Sense and Consequence

Something of interest that I came upon recently in my reading of legal history: what is common to the 'free world' is common law. Likewise, what is common to common law is common sense. Therefore, it is only common sense that humans are, or should be, free (especially from the paralysis of legislated laws.)

Consider King and Hoffmann's Habeas For the Twenty-first Century which says, "The common law approach, a hallmark of the Anglo-American legal system, permits legal rules to be defined and re-defined by judges to fit new circumstances and values as they change over time, thus ensuring that the law will always be reasonably responsive to the needs of contemporary society."

Not only does common law question the assertion of absolute truth (and absolute right if you hold the power, position or prestige) when it comes to human values; it also appeals to common sense as impartially represented by unbiased judges. The person of common sense, then, is free to judge human law especially as times and circumstances change.

Any wonder that matters of love and union(s) are outside the control, if not the jurisdiction, of legislated laws? Any wonder, as well, that there are scribes and pharisees with us still trying to argue for mere human tradition being God's Law? Freedom from legality makes sense for people of common law sense; yet, as has been argued just as persuasively, common sense is really not all that common.