#471
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
the only people who are talking about democracy are those who are misinformed....also think you for the second part of the two wolves quote i never heard it before... |
#472
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
wow...lol so i guess not buying into the socialistic and collectivist dogma means im "brainwashed" because i want to enjoy the right to self determination i am "brainwashed" Freedom is innate because of the fact that human beings enjoy free will. and it has to do with natural law or common law, which is THOUSANDS of years old...(of course their is always an idiot who will say....well these laws are so old so it must not be relevant, to counter this all you have to do is point out many common laws such as those against murder or theft, those are also thousands of years old, much older than the constitution or declaration of independence) im talking to people who keep bringing up irrelevant topics and reasons why i should abandon freedom, for some false sense of security, or safety.... its clear that you people dont know how law works....its clear that you dont understand how dangerous it is making govt the ultimate authority, which you people think it has.... the govt gets its power from the consent of the governed, thus how can it EVER be higher than the people....people create government, thus govt is subservient to the people...however this idea has been bastardized by our own federal govt, certain elites quest for power...and now they have most of the foolish public believing that the govt needs to protect people from themselves and that we must abandon freedom in the name of a false sense of security.... also for the founders these truths that i am talking about were "self evident" back in the day...i guess this is no longer the case....i guess people now think that safety comes from waiving your rights to some perceived authority....all one has to do is look at history to see the pitfalls of this kind of philosophy... Last edited by tk471138; 08-08-2012 at 12:47 AM. |
#473
|
|||
|
|||
@ Galway...
you're correct, but as I offered; it is both the upside and downside of the judiciary. and you've reinforced that. An Act is written and (assuming) passed. Someone has application to have that challenged (tested) in court. That challenge is based on the wording of the Act being challenged The Judiciary bases their judgement of the challenge on the arguments presented for and against. (as well as any political/ social bias they may personally hold) If the Act is of a clear cut wording (most roads rules for instance)... it cannot be "interpreted".
__________________
Intel 980x | eVGA X58 FTW | Intel 180Gb 520 SSD x 2 | eVGA GTX 580 | Corsair Vengeance 1600 x 12Gb | Windows 7 Ultimate (SP1) 64 bit | Corsair 550D | Corsair HX 1000 PSU | Eaton 1500va UPS | Warthog HOTAS w/- Saitek rudders | Samsung PX2370 Monitor | Deathadder 3500 mouse | MS X6 Keyboard | TIR4 Stand alone Collector's Edition DCS Series Even duct tape can't fix stupid... but it can muffle the sound. |
#474
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
As for theft and murder, is not criminalising them in itself a restriction of our "natural rights" to do as we see fit? Who decided that they were wrong? Any laws or rights are human constructs created to allow society to exist. The USA is lucky to have such laws and rights as they aren't by any stretch of the imagination world-wide. You've also supported von Pilsner's post in your comments about government. People have accepted the idea of government and their lives being controlled and so they participate in votes. They may be reluctant participants but they are still within the social construct of society. Once they are outside society, or outlawed, then criminal sanctions apply. From my own studies in the history of crime and punishment I think what we have now is far more benign. Safety comes from checks and balances, that's what the constitution is all about. Your society has been given rights to help you enjoy life, liberty etc. The government and the judiciary protects those rights. Sometimes they're at odds, sometimes they're together - checks and balances. Hood ps I'm a 12+ year qualified lawyer so I know how law works, though I'll be learning it until the day I die. Edit: Being a lawyer doesn't necessarily mean I'm infallible or more correct than anyone else (or rich, sadly), but it does mean that I'm not speaking from a position of ignorance. Last edited by Hood; 08-08-2012 at 07:35 AM. Reason: Clarity |
#475
|
|||
|
|||
In the UK there are a number of interpretation methods e.g. the golden rule (modifying the words to prevent absurdities), literal (give the words their literal meaning), mischief rule (looking at the problem the law was trying to solve to decide how it should be applied) and the purposive rule (looking at the reason for the legislation and applying the interpretation accordingly).
This is possibly the foundation for the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 of Australia. I would research it out of curiosity but I feel my enthusiasm dripping away as I consider what lies ahead of me today. Time for coffee and biscuits... Hood |
#476
|
|||
|
|||
Before it hits 50 pages.
5. Political and religious discussions are prohibited. http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=25163 Last edited by KG26_Alpha; 08-08-2012 at 10:06 AM. |
|
|