The Synderesis Principle validates Morality in Nature

The Synderesis Principle
Synderesis is called the law of our understanding inasmuch as it is the habit of keeping the precepts of natural law, which are the first principles of human activity. (Q. 94, 1)

As noted above, our knowledge of all natural law arises from synderesis, which is an inborn habit of our practical reason. Thomas explains this habit in three key places:

...the principles our nature imparts to us in practical matters do not belong to a special power but to a special habit there by nature, synderesis. And thus synderesis is said to incite us to good and to deter us from evil in that through first principles we both begin investigation and judge what we find. (1a Q. 79, 12)

Natural reason determines beforehand the ends of moral virtue by what is called synderesis.... (2a2ae, Q. 47, 6)
http://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/vita/research/aqu.htm

 

Conservatism Is the Center Post of our HOUSE....
the Principles of the Constitution regarding Challenging the "written in granite" argument...

"Principles are those written IN granite ...natural law "example"...

A large room with a center beam.....needed to uphold the structure, engineers know the math, knows what must BE their to COUNTER the weight of Roofing the Post in the Middle is designed to support.
......The Constitution is the CENTER Beam....

Asking a question like..."is the Constitution designed to allow the changing or evolution? The answer to that...."If you don't know, I can't explain it to you" type of question is ..
HELL NO!
Just because YOU want a pool table in the middle of the room, you think that post is simply there as a way to be in your way...therefore...I'll just move...err evolve it.....NO!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXVG2oaJ1c0&feature=colike

yes or no?

 

Imagine a Job being an entitlement?

Imagine a Job being an entitlement?

so then...
Just what makes an "entitlement" an entitlement? Earned or Presumed "earned?"

One who works 40 hours a week, and gets paid...is an Entitlement? I'm entitled to be paid, since I worked.

I guess that is the logic of the Marginal Media calling Social Security, and Medicare as "entitlements." After all....someone who gets FREE FREE FREE money shouldn't be getting money, therefore...Welfare is NOT an entitlement....

Makes sense to me? Liberal Logic, messaging and the dumb people who buy this Schitte....

If you don't know this, you don't know Jack.....Let me introduce you to my new little friends....Jack...
http://youtu.be/XuRwis3_iVk

The Constitution = The Center Beam that Supports the House - Reverse engineer to distrupt Original Intent

Tony vs Liberal on facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/TheConstitutionByGO
....an exchange ....in "defense of the obvious."

I exchange with a LIBERAL over the Principles of the Constitution. Challenging the "written in granite" argument...
from Shawn Geneva Maynard
, but you refuse to answer my question? It was a simple question. Ill ask it again even.
Do you think the constitution was meant to stay the same and never be changed?


I finally gave in to @shawn and acknowledged his indifference to the "Sensibilities of the Obvious.

"Principles not to be evolved ...natural law "example"...
A large room  with a center beam.....needed to uphold the structure, engineers know the math, knows what must BE their to COUNTER the weight of Roofing the Post in the Middle is designed to support.
......The Constitution is the CENTER Beam....

Asking a question like..."is the Constitution designed to allow the changing or evolution?  The answer to that...."If you don't know, I can't explain it to you" type of question is ..
HELL NO!

Just because YOU want a pool table in the middle of the room, you think that post is simply there as a way to be in your way...therefore...I'll just move...err evolve it.....NO!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXVG2oaJ1c0&feature=colikehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXVG2oaJ1c0&feature=colike

 

 

Academic Constitutional Legal Theory is Intellectually Corrupt

                                                   

The Supreme Court will soon release its decision on ObamaCare. I have no dog in this fight–I have no opinion as to whether it is constitutional or not. (Actually, I think the law is inconsistent, and so I think there is a compelling legal case for both sides.)

From my perspective as an outsider, most of the field of constitutional law seems intellectually corrupt. It seems that almost everybody does the following:

1. Start with a political philosophy–a view of what you want the government to be able to do and what you want to the government to to be forbidden from doing.

2. Take the Constitution as a given.

3. Reverse engineer a theory of constitutional interpretation such that it turns out–happily!–that the Constitution forbids what you want it to forbid and allows what you want it to allow.

When I read academic writing by constitutional legal theorists, it seems like basically everyone (conservatives, liberals, libertarians) does this. Isn’t that bizarre? For example, why don’t more libertarian legal theorists just say, “Yes, the Constitution allows X, even though X ought to be forbidden, and so to that extent, the Constitution is bad.” Why don’t we see more left-liberals saying, “A just society would allow X, but, alas, our Constitution forbids X and is to that extent a bad Constitution.” We do sometimes see this, but for the most part, people of every ideology tend to argue that the Constitution allows or forbids exactly what they would want it to allow or forbid. Isn’t the most plausible explanation of this that most legal theorists are intellectually corrupt? (They may be sincere, but they are suffering from terrible confirmation bias.)

When it comes to arguing in front the Supreme Court, we can make some sense of this practice. In that case, the stuff about constitutional interpretation is just a facade, and what’s really going on is that different groups are fighting to impose their political philosophy upon others. But academic legal theory is supposed to aim at truth. Legal theorists are not–or should not be–fighting political battles.

Since I am a legal positivist and a legal realist, I do not assume that the Constitution is good or just. I do not assume that something has to be good for it to be the law.

I regard laws as sociological phenomena, and whether a law is good or just is a contingent fact. Thus, I am perfectly happy, in some sense, for it to turn out that the Constitution allows things I would forbid and forbids things I would allow. I feel no impulse to try to interpret the Constitution so that it requires–how happily!–neoclassical liberalism.

Imagine if people interpreted Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals the way they interpret the American Constitution. People would start with their favored view of ethics. They would then reverse engineer a theory of textual interpretation such that Kant ends up, according to that theory, endorsing their pre-existing favored view of ethics. If a scholar did that, we’d think that scholar was to that extent intellectually corrupt, even if she were sincere. Yet this is pretty much what most academic constitutional legal theorists do.

The only real defense of this practice I’ve seen is one that starts by arguing that the law is supposed to be normative and authoritative. However–and I won’t argue for this here–the case for legal positivism seems so strong that I don’t see this as plausible.

Can Greed be MORAL? Rational?

Does Greed trump Morality...
is Greed ever Rational / Moral?

 "American Greed" is doing everything it can to convince usA all that Greed, and Greed alone is the root of all evil.  Programming USa, every chance Perversionists can.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/yes-liberals-do-control-culture

Picket the Complicit!!  Programming USa...not acceptable....any longer....!!

Time to get PHYSICAL....emails, phone calls, won't do squat, diddly, or otherwise....
The Media Strategically understands

"If a tree fell in the woods and no one was there to hear it (or report it) DID IT really hap
pen? (see Benghazi)

March on the Media,
demand Truth be reported ONLY...Demand or be sheeple....talk, talk, talk, talk, and more talk..

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=455239147847127&set=o.209167655869078&type=1&relevant_count=1&ref=nf

Media needs to be "embarrassed" before they will RE-act...this is what "they try to do to usA" often and all too often for fear of embarrassment we do stupid things in order NOT to BE embarrassed...human nature liberals use...our turn...now

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/tony-venuti/2011/10/27/picket-the-media-i-will-the-tony-venuti-show

NUMBER #1 ENEMY OF AMERICA !!!!!! NO LONGER NEWS, BUT AGENDA !!!!!!

What IS = Conservative...What IF = Liberalism / Pervisionism

Liberalism deals with WHAT IF.....

Conservative deal with WHAT IS......This needs to be argued always when ignorance spouts....

"Well, IF the Surplus wasn't put into place it would of been worse." Really...you know that? Or you THINK you know that....

http://www.doceo.co.uk/tools/knowing.htm

True Science speaks to What is or Isn't....

Hollywood drama-sports, Liberal politicians, and children...speak to what IF.... 

Faith or Fact...(imagine placing libs on the side of "faith"...) sorry for that...

Racists Are THEY who PROCLAIM YOU are.

Who is more RACIST...Liberal elites...promoting Abortion?
...OR
Conservatives who Promote LIFE...even African-American/Black/Negro LIFE & Pursuit of Happiness?

Facts 655,000 Babies of Liberal color are allowed to NOT that God given Right.

You really believe Liberal Elites care for Black Babies? c'mon...now.....duh!!!

The Perversionalization comes when "one of many of your own" are in bed with the Liberal Elite....(Black Leaders, laughing at their flock, all the way to the Bank of THEM!)

http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/18/atlanta-billboard-pro-choice-civil-rights-leaders-betray-black-community/http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/18/atlanta-billboard-pro-choice-civil-rights-leaders-betray-black-community/

Would you die to protect your Children? then....

Random thought...(?)

A Patriot to a Country is the Parent...yes?
Like "Parents" to a child...have we been Irresponsible?

OK, next question...Would you DIE for your children?
Would you step (not talk) in between your child and that which proposes harm?"

Consider this...next time...you decision to talk or walk your talk comes to a town near you....

Just a thought...more coffee needed.www.facebook.com/tony-venuti