Today, David disposes of a couple of popular theories for establishing an authoritative ground for law once the God of the Bible is banished. He uses an exchange between Justice Clarence Thomas and the attorney for the United States in last year’s oral arguments on abortion to demonstrate how those systems cannot produce a consistent and coherent system of law. No wonder God sits in the heavens and laughs (Psalm 2:4).

This week, David begins to examine the alternatives to a Christian based legal system that mankind has come up with and how the late Yale law professor Arthur Leff, an atheist, debunks them as non-authoritative and unworkable. Leff provides great insight into what he calls a search for the “metaphorical equivalent” to the God of the Bible.

Today David begins to take listeners through the question Yale law professor asked in 1971—on what basis can we have an authoritative legal system that can answer the equivalent of “sez who?” question of the playground bully. You will be surprised by Leff’s answer. Law professor Philip Johnson called it “the modernist impasse.” It is a guide to understanding what is going on in American law and the trouble law faces.

We think we know what law is, but perhaps not. Law has always been rooted in an understanding of the nature of the cosmos, what it is for, and how it works, i.e., cosmology.  Two cosmologies are and always have been at war with one another, and, in today’s podcast, David will use the preface to Berman’s Law and Revolution to explain the challenge we have in thinking of law cosmologically.

At the Choc Knox Live event we hosted in Franklin last month, panelist Dr. George Grant said, “If you want to change a culture, you have to change the calendar.” On today’s episode, panelists Jason Farley and George Grant will explain why that is so, and what changed that has turned Christmas into a holiday season and June into Pride Month?

Few today know of the contest between Thomas Jefferson and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story over the conception of law that would guide the newly formed United States.

The legacy of Story’s victory—the triumph of common law over positivist law—is available to us today if we will employ it against the legal positivists of our day.

When you talk about common law, you are likely to run into two kinds of opposition—the uninformed who you can help, and those who hate the thought we don’t get to make up the law. It’s not anything new to our country. David will help you answer the critics and use a SCOTUS decision to help you spot those critics who have a self-interested political agenda.

Today David uses apparently contradictory verses in Proverbs to demonstrate how easy it is to read the Bible according to the legal positivism of Jeremy Bentham. Then he applies the wisdom hidden in that apparent contradiction to how we should argue in federal court in support of the constitutionality of state laws prohibiting the application of transgender procedures to minors. Today’s episode may tell you if you’re really a legal positivist.

Today David explains how America transitioned from the biblical conception of law espoused by Bracton and Blackstone from the 13th through the 18th centuries to Jeremy Bentham’s positivistic, utilitarian conception of law embraced by Oliver Wendell Holmes who changed the conception of law held today by most Christian lawyers. The applicability in our day of quotes from Holmes over a century ago will be eye-opening. To paraphrase Dorothy’s comment to Toto, you don’t live in a Christian cosmos anymore.

Today David uses the remarks of Dr. Jonathan Burnside, Professor of Biblical Law at a law school (believe it or not) but in the United Kingdom to demonstrate how the Christian’s conception of law may be more shaped by Jeremy Bentham than the way the Bible presents law to us. It explains why common law makes little sense to people today.