legal system.
What constitutes right and wrong in a political context?
Were participants in the Underground Railroad, or soldiers refusing war crimes, innocent or guilty based on the laws?

Historical examples of the arbitrary use of law are presented.
The Underground Railroad's actions challenged existing laws, posing the question of legal vs. moral correctness.
The Indian Wars raise the question of the morality and responsibility of soldiers upholding unjust laws.