ALL LAWYERS!

[Frederick L Neff]

So the question I have is, are all lawyers and judges stupid?

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/03/22/todd-starnes-student-puni...

Maybe I am just wrong, but the dictionary definition of Tyranny is forcing ones will upon another. Now unless im mistaken using the courts to force your will upon another in the form of silencing their opinion would fall under the definition of Tyranny. Taking offense to the words of others is a matter of choice, therefore, using the courts to silence anothers speech because you got your feelings hurt is essentially forcing your will upon another. Any lawyers out there want to take a stab at this, maybe why this isnt being pointed out in a court of law...

[Frederick L Neff]

Anything can be debated Jack, I have seen people debate whether the sky is blue or not, just because someone wants to debate something does not mean that the meaning or definition of that thing changes.

Debate occurs in the legislature to determine the meaning and intent of proposed laws, that debate is what settles the wording used to convey the meaning and intent because the meaning of words dont change just because we want them to, or because someone doesnt like the meaning.

[charles royer]

Would that make them masterbaters? Seems we have a bunch of them!

[jack ludwig]

Fred if there is debate there is still disagrement. Debate does not occur in the legislature, only voting occurs and the majority wins the issue. True debate only occurs in a court of law where both sides must present facts by a set of standards.

[Frederick L Neff]

Sory Jack, you have things ass backwards. The legislative process is thus, a bill (which is a proposed law if you didn't know) is brought to the floor of the legislature where it is proposed and debated, after any disagreement is debated the bill is voted on and either passed or denied. Courts dont debate the merits or intent of the law, they rule based on the wording of the law. Lets look at laws preventing the sale and distribution of marijuana, in most places it is still illegal to posses or distribute, those arrested for possession or sale get judged based on whether the defendant violated the law, not the merits of the law or its intent. Another example, the young nurse from Pennsylvania that was arrested, charged and ultimately convicted, then pardoned by Gov. Christie for possession of a handgun in New Jersey. She had a legal carry permit for PA but NJ law doesn't recognize that permit, The judge, though he disagreed with it was forced to hand down a guilty verdict, not because there wasnt a debatable issue,but because he must rule based on the written law, not intent, not good debate, but the words on the page and the meanings that those words possess.

Debate in regards to law occurs before passage, not after, the only court that rules based on intent is the supreme court, and then it is only to judge whether the law is within the constitutional intent.

 

[jack ludwig]

In theory, that is how a law come to existence, except bills brought before the legislation are already decided before any debate begins which will pass and which will fail. Debate on a particular bill has very little value because seldom are standards applied in presenting the debate. Whereas in a court of law both sides are held to very high standards in debating a law. In a court of law, the law is not under examination the application of the law to this specific case is under evaluation. In the legislative process laws are never debated on their value or justice only in a court of law can that be debated with some degree of honesty. Legislators merely pass or reject laws based on their respective objective. In both examples, you presented you made my case. First, it must be debated on the exact wording of the law and how this case meets those criteria. Evidence must be presented that the law was or was not followed as intended. That requires specific evidence which can only be admitted if it meets certain standards. In the gun permit case, the judge stated he disagreed with the law but was for4ced to render a guilty verdict. However, the woman was saved because the Governor pardoned her crime. In her case she, the debate was not over. She had every right to appeal the case to a higher court to debate the merit of the law or the merit of the ruling, again using very strict standards. An honest debate never occurs in the legislative process.

[Frederick L Neff]

Thats some screwy logic Jack, the person who's point you made was mine, in your own words; and I quote "In a court of law, the law is not under examination the application of the law to this specific case is under evaluation". In other words, the intent is not in question, only whether the law was violated by defendant x. So, by your own words, if the law is not under examination then how can you claim that the meaning and intent are being debated?

"First it must be debated on the exact wording of the law and how this case meets those criteria" uummm, the exact wording is the text in the printed law. Maybe thats why the legal system is so screwed up, having a law degree equals literacy issues; I hear hooked on phonics is good. 

Moving on....

  " the judge stated he disagreed with the law but was for4ced to render a guilty verdict." You make my point again, the legal system must rule based on the written law, regardless of debate on merit or intent. The governors pardon is a special privilege, and as for the appeals process, I think we all know the appeals process is based on whether the lower court processes were correct, only the USSC can change a verdict based on the virtue of the law itself.

Lastly, Honesty.....in the legal profession.....LMAO, if lawyers and judges were Pinocchio the courtroom would look like a laundromat for drying clothes...if you think i'm joking just ask the west memphis three. 

[jack ludwig]

Fred, the law is not under evaluation, only the USSC evaluates the constitutional merit of a law. When a case is brought before a court the officers of the court must show that the law was or was not followed precisely as the as the law was intended. Yes, Fred when a judge finds that a person is guilty of a crime he is obligated to render the penalty associated with that crime within the guidelines established.  Appeals courts can overturn any lower court ruling at any time and the USSC has the last say on any court ruling. I never said lawyers were honest, I said the court legal process was an honest form of debate because they must follow a set of standards. Lawyers and politicians who write the laws are on the same level of honesty, not very high.

[Frederick L Neff]

"Fred, the law is not under evaluation"

Ironic that you now say this Jack, given your earlier statements,

"In our system for resolving issues criminal or civil, it is left to current law interpretation by a judge and a jury in most cases."

"Fred,to establish that a law has been broken one must interpret the law first, after all, what is a law but a mere string of words to form a thought."

So I will say this again, lawyers and judges debate the facts in a case to determine if the written law was violated, not the law itself, our current legal systems problems are due to activist lawyers and judges ruling based on what they think the law should say not what it actually says.

[Thomas Vincent Coffey]

Suggest you withhold posts like this till Friday which is April Fools Day.

Surely you're jesting w/the statement that "debate does not occur in a Legislature (Parliament)"???

I gave you an example of how legislation can be generated, from the citizen upward, using Spain (the nation is irrelevant) but obviously I did not cover every step of the process, in the interest of brevity.

Before any law is presented for a vote on the floor of any governing body, it is debated in committee, sometimes several; w/multiple witnesses called to testify and voice their opinion.

Unfortunately you apparently can't let go of your obsession about Courts being some kind of sacred arbiter of right and wrong, a notion that is beyond absurd. The Courts are little more than another political body competing for power which is why most of the world restricts their ability to interfere in the governing process. Believing otherwise is an infantile fantasy.

The Greeks and Romans, who endured for some 1500 years, understood that the vital key to their longevity was leadership. Hence their rule was oligarchic, by the wise who are always few. In turn, the likes of Pericles, Solon, Demosthenes, Themistocles, among many more, listened to their citizens.Wisely, their Courts decided nothing of importance. We, a tad past 200 years would be well advised to reflect hard on their legacy and learn from it. 

[jack ludwig]

Yes Thomas I am very familiar with the legislative process how a bill becomes law, but that does not change the reality of the situation. I don't care who initiates a bill, citizen or politician the bill will only get the honest debate only when the value of the bill is measured by the politicians in power. There is no importance to the passage of defeat of the bill based on honesty or good of the people. It passes or fails purely on the objectives of the party in power. This does not happen in a court of law because there are very specific standards that must be followed to move the process forward in a decision. I can show you 100 bad laws for every good one that passes. However, it is rare that wrong court decision has been made, only bad or incompetent officials of the court and that can be corrected by the appeals process.

[charles royer]

The Missing 13th Amendment: ---No Lawyers allowed in Public Office---
13th Amendment --- Missing

David M. Dodge, Researcher
Date 08/01/91
In the winter of 1983, archival research expert David Dodge, and former Baltimore police investigator Tom Dunn, were searching for evidence of government corruption in public records stored in the Belfast Library on the coast of Maine.

By chance, they discovered the library's oldest authentic copy of the Constitution of the United States (printed in 1825). Both men were stunned to see this document included a 13th Amendment that no longer appears on current copies of the Constitution. Moreover, after studying the Amendment's language and historical context, they realized the principle
intent of this "missing" 13th Amendment was to prohibit lawyers from serving in government. So began a seven year, nationwide search for the truth surrounding the most bizarre Constitutional puzzle in American history -- the unlawful removal of a ratified Amendment from the Constitution of the United State
http://sicknesshope.com/node/1887

[M]

Charles,

Here's a link to a more complete article on the Original 13th amendment; http://www.barefootsworld.net/real13th.html 

The original 13th was never legally repealed either.