Results found: 2

Search results

Search:
in the keywords: antropologia liberalna

Sort By:

Limit search:

The Supreme Court of the United States as an Autonomous Source of Constitutional Norms

100%

Bryk A.

Studia Iuridica Lublinensia

2016

vol. 25

issue 3

The landmark decisions of the Supreme Court change the ethos of adjudicating. The substantive due process doctrine allowed the Court to become an actual lawgiver. This doctrine widely extended the understanding of the due process clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments. Increased power of statutory construction corresponded with the doctrine of loose constructionism (living constitution). Decisions like Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade created new constitutional rights, emanating from the radical liberal anthropology. Adjudication became a field of an ideological battle in the culture war over anthropology determining the law’s content . In the classical and Christian understanding, being free is considered as having one’s identity discovered as an ontological constant, thus allowing an individual to develop himself according to the nature’s essence . The liberal anthropological revolution defines freedom as a power of self-creation, serving individual’s preferences. The liberal elites, employing ideas of social engineering, attempt to enforce rules based on coexistence and relationship of equal rights. Individual rights emanate from the autonomous, personal choice of life values, the key of the constitutional interpretation. The wider this right of self-definition , the wider the scope of the state’s intervention. In Griswold v. Connecticut the right to privacy signified deep cultural change rooted in such an anthropology. This “emancipation project” is thus built on an axiology destroying relations, becoming a kind of a religion of secular salvation. The state serves here as a demiurge and is sacralized. This causes an increasing abyss between the elites and the rest of the citizens, with a corresponding social disintegration of it’s public life. For instance Obergefell v. Hodges enforces a new anthropological definition of marriage, beginning to delegitimize creeds and actions of religious communities. This reflects a global phenomenon of connecting individual liberal rights with politics of identity and the post-modern culture of right understood as autonomous will without reasoning about its ontological, universal basis. The Supreme Court decisions are not separated from wider culture, but based on the new anthropological understanding of man as a consumer, with his individual will becoming the very basis of rights.

Niektóre kluczowe orzeczenia Sądu Najwyższego Stanów Zjednoczonych zmieniają model amerykańskiego etosu orzeczniczego. Doktryna substantive due process dała Sądowi władzę de facto stanowienia prawa. Poszerzyła też znacząco rozumienie pojęcia due process, zawartego w poprawkach V i XIV Karty Praw. Zwiększona władza interpretacyjna Sądu korespondowała z doktryną tzw. living constitution. Orzeczenia takie, jak Griswold v. Connecticut i Roe v. Wade czy Obergefell v. Hodges tworzą nowe konstytucyjne prawa w duchu antropologii radykalnie liberalnej, ale też pole bitwy ideowej w wojnie o kulturę, dotyczącej antropologii determinującej prawo. Prawo jednostki wynika z autonomicznego wyboru wartości jako klucza interpretacji konstytucyjnej. Im szersze prawo indywidualnego autodefiniowania swego życia, tym szerszy zasięg państwa. W orzeczeniu Griswold v. Connecticut prawo do prywatności sygnalizowało głęboką zmianę kulturową opartą na takiej liberalnej antropologii. Jej „emancypacyjny” projekt, w oparciu o aksjologię niszczącą relacje, stanowi rodzaj „religii” świeckiego zbawienia, którego demiurgiem jest sakralizowane państwo, z rosnącym dysonansem między elitami a resztą obywateli i dezintegracją społeczeństwa, w tym życia publicznego. Orzeczenie Obergefell v. Hodges narzuciło nową antropologicznie definicję małżeństwa, delegitymizując publiczne poglądy i działania instytucji religijnych. Decyzja jest objawem zjawiska globalnego, w którym liberalne prawa jednostki wiążą się z polityką tożsamości i postmodernistyczną kulturą praw jako autonomicznego chcenia, z ignorowaniem pytania o ich ontologiczne, uniwersalistyczne umocowanie. Orzeczenia Sądu Najwyższego nie są zatem zawieszone w próżni prawnej. Opierają się na antropologii traktującej człowieka jako konsumenta, gdzie wola jednostki ma stać się jednocześnie żądaniem prawa.

Antropologia autonomiczna a antropologia teonomiczna: próba syntezy

100%

Guzowski K.

Roczniki Teologii Dogmatycznej

2010

vol. 2

77-93

This paper brings close the human hermeneutic horizons of autonomous man and theonomous man, i.e. those approaches that result from the experience of transcendence or its lack. In its conception of man, Christianity takes Incarnation as its starting point. In the light of Incarnation, transcendence and immanence are mixed in the life and Person of Jesus Christ. Christianity is not an ideology, but it stresses the historical and personal experience of God-Man whose Person and life compose the foundation on which to understand the whole of reality. It is on this view that our perception of ethics depends. Ethics is different if this point is disregarded. However, ethics should always have primacy over politics. In order to cherish an overall human scope, ethics should be based on integral anthropology that respects all dimensions of the person: individual, social, spiritual, religious, the internal and external aspects. Contemporary personalism emphasises all the essential traits of the person, among which we find transcendence, freedom, relational and dialogical character. The person is fulfilled in relations because it is a relationship with regard to his or her essence. Christian ethics that is built on the foundation of personalistic anthropology recognises the dimension of human transcendence, especially in relation to persons and values. It does not reject, however, a different point of view, but at the same time disagrees to any discrimination of its position in the world of human values. A patient and concrete dialogue, such that aims at the good of every human being is the foundation of scientific ecumenism. This integral model of reality open to the dignity of each person and his social dimension is given by personalism. Only in the perspective of the person can we build a level of understanding and this should be a universal principle.

Refine search results

1 Roczniki Teologii Dogmatycznej

1 Studia Iuridica Lublinensia

1 Bryk A.

1 Guzowski K.

1 2016

1 2010

Search results

The Supreme Court of the United States as an Autonomous Source of Constitutional Norms

Antropologia autonomiczna a antropologia teonomiczna: próba syntezy