rule of law

ConanTheBarber

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2011
Posts
5,305
Media
0
Likes
2,087
Points
258
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
This is why I appear "opaque", because people have such a hard time thinking outside the box of contemporary partisan politics.

Not at all. Your opening post:
Is there anyone here who is actually concerned with our government having integrity with the historical precedent of law?
... is incomprehensible.

What does it mean for the government to "have integrity with the historical precedent of law"?
If you explained that, there wouldn't be so much head scratching in this thread.
You are responsible for making sure that your message lands.
It didn't.
 

malakos

Superior Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Posts
8,358
Media
30
Likes
6,518
Points
223
Location
Cumming, GA, USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
If you explained that, there wouldn't be so much head scratching in this thread.
You are responsible for making sure that your message lands.
It didn't.

It should be pretty plain: upholding standing historical law as much as possible and only changing it through the legal channels provided in it.
 

ConanTheBarber

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2011
Posts
5,305
Media
0
Likes
2,087
Points
258
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
It should be pretty plain: upholding standing historical law as much as possible and only changing it through the legal channels provided in it.
That's why everyone was so clear.

"... and only changing it through the legal channels provided in it."
What does that mean?
Allowing changes only by law makers, and discouraging changes by courts?
Because there are legal channels for both of those.

You need to read your own stuff as though someone else had written it.
Put yourself in the reader's position.
 

malakos

Superior Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Posts
8,358
Media
30
Likes
6,518
Points
223
Location
Cumming, GA, USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
No again, I'm talking historical. For instance, in Japan historically and even currently the person in whom the people invested sovereignty was the Emperor. So the rule by the Shoguns was initially against the rule of law (I say initially because the Emperor may have eventually consented to it, I don't know). That in contemporary times there is a Parliament that determines the law may not be against he historical rule of law because its creation may have been directed by the Emperor.

The issue of the legislature versus courts in the contemporary USA is most likely irrelevant because a good argument can be made that the existence of the USA is against the rule of law.
 

malakos

Superior Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Posts
8,358
Media
30
Likes
6,518
Points
223
Location
Cumming, GA, USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
If you're thinking I mean law determined by the lawmakers, as in the contemporary legislature I guess I didn't properly explain what the term "rule of law" means. It means that governing done according to law and legal precedent (implicit law determined by the historic precedent of governing) and that only those that have been lawfully invested with the State's sovereignty have the right to change those laws.