How would you fix the U.S Government?

Happily, our “nation of laws” is not based on morals or religious precepts.

Yes I do know what I am talking about. If morality is the basis of the law, then the question is: Whose morals should be applied ( i.e., your morals, my morals, Justice Antonin Scalia’s morals - the so-called “moral majority”)? It’s impracticable - it simply doesn’t work. The problem is that people don’t understand this, and insist that it be otherwise.

Our modern law and legal system is not based on moral or religious precepts, but upon principles of utilitarian philosophy first enunciated by Jeremy Bentham. See Jeremy Bentham. See Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789); cf., William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-69). Bentham was one of the great moralists of his time; but he realized that the law could not be based on morals or religious principles of right and wrong. (His concept of morals was more of a secular ethics that was pragmatic in its application; i.e., the only moral standard is one of the desirability, or undesirability, of the consequences of the law.) Both English and American jurisprudence have sided with Bentham’s “Positivism” and rejected the moral based doctrine of Blackstone, albeit we adopted it sooner than our English forebears. (Bentham was very progressive; his writings cover virtually every aspect of the law and the administration of justice; and his ideas have further influenced the constitutions and laws of many European countries and the Americas even to this day.)

In the final analysis, and from whatever perspective you may choose, the conclusion is ineluctable: the law can not be based on morals, religious or otherwise. The idea that the law must have a moral component is at once refuted by its own impracticability in application. One need only look to our own failed effort to incorporate morality into the Constitution under Prohibition to see that such an idea is unworkable. The point is, simply, that you cannot legislate morality.

You are wrong. Jeremy Bentham was (and still is) the most influential legal philosopher for the last four hundred years; and his principles of Utilitarianism are the basis of our law today. His influence is pervasive, covering every aspect of the law and its applications. Even our present-day maximum-security prisons are based on his “Panopticon” model.

A current example of the difficulty in applying a moral standard to the law is illustrated by the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Roper v. Simmons. In that case, the court ruled that the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment forbids the imposition of the death penalty on offenders who were under the age of 18 when their crimes were committed. In reaching that decision, the court interpreted the provisions of the Eighth Amendment in reference to “evolving standards of decency” in the implementation of the death penalty that canvassed the several states as well as the law of international tribunals. In a separate dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia, who is not shy when it comes to reconciling his personal morals and religious beliefs with his legal opinions, became surprisingly secular in his views, accusing the majority of proclaiming itself the “sole arbiter of our Nation’s moral standards . . .” in a process that he likened to “counting Amishmen.” See Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005).

The interesting aspect of the decision, however, was that moral standards had nothing to do with the case. Our juvenile justice system is based on the concept that minors are not culpable; not that minors are incapable of committing acts that would otherwise be punishable as crimes - even heinous crimes - but that, as a matter of public policy, it is not in the interest of society to treat juvenile offenders as criminals, however morally reprehensible. It is Utilitarianism, plain and simple. Yet for the court to base its ruling on some nebulous, moralistic consensus, however composed, was rather uncertain, not to say dubious; and in this, the court may have reached the right decision for all the wrong reasons. The decision of the court was clear; however the means applied to making its decision (viz., “evolving standards of decency”) were anything but clear. When you start applying moral standards to the interpretation of the law, the question inevitably becomes "whose morals"; and there's the rub.

It's really not that complicated. The standard for community is based on the safety of all its citizens, and laws established that attempts to control what it deems immoral behavior. Depending on the form of government of the community, it can control behavior by degrees.

Humans are animals with animal instincts; some individuals can control those instincts, and some cannot.