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

[Paulie]

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.

Thanks for saving me the trouble.

 

[nibor]

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.

["It appears you have about as many answers as you are going to get."]

I sincerely hope not......................

["Based on your initial two questions, anyone providing a response is setting him/herself as target in a shooting gallery."]

I don't quite see how.................................

["The answer to each question has to be made at the individual issue level."]

Yes that's right....................but then there are the laws and the acceptance there of that HAVE to be made on a group level in any normal free democracy, hence we vote, that's what the formation of consensous is all about...............and certain things as fundamentally important as the "laws of god" especially when made AND IMPOSED by man....................should be voted on by all of us AND NOT DEEMED IN OUR STEAD..................

["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."]

Well in my view IT IS a HUGH blanket statement TO COMPROMISE THE POSITION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE...................and to enslave everyone concerned by it's written intent.

["The problem with Federal, one-size-fits-all laws is that they do not take into account regional and cultural differences in the country."]

THIS IS THE MAJOR PROBLEM WITH THE LAW THAT WAS WRITTEN MARCH 26 1991..........................NOT EVEN CONSIDERED TO ANY OF US.............

["The Federal government doing so, and the quest for power within the Federal government was "the" major cause of the Civil War."]

The concept of God has caused many wars..................too many wars, considering..........................

["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."]

A place like this IS the perfect place to begin to settle this issue BECAUSE WE WERE NEVER EVEN ALLOWED TO COMMENT ON THIS VITAL ISSUE...................NOBODY IS HOLDING A GUN HERE......................

["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."]

The concept may be adsurd but Education Day 1991 did exactly that, it not only bridged the gap between church and state WITH NO INPUT FROM THE POPULATION...................but it assured a minority take over (BY MAN'S WRITTEN LAW) on the level that all men take on an individual level/scale...................SPIRITUALITY AND GOD......................AND on a politically enforcable level!!!!!!

The Ten Commandments are in my mind a much more universally accepted law and I don't believe impart automatic punishment,except by God's will....................and in no way man's!!!!!

Who's "will be done" by usurping the conceptual structure of the Ten Commandments........................GOD'S.......................I think not.

AND how does it fundamentally change the way that EVERYTHING IS HANDLED......between people and people, people and church, church and gubment, and gubment and people..................................especially in extreme cases......................especially in the case of beheading, and the terror provided by the tool that is now POTENTIALLY LEGALIZED??????????



http://www.come-and-hear.com/supplement/noahide/Lubavitch-1991-1992-102ndCongress.htm

http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/7laws.html

http://www.israelect.com/reference/WillieMartin/P.L.102-14.htm

http://www.thewatcherfiles.com/noahide_laws.htm

http://www.watch.pair.com/law.html

WTF............................MAYBE SOMEONE CAN EXPLAIN?????????

 

[jillian]

Thanks for saving me the trouble.

Ah yes, from another great constitutionalist who thinks RP knows what he's talking about.

lol...

 

[Paulie]

Ah yes, from another great constitutionalist who thinks RP knows what he's talking about.

lol...

Is referring to me in regards to RP supposed to somehow lessen my credibility?

You do realize the man has predicted much of the economic problems in recent history that were caused by the blatant ignorance of others? I suppose Barack Obama DOES know what he's talking about? What exactly IS he talking about, anyway?

Anyway though, more to the point of this discussion, I find it odd you targetted ME instead of Gunny, who actually challenged you personally.

 

[jillian]

Is referring to me in regards to RP supposed to somehow lessen my credibility?

You do realize the man has predicted much of the economic problems in recent history that were caused by the blatant ignorance of others? I suppose Barack Obama DOES know what he's talking about? What exactly IS he talking about, anyway?

Anyway though, more to the point of this discussion, I find it odd you targetted ME instead of Gunny, who actually challenged you personally.

Gunny and I have been debating these issues for what must be years now. You just gave the snotty "me, too", answer.

And given that I am not a Constitutional scholar, but everything I ever learned in law school or in practice is pretty much the opposite of the "strict constructionists", yes, I'd say thinking Paul knows what he's talking about weakens one's credibility.

As for Obama, he *is* a Constitutional Scholar, so you can say what you want about his politics, but in that regard, yes, I'd put my money on him .... or Hillary, who was one of the top 100 lawyers in the country even before her husband was president, for that matter, over the people who get their "constitutional knowledge" from the folk who think the Justices should just be parrots who don't give any analysis to the Constitution and just try to read it literally. (as if we'd need justices if that were all it took).

 

[Diuretic]

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......

I'd have to agree with some of that. I have to say that behaviour can be indulged in by conservatives or by progressives.

But there is no such thing as "legislating from the bench" simply because judicial interpretation is part of common law and has been for hundreds of years and the law can't work without it and because a legislature can always choose to amend the law (if the constitution - and I'm not simply referring to the US Constitution here) allows it.