Law

The U S Constitution — John Eidsmoe Falls Short Of Proving It’s A Christian Document

blogger April 8, 2018

According to John Eidsmoe, the U S Constitution was heavily influenced by Christianity. That is the thesis of his book Christianity and the Constitution. Published in 1987 by Baker House, the book is 415 pages in length.

The book leads off with a survey of various philosophical schools popular in the 18th Century, not least of which was Calvinism. John Eidsmoe states that a majority of Americans were Calvinist, but fails to demonstrate its influence on the Founders.

The book deals briefly with “John Locke’s social contract theory,” which is said to be the “secular expression” of the covenant. Mr. Eidsmoe equates the two, a usual tactic of Christian Federalists to explain away the obvious secularism of the U S Constitution.

For example, he glosses over Locke’s humanism with the assertion that he was “a Puritan by background” who “based his political theories on Rutherford’s Lex Rex.” Thus he excuses Locke’s humanism and Latitudinarianism to arrive at an very tenuous conclusion. John Locke was a Puritan prodigal, not a faithful son.

Mr. Eidsmoe’s repeated confusion of social contract theory and Bible covenant is his biggest problem. He naively mistakes the preamble of the U S Constitution as a commitment to Bible covenantalism, instead of the godless social contract which it is. This confusion is typical of Christian Constitutionalists, who frequently equate the U S Constitution and the Word of God.

Another chapter looks at aspects of 18th Century Puritanism such as optimistic eschatology and the application of Biblical law to all of life. John Eidsmoe wants his reader to draw the conclusion that these were incorporated into the U S Constitution. But this does not follow. The first Great Awakening of 1742 is described as a revival of Puritanism. This tenuous conclusion supports the non sequitor that Puritanism was built into the U S Constitution of 1787.

Several aberrant philosophies of the time are also discussed, including Freemasonry and Deism. Freemasonry is introduced and then waved off as an innocent social club, useful for political and business networking. John Eidsmoe simply ignores the anti-Christian oaths integral to Freemasonry.

It is hard to summarize all the problems in the chapter on “Law and Government”. For one thing, Mr. Eidsmoe presents Montesquieu as a champion of Biblical law. In reality Montesquieu took the Bible as but one among many authorities, with all subject to natural law.

Likewise Blackstone’s Common Law is presented as a compendium of Biblical law par excellence. The fact of the matter was it had morphed into a barnacle- laiden anachronism by the 1750s. For example, some 200 mostly petty crimes carried the death penalty. Most juries refused to enforce it because it was so obviously unjust.

In reality Blackstone rarely even mentioned the Bible in his Commentaries. We assume John Eidsmoe has read Blackstone, so he should be aware of that.

Returning to Locke, Mr. Eidsmoe justifies his humanism and “blank slate” theory of the mind, which denies original sin. Again he draws the faulty conclusion that Locke’s “social compact theory is similar to the Calvinist idea of covenant.” This is a misleading statement because the two ideas are diametrically opposed. They represent the authority of man versus the authority of God.

All of these misperceptions color the religious biographies of the founders which comprise most of the book. For example, of John Witherspoon he notes that “He devoted his life to instilling the principles of Holy Scripture into the minds and souls of young men who then used these principles to shape America.”

It is difficult to see how anyone who has read Witherspoon’s class notes for his moral philosophy class could draw such a conclusion. Moral philosophy was the culminating class of the curriculum that Witherspoon taught personally to all the graduating seniors at the College of New Jersey. They are an exposition of natural law and secular social contract theory, with very little reference to Holy Scripture.

Typical of Christian apologists for the U S Constitution John Eidsmoe spends a good deal of time arguing that the Founding Fathers were all solid Christians. The usual assumption is that if we can prove the founders were Christian, the document they gave us must of necessity be Christian. But this is a non-sequitor. Space does not permit us to say all that could be said of these biographies.

At the end, John Eidsmoe lists all of the alleged biblical principles he has found in the U S Constitution. But most of what he cites is Enlightenment theory of the natural rights of man, egalitarianism, and natural law. The “consent of the governed” is the source of governing authority rather than God.

Mr. Eismoe is correct in concluding that knowledge of the sinfulness of man prompted the Constitution’s limited, delegated powers. This is the one point at which the Founders got it right, and we have Witherspoon to thank for that. But overall the complexities of this book should limit its use to the advanced student who is well-versed in the issues involved.

For More Information

Law

Founding Fathers, Holy Scripture, John Eidsmoe, John Locke

Residential Tenancies Mental Health Problems A duty to accommodate and a tenant’s right to remain

blogger April 1, 2018

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES: Mental Health Problems, a Duty to Accommodate, and a Tenant’s Right to Remain in their Home

The legislation governing most residential landlord and tenant relationships in Ontario is the Residential Tenancies Act S.O. 2006, c.17. (RTA). While the residential lease, written, oral, or implied, executed by the parties may inform the rights and responsibilities between the parties, the lease agreement may only establish those rights subject to the over-riding provisions of the RTA. In Ontario, the RTA applies to rental units in residential complexes despite any other Act and despite any agreement or waiver to the contrary. Further, where a provision in a tenancy agreement/ lease is inconsistent with the RTA or its regulations, that provision is void, and where the provision of another Act conflicts with the RTA the RTA takes precedence. In this regard, the freedom to contract is restricted; even prevented by the RTA, and appellate judicial pronoucement confirms that the RTA is effectively a complete code removing even the jurisdiction of the Superior Court in dealing with the relationship between landlord and tenant outside of the regime established by the RTA.

A recognized and statutorily mandated exception to the foregoing is the application of the Ontario Human Rights Code, the provisions of which take precedence over the provisions of the RTA. It is with respect to this exception that this paper is concerned, in the context of discussing recurring and difficult cases arising at the Landlord and Tenant Board, and how the Human Rights Code is helping tenants suffering from disabilities that cause behaviours which otherwise or normally would justify termination of their tenancies and eviction.

In practice before the Landlord and Tenant Board of Ontario, it has become increasingly apparent that a great number of tenants who are called upon to defend themselves and consequently their tenancies are suffering from some form of mental illness. In many instances, the mental illness is undiagnosed, but nevertheless is apparent to the observant onlooker. These tenants, but for the litigation support offered through Legal Aid Ontario, Community Legal Clinics, and generous lawyers, are left without the protections that one expects a Court to afford parties under disability. The Landlord and Tenant Board will allow proceedings to continue against a tenant, who by any reasonable measure would appear to be a party under disability, with the usual caveat being that they speak to duty counsel (who can not represent during the proceeding) prior to hearing.

Whether justice is wrought in these circumstances is a hard question; however, I believe it is fair to say that under these circumstances, the chance for injustice is greatly elevated. How then, and where, is the protection for parties under disability, for the mentally ill and infirm?

The starting point to deal with mental illness in residential landlord and tenant matters lies in the Ontario Human Rights Code R.S.O. 1990, c. H 19.. The code provides that -every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to the occupancy of accommodation, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status, disability or the receipt of public assistance-. A disability is defined to include a condition of mental impairment or a mental disorder.

In the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in Werbeski v. Ontario (Director of Disability Support Program, Ministry of Community & Social Services), 2006 SCC 14 (S.C.C.) , the Court held that a provincially created statutory tribunal was obligated to follow the provincial human rights legislation when rendering its decision. The Court stated that statutory tribunals, which were empowered to decide questions of law, are presumed to look beyond the enabling statute, to apply the whole law to a matter properly before them.

The OHRC is a fundamental law. The Ontario legislature affirmed the primacy of the OHRC in the law itself, which is applicable both to private citizens and public bodies. Further, the adjudication of OHRC issues is no longer confined to the exclusive domain of the Ontario Human Rights Commission: OHRC, Section 34. The legislature has clearly contemplated that this fundamental law could be applied by the Court and other administrative bodies and has amended the OHRC accordingly.

In Werbeski , supra, the Supreme Court of Canada found that an administrative tribunal should apply the provisions of the OHRC when interpreting statutes because:

(i) The Ontario Human Rights Code states that it has primacy over other legislative enactments;

(ii) The recent amendments to the OHRC have removed the exclusive jurisdiction over interpretation and the application of the Code, from the Human Rights Commission.

In addition, the provisions of Section 11(2) and Section 17(2) and (3) of the OHRC specifically state that “a Court, as well as the Tribunal or the Commission, could apply these provisions of the OHRC when deciding if the needs of a person with a disability can be accommodated without undue hardship.” Section 47(2) of the OHRC states that the OHRC is paramount over other legislation. The Supreme Court of Canada has also held that the Human Rights Code takes precedence over agreements and contracts: Syndicat Northcrest c. Amselem, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 551 (S.C.C.).

APPLICATION TO LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD PROCEEDINGS

The Divisional Court in Walmer Developments v. Wolch, on a appeal from a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal (predecessor to the Landlord and Tenant Board), dealt with a situation where the tenant was diagnosed with schizophrenia. As a consequence of this condition, the tenant exhibited behaviours that included frequent screaming, throwing garbage loose in the halls, shouting profanity in the elevator, putting her property, such as her TV, out in the hall, and leaving food cooking on the stove unattended and hence filling the hall with smoke.

The Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal did not apply the Ontario Human Rights Code, and failed to give consideration to the implications of section 2 of the OHRC to the eviction proceedings before it. This was ultimately held to be in error as Section 17 of the Code provides:

17(1) A right of a person under this Act is not infringed for the reason only that the person is incapable of performing or fulfilling the essential duties or requirements attending the exercise of the right because of disability.

(2) The Commission, the board of inquiry or a court shall not find a person incapable unless it is satisfied that the needs of the person cannot be accommodated without undue hardship on the person responsible for accommodating those needs, considering the cost, outside sources of funding, if any, and health and safety requirements, if any.

After some discussion of issues pertaining to the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal’s ability to require accommodation (since ameliorated by statutory amendments), the Court held that a tenant suffering a disability has the protections of the OHRC, and most importantly that the question of accommodation shall be considered in the Tribunal’s/Board’s determination of whether to relieve from eviction under the discretionary provisions of the Tenant Protection Act/Residential Tenancies Act.

In Walmer, the appeal was allowed because it was ultimately demonstrated that the landlord could accommodate the tenant by notifying the tenant’s family of problems as they arose and that the tenant’s family could intervene. It was found that the tenant, when on her medication was controlled and her behaviour was then not objectionable.

Walmer, then, stands for the proposition that a landlord has a duty to accommodate a tenant who exhibits behaviours as a result of a disability, that otherwise would warrant termination and eviction, and where the accommodation does not amount to undue hardship, to actually take steps to assist the tenant in maintaining their tenancy by finding reasonable solutions to the problems alleged. Further, where a landlord fails to provide such accommodation, the Landlord and Tenant Board is directed to consider what may be a reasonable accommodation and where available, refuse termination and eviction to the landlord.

SINCE WALMER The Walmer decision has had the practical impact of sensitizing the Landlord and Tenant Board to the fact that many of the persons who appear before the Board are suffering from disabilities. While sensitized to the issue, it continues to be the case that the burden of establishing the existence of the disability; and further establishing what the reasonable accommodation may be; remains with the tenant. Where tenants do not have representation and/or do not have a support network the accommodation potential (and hence retention of the rental unit) offered by Walmer , is not pursued and hence is lost. Very clearly, in the Landlord and Tenant Board context, a human right is only a right if it is pursued and the Board will not, on an institutional basis assure that a mentally ill party is represented and that his/her human rights are asserted.

The Walmer decision has had a dramatic real life impact for many tenants. In particular, tenants suffering from schizophrenia, paranoid delusional disorder, dementia, alzheimers, hoarding instincts, and a host of other mental illnesses that from time to time cause behaviours that otherwise would warrant termination and eviction; now, are retaining their housing, with the landlord being required to take a little extra care for them. The Walmer development has been a positive change in that it has very clearly prevented homelessness of persons with mental illness who are able to be treated and who will function normally with the right support, understanding, and accommodation.

This is significant as the number of aging renters increases. Aging seniors, who haven’t had an issue with their landlords since the commencement of their tenancy are increasingly finding themselves before the Landlord and Tenant Board facing allegations of anti-social behaviours. Often these behaviours are age related as aging sometimes brings on mental illnesses or medical conditions that cause a person to exhibit anti-social behaviours. Often, these can be medically treated or ameliorated by additional care and support. These -mentally ill- tenants are often just regular folks whose entire life is subject to being turned upside down through eviction because they got sick. Through eviction they lose the stability that having a place to live gives, it robs them of peace, their routines, and likely exacerbates any medical condition or mental illness through the stress caused by the eviction.

While Walmer has been a tremendous help to many tenants by forcing the Landlord and Tenant Board to recognize -disabilities- and to impose accommodation of those disabilities where reasonable; the procedures of the Landlord and Tenant Board in adjudicating cases dealing with the mentally ill continue to disregard the fact that in many instances these tenants are not only mentally ill but incompetent as well. From the perspective of the Landlord and Tenant Board it never has a party before it that can be a -person under disability- as in the sense of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Query whether this is just.

CONCLUSION The issue that this paper started with remains unresolved. Persons suffering with mental illness still face procedural disadvantage at the Landlord and Tenant Board. The Landlord and Tenant Board can make a person homeless. Hopefully, the law will eventually recognize that the mentally ill and incompetent deserve procedural protection and it seems fair to suggest that one avenue to such protection is through the ideas expressed by the Court in Walmer.

Law

Human Rights Code, OHRC, Ontario Canada, RTA

K2 Legality

blogger March 29, 2018

Even though K2 products do not contain any controlled substances, many states have already adopted legislation making the same laws that apply to marijuana or other controlled substances also apply to K2 products. Those states that have adopted legislation making K2 illegal are Kansas, the first state to ban K2, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, Kentucky, Alabama, Michigan, and Illinois (K2 will remain legal in that state until the end of 2010.) So, this means that in the other 42 states, K2 is still legal.

Many people question why K2 legality should even be an issue. After all, as has already been mentioned, there are no controlled substances in K2 like there are in marijuana and other drugs that are considered illegal. Except for those K2 products which do have synthetic chemicals added to them, the herbs and botanicals found in them are natural. The herbs are the same as those cultivated for use in a home or restaurant kitchen, or that grow wild. The same holds for the botanicals-which is just a “dressed-up” word for plant parts. The plants that are chosen to be combined with the herbs grow naturally indifferent parts of the country or the world.

It is known that some herbs and plants have medicinal properties, and some do contain natural substances that may have an effect on some people. For example, an herb with the very descriptive common name of “Horny Goat Weed” comes from China. Its real name is Epimedium. The Chinese have long believed this plant has aphrodisiac properties. One type of K2 product, SolidSex, has this plant in it, along with herbs and other plants.

Another thing that may have some people wondering about the K2 legality issue is the intended use for K2 products. K2 manufacturers make K2 products for use as incense. The products are intended to be used in incense and potpourri burners or otherwise heated in a safe manner until the aroma and essences of the herbs and botanicals can be detected.
Now, it is true that heating K2 incense products will also release any synthetic chemicals that were added to the natural herbs and botanicals. And, some people maybe affected by these chemicals. However, they may also feel the effects of any natural essences that can be found in certain plants, such as Horny Goat Weed.

Perhaps the best way to approach K2 legality issues is by doing so the same way that any issues would be considered. If K2 has been made illegal in your state, but you still wish to use it then you will have to think about whether the risk of being caught inpossession of K2 incense will be worth it.

If you live in one of the states that have made K2 smoke illegal, you probably know you canorder it online from the privacy of your own home. If you buy k2 and only use when you are in the privacy of your home or at someone’s home to which you have been invited, and do not go out in public if you are feeling any effects until they have completely worn off, you should not have any problems.

In those states where it is still legal to purchase, possess, sell, distribute, and use k2 incense, then you know that not only can you purchase it online, you can also buy it incertain retail outlets. That’s because it’s an incense product, just like the incense you buy at other places. You should still, however, only use K2 incense at the right time (when you have taken care of all obligations and responsibilities) and in the right way (as incense only.) Again, if it does affect you, you should not drive or operate heavy machinery, and you should remain where you are until all effects have worn off.

Law

Horny Goat Weed, Illinois K2

Tips On How To Buy Mephedrone Legally

blogger March 20, 2018

If you want a legal high like that which you would get from club drugs, you can do so by using Mephedrone. You can buy Mephedrone legally right online with no questions asked and get the high that you are looking without having to worry about getting caught with illegal drugs. If you are into the club scene and want to find a way to get the high you get from club drugs, which are illegal, in a safe and legal way, then you can do it with this product that is marketed as plant fertilizer.

Because Mephedrone is a legal substance, there is essentially no problem if you want to buy Mephedrone. Although the product is sold as a plant fertilizer and there is a label on it that says that it is not for consumption, you can get around the drug laws by using this product that works much like an amphetamine. Instead of taking the risk of buying illegal drugs or getting caught with them, which can end up landing you in jail, you should make it a point to obtain legal substances that give you the same hallucinogenic feeling.

There are many legal highs that you can get when you shop for them in the right places. The best way to shop for Mephedrone is to buy Mephedrone online. This way, you can get the product delivered discreetly to your door. You can also be sure that you are getting the right product when you choose to purchase in this manner.

Head shops online sell different types of products that are comprised of legal substances that are not under mandate by the federal drug laws. These substances can produce the same effects as some of the illegal drugs that people use, but without the risk of spending time in jail for possession. In addition, because these drugs are made from legal substances and readily available, they are cheap. If you buy Mephedrone, for example, you will find that the price for this substance is a lot less than what it would cost you for a similar, illegal drug that produces the same altered state of being. Many people who want to use club drugs in a recreational way are using Mephedrone for this purpose.

Legal weed and legal highs are widely available online. Many sites even offer same day shipping and have the product delivered right to your door. If you are in the habit of looking for street drugs, you have a safer alternate when you choose legal substances that will give you the same thrill but without the risk of breaking the law. You can stay within the current drug laws in this way and still enjoy yourself at parties and clubs by getting products such as Mephedrone, divinorum, legal weed and bud and many other products that act in the same manner as drugs like cocaine, LSD and ecstasy. What’s more, because they are legal to have on your person, you do not have to worry about a drug bust if you are caught carrying them around or purchasing them.

Law

LSD

Legal Myths an Attorney Amarillo Will Encounter

blogger March 15, 2018

Myths surrounding the legal practice world over are many and will bring you down in case you fall for that. Any attorney Amarillo should ignore the falsehoods if he or she expects to become a successful solicitor. There is usually no truth that lies behind the myths as they are designed to cause distraction and unnecessary anguish. One of these myths is that attorneys have their concern only on money and not representing their clients. As such, many people believe that becoming a lawyer is the easiest way to get rich but that is not the case. Actually, there are cases where a lawyer will get paid if it’s successful. What happens if the client loses the case?

The lawyer is not paid and no regrets at all. Painting the legal profession as a money-making avenue is very wrong. It might be happening in many other parts but definitely not in Amarillo because attorneys there are very professional and good at their work. Arising from that, it appears like lawyers live very glamorous and luxurious lives which are far from the truth. Attorneys are not different from other people as they live within their means. Just like any other profession, successful lawyers live good lives and that cannot be a crime. It’s their right and fruits of hard work. You have probably heard people being told that they can be good attorneys just because they argue a lot.

That is a myth and any person who chooses to become an attorney just because he or she argues a lot will be in for a rude shock. Arguing is very different from being authoritative, confident and knowledgeable which are the main qualities of an attorney Amarillo. Yes you can be good at arguing but saying nothing that can help a client win a court case. That is not the type of argument envisaged for a lawyer. There is no connection between being a lawyer and succeeding in leadership. Across the world, most of the successful leaders have a background in law and the masses have been made to believe that one must be a lawyer to succeed in leadership.

The truth is that lawyers venture into leadership because of their career position. They understand a lot of things that make up leadership but not every lawyer will make a good leader. It’s a matter of choice that one has to make in venturing into leadership and not at the duress of a career. An attorney Amarillo will mostly interact with leaders whom they represent in court and from that one gets interested in public leadership. When will a doctor spending most of the time in a theater or teacher staying in classroom the whole day have time to think about leadership. Leadership is about individual decision and not career so connecting public leadership with being a lawyer is just a myth.

All in all, it will be upon you as an individual to determine whether you will believe these myths or stick to the truth.

Resource Box You should not believe any lies you hear about law and lawyers. For an attorney Amarillo http://quackenbushlawfirm.com to be successful, it has not to be under the influence of myths but effort and responsibility. Choose to be an Amarillo personal injury attorney because you understand the law and have passion but not from the influence of myths.

Law