Why are laws made...............

[nibor]

And should they be for the good or the detriment of ALL the people if they are Federal laws................


And should they benefit or harm one sector or group over another being the "law of the land".............

 

[Diuretic]

I'll answer your first question with another question (annoying but it might make my point) - cui bono? Who benefits?

As to your second question, a law which does harm is a bad law. A law which benefits one grouping over another is also a bad law. So I suppose my answer to your second question is, no it should do neither. But then I look back at my rather cynical response to your first question and I realise my answer, to your second question, is hopelessly idealistic.

 

[nibor]

I'll answer your first question with another question (annoying but it might make my point) - cui bono? Who benefits?

As to your second question, a law which does harm is a bad law. A law which benefits one grouping over another is also a bad law. So I suppose my answer to your second question is, no it should do neither. But then I look back at my rather cynical response to your first question and I realise my answer, to your second question, is hopelessly idealistic.

I'm sorry if I seem a bit vague................your answer was fine...........my point will be made ASAP..........................thank you..............

 

[nibor]

What would motivate discriminatory Fedreral Law and is it even legal..........

 

[Diuretic]

Sometimes vague works. I recall a saying by an educator, an Italian I think, can't think of his name, who said words to the equivalent of, "I sell yeast, not bread."

 

[Diuretic]

What would motivate discriminatory Fedreral Law and is it even legal..........

Discrimination isn't prima facie unlawul, it's the underlying assumptions about the act(s) of discrimination and also their motivating factors that need to be examined.

 

[nibor]

Sometimes vague works. I recall a saying by an educator, an Italian I think, can't think of his name, who said words to the equivalent of, "I sell yeast, not bread."

Yes and a good point it was......................

 

[nibor]

Discrimination isn't prima facie unlawul, it's the underlying assumptions about the act(s) of discrimination and also their motivating factors that need to be examined.

I toally agree and when all points are made calmly I HOPE that we can reach a better understanding of the actions.............

 

[Gunny]

And should they be for the good or the detriment of ALL the people if they are Federal laws................


And should they benefit or harm one sector or group over another being the "law of the land".............

Laws are made to protect the weak and force their agenda on those who don't need them.

 

[midcan5]

No offense Nibor but were you born yesterday? Without rules society would quickly deteriorate into the situation you see today in Iraq - at least for a while till sanctions returned. Without both internal and external restraints many men see no reason to live by the rules. But surely you have neighbors and friends imagine no law for them?

"People seldom improve when they have no other model but themselves to copy after." Goldsmith

 

[nibor]

No offense Nibor but were you born yesterday? Without rules society would quickly deteriorate into the situation you see today in Iraq - at least for a while till sanctions returned. Without both internal and external restraints many men see no reason to live by the rules. But surely you have neighbors and friends imagine no law for them?

"People seldom improve when they have no other model but themselves to copy after." Goldsmith

Um excuse me but WE created the anarchy which is now Iraq..............to show them a better way??????????

Ok there hasn't been quite the response that I wished for, because I wanted to see what opinions and concensous there in actually exists..........

I'll ask another (vague) question.....................how many were stunned, totally repulsed and sickened by the beheadings in the middle east????????

 

[nibor]

Could it be possible that you know where I'm going with this AS A REASON FOR NO RESPONSE................?

 

[Gunny]

Could it be possible that you know where I'm going with this AS A REASON FOR NO RESPONSE................?

Could it be there's no response because no one wants to play the fool for you to finally get around to cutting to the chase?

One doesn't have to know where you think you're going to see the obvious ploy.

 

[nibor]

Could it be there's no response because no one wants to play the fool for you to finally get around to cutting to the chase?

One doesn't have to know where you think you're going to see the obvious ploy.

I'm not trying to make fools of anyone..........except that we may ALL be fools..........I do have a point to make but am trying to establish a baseline consensus upon what most believe is true on the very baseline of our existence and moral extrapolation...................

Do I appear to you as a person who relishes making fools of people.................I mean other than the asshole who came seeking porn?

How innocuous does this page seem to you?............................http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=47276


Upstanding....................righteous......................commanding of respect...........................YOU'D BE WRONG!

 

[Gunny]

I'm not trying to make fools of anyone..........except that we may ALL be fools..........I do have a point to make but am trying to establish a baseline consensus upon what most believe is true on the very baseline of our existence and moral extrapolation...................

Do I appear to you as a person who relishes making fools of people.................I mean other than the asshole who came seeking porn?

How innocuous does this page seem to you?............................http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=47276


Upstanding....................righteous......................commanding of respect...........................YOU'D BE WRONG!

It appears you have about as many answers as you are going to get. Based on your initial two questions, anyone providing a response is setting him/herself as target in a shooting gallery. The answer to each question has to be made at the individual issue level. No blanket statement is going to fit all circumstances. All a blanket statement is going to do is cause one side of the political spectrum or the other to start whining.

The problem with Federal, one-size-fits-all laws is that they do not take into account regional and cultural differences in the country. The Federal government doing so, and the quest for power within the Federal government was "the" major cause of the Civil War. I doubt we are going to settle an argument on this board that legal scholars have been waging unsuccessfully on both sides for over a century.

The United States settled the issue by force of arms, then rewrote the law after the fact to support its actions.

Your second question is the "tyranny of the majority" argument; which, basically, any democracy where law is based on the will of the people, will be labelled as such.

What those who squeal "tyranny of the majority" as if it is the end of an argument in and of itself have NOT ONCE addressed (that i have ever seen)is: why should the majority suffer the tyranny of the minority? The very idea is absurd.

 

[jillian]

What those who squeal "tyranny of the majority" as if it is the end of an argument in and of itself have NOT ONCE addressed (that i have ever seen)is: why should the majority suffer the tyranny of the minority? The very idea is absurd.

You'd have to talk to the founders about that. They seemed to have thought it a good idea and built the concept into our form of government.

 

[Gunny]

You'd have to talk to the founders about that. They seemed to have thought it a good idea and built the concept into our form of government.

No, I don't need to. The words and meaning are pretty simple and easy to understand. I'm quite sure the Founders would have quite a few things to say about circumventing the legislative process via legislating from the bench, as well as the gross miscinstruing the intent of their words.

 

[jillian]

No, I don't need to. The words and meaning are pretty simple and easy to understand. I'm quite sure the Founders would have quite a few things to say about circumventing the legislative process via legislating from the bench, as well as the gross miscinstruing the intent of their words.

No one "legislates from the bench". That's such a right-wing psychobabble concept. Laws are interpreted and their constitutionality ruled upon by the Court. Again.... balance of powers set up by the Constitution and the issue dealt with by Marbury v Madison.

It's only been perverted by this bogus concept of "strict interpretation", which doesn't exist and has never existed. Again... Marbury v Madison.

Marbury Rules.

 

[Paulie]

And should they be for the good or the detriment of ALL the people if they are Federal laws................


And should they benefit or harm one sector or group over another being the "law of the land".............

"Congress shall make no law" ...

 

[Gunny]

No one "legislates from the bench". That's such a right-wing psychobabble concept. Laws are interpreted and their constitutionality ruled upon by the Court. Again.... balance of powers set up by the Constitution and the issue dealt with by Marbury v Madison.

It's only been perverted by this bogus concept of "strict interpretation", which doesn't exist and has never existed. Again... Marbury v Madison.

Marbury Rules.

Nothing psychobabble about it. When laws are interpretted in ways using dishonest literalism to suit a political agenda instead of being interpretted in proper context, that is legislating from the bench.

And speaking of "psychobabble," that pretty much covers your comments.