Time passes, but we do not realize it. In 1974, a group of 25 lawyers never ceased to be amazed at the system of laws under which the United States had been built. We were French, Polish, Brazilian, Argentine, Colombian, Italian, Belgian, Dutch, Mexican, Chilean, German, Spanish and 2 Venezuelans, Luis Cova Arria, the first of the master, and this writer. Our faces reflected, at least, concern that the first power in the world would become so with “the common law”. We looked at each other convinced that “the written law” of our countries was better than the one explained to us by distinguished professors from the prestigious “School of Laws.”
“The case method” illustrated both Bernard Schwartz’s constitutional law lectures and the efforts of Albert Garretson, director of the Institute, in an attempt to define the “tort”. Logically, we were more familiar with “the illicit act”, inherited from Rome.
Humanity was less shaken by the implosion of libertarian movements, however, the snoring was already heard regarding “equality before the Law”, whose primary call would be raised before the Supreme Court of Justice, as established by “The founders” . This is how racial discrimination finds its attenuation in the “Brown V. Board of Education” ruling. Evidence that the “Common Law” should be admitted, as illustrated in Hayden Hall / Corner of West Third and Mercer Street /. We observed that the judge integrates the true third power in the democracy of “il gigante immobile del Nord”. The Supreme Court is respected and its rulings are laws, so in “Brown” it was established that “blacks have the right to education like whites.” The recognition, without a doubt, of a constitutional right.
In Hayden Hall we also analyze the decision of the Supreme Court “Roe V. Wade” (1973), regarding the legitimacy of the woman to detach the conceived creature from her own womb, when a willing egg begins to grow satisfied by its ability to having opened its doors to the sperm of the loved one. In the opposite scenario, it does not grow, rather it cries with menstruation. But we humans have a restless conscience capable of interrupting this beautiful process, without a doubt, created by “a superior being”. Causes?, of the most varied nature. “The Common Law” again has to act legitimizing “the lady on tape” to expel “against nature” the son of her womb. A strong “libertarian movement” upholds the precedent, defending it. For the media… “The right to abortion in the US, under the mallet of the most conservative Supreme Court”…. ” The publication in Politico of the draft of the majority opinion of five of the nine judges of the Supreme Court, determined to overturn what was sentenced by that same court in the Roe v. Wade case, which constitutionally enshrined the right to abortion in 1973, reflects the reality of an overwhelmingly conservative institution” (Michael Reynolds, EFE). 38 years have passed since that constructive stay at Hayden Hall, concluding that “The Common Law” had instituted in “Roe” a permissive constitutional right to abortion. However, some time later, we read that one of the most prominent Harvard philosophers, John Rawls, conditions the statement on 3 values: 1. Respect for human life, 2. Orderly reproduction of political society through time and 3. The equality of women as equal citizens, whose balance grants women the right to abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy, since during that period the value of women’s equality prevails. Denying it would be equivalent to ignoring what Rawls calls a “constitutional essence” (Martin D. Farrell). For other jurists, there is no basis to qualify as a “right of constitutional rank” the legitimacy of women to abort. For those who do not recognize this “hierarchy”, the legislator in a good number of cases could allow the practice of abortion, but without considering that the constituent itself left it by statute. Note, however, that Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey in 1992, despite the confirmation of the constitutional right to abortion, which for some was confirmed in “Roe vs. Wade”, there was a distance regarding the advanced analysis in “Roe”. It was also clearly argued that the state’s interest in potential life begins at the time the fetus is viable (Ian Shapiro, Yale).
The libertarian movement, it must be borne in mind, is becoming more solid every day, having practically organized itself into unions, among them, those for gender equality, gay marriage and some others, whose demands have been analyzed and continue to be made in the community itself. Organization of the United Nations. In 2005, for example, a document was distributed at the UN expressing concern about infractions committed against LGBT people.
A sum of circumstances, among them, the attacks on the Democratic government, the blocking of development plans presented by Biden to Congress, the Republican Party under the claims of appropriation by Trump, conservatism in the Supreme Court of Justice, the invasion of Ukraine by Putin, it is as if to conclude, copying us from social networks, that I truly eat “America needs Fátima”, a campaign advanced by the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property (TFP).
Finally, what seems urgent is the urgent need to meditate on the current upheaval in the world.
“The opinions published here are the sole responsibility of their author.”