Quote:
|
Originally Posted by alphamale
Quote:
|
In any case, on what grounds do you refer to the creation of "new rights" rather than the discovery of rights implicit in those already recognized, singly or in aggregate? In law as much as in math or science, it can be a long and surprising process, teasing out just what a set of complex propositions commits one to. Wiles didn't create Fermat's Theorem; he just showed that accepting some basic logico-arithmetic axioms ultimately commits us to it. Constitutional principles are no less conceptually and inferentially fecund.
|
The answer is obvious and your analogy is bogus - mathematics is a self-consistent system - deductions from previous theorems or axioms can be proven to be true, and are not accepted until proven. |
Er... and mathematicians do math, while lawyers do law. There are many differences. Are they relevant to the point at hand? Not that you've given any reason to think, no. The point, recall, was this: It is completely unsurprising that complex systems of propositions should have implications that are only gradually realized and elucidated.
If you have any objection to that sentence, please explain it clearly.
If you don't, you can see what follows from it: Anyone wishing to claim that newly asserted rights are being "created" rather than "discovered" from an existing complex system of propositions outlining rights is going to have to offer more than the fact that people didn't used to assert those rights.
Which you've failed to do.