Hi folks:

I'm looking for any help that may be out there.  I should say up front
that I'm more of a lawyer than a philosopher, so any help you give me
should probably be in the form of small words.

I've been working for some time on the legal dimensions of
intergenerational equity: what duties and rights exist between one
"generation" and prior and subsequent generations?  Specifically, I am
working right now with the Constitutional Law Foundation
([log in to unmask]) to articulate and popularize a U.S. federal
constitutional doctrine mandating some regard for future generations. 
The doctrine is to rely on existing constitutional language rather than
new amendments.

The notion isn't as farfetched as it may at first sound.  Jefferson was
very cognizant and supportive of generational rights.  The Preamble to
the constitution references "ourselves and our posterity."  Other
potentially helpful clauses (5th Am due process, 9th and 10th Am's, 14th
Am equal protection, and Art. III provision of equitable jurisdiction to
federal courts), while silent as to posterity, can be argued to apply to
protect posterity's interests.  

An analysis of the natural law philsophers familiar to the founders is
critical to this venture.  I've reread Locke's second treatise and found
the rudiments of an intergenerational ethics there.  (Locke's and
Jefferson's thoughts are especially helpful, because they deal
explicitly or implicityly with natural resource issues.) I've even found
a couple of articles by contemporary philosophers supporting this
interpretation of Locke.  There's also something to work with in Hume. 
Beyond that, I'm in the dark.  Can anybody help?

Cites to relevant modern articles focused on historical figures would be
nice.  Citations to passages in the historical originals are likewise
helpful.  More on Locke and Hume?  Sure!  Analyses of Blackstone would
be great.  Analyses of the historical roots of the public trust doctrine
might come in handy.  Something from the Church scholars?  Some of the
later philosophers such as Kant and Spinoza are sensitive to
intergenerational concerns, but I don't have any documentation of a
following for those gentlemen in the colonies.  Maybe you do!

I've already read a fair sampling of current philosophy on the issue,
exploring the justifications, parameters and priorities of environmental
and other interests that arguably should be protected.  I don't really
need much more of that, except to the extent that it invokes traditions
or names that would have been recognizable to the drafters of the
Constitution.

If after reading this misssive you feel the need to preach deep ecology
to me, relax.  I recognize that an appeal to the interests of future
generations is anthrocentric and philosophically stunted, and that any
recourse to the law is a partial concession to Ultimate Evil.  I'm using
this tool anyway -- a compromise to pragmatism (Ultimate Evil again?) --
and hoping for the best.

Thanks for your help, and best wishes,  

Dreamer


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%