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]

Varying interpretation based on the passions of the people is not the basis of our legal system, facts are supposed to rule our legal system and one persons opinion does not outweigh anothers.

[Thomas Vincent Coffey]

Since we're talking law; let me raise again the related issue of judicial authority, directly and simply.

Having lived in Europe for more than a decade, no nation permits its Judges to interpret the meaning of laws and rules; and then overruling them; that reflect the will of their citizens and duly enacted by their parliamentary representatives. NONE!

Why the USA tolerates this absurdity, from non-elected judges w/a law credential, in stunning.

[jack ludwig]

if other nations don't allow the laws to be interpreted by judges, who then interprets the law and who judge right from wrong?

[Thomas Vincent Coffey]

The citizens of the Spanish Nation, for example, are sovereign and they decide through their parliamentary representatives, the intent and meaning of the law. Our Declaration and Preamble begins w/We the People and not we the god dammed judges!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Frederick L Neff]

Interpretation of the laws meaning is what is called rule by man, our legal system is based on rule by law, judges and jury's have the responsibility of determining if the law was violated, not its meaning or intent, common misconception in today's society and a huge problem with our current legal system.

[Thomas Vincent Coffey]

Fredrick that was my point and better stated.

[jack ludwig]

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.

[Frederick L Neff]

Words have meaning and so do the sentences those words make, and the reason why they are debated in legislatures is to determine proper meaning and intent. After the law is passed, it states what the words and sentences mean, the only interpretations to be done is whether the law applies and whether it has been violated. Once "in the books" the meaning doesn't change, hence "interpreting" is judges and lawyers playing political activist to further their own goals and force their opinions on other unjustly.

[jack ludwig]

I have never seen a word or sentence that could not be debated no matter who may have written such statement. Even the so-called gospel is debated.

[Thomas Vincent Coffey]

What are you talking about? Fred Nefff, who can certainly speak succinctly and soundly for himself, neither said nor implied that debate should be stifled. Let's try this:

The great Ockham articulated the Principle of Subsidiarity whereby all bodies in society exist for the sake of the individual.Therefore what the individual can do for himself should not be done for him, by  any body that ranks above him in society. The focus of Subsidiarity is on decentralization which fosters creativity and innovation by devolving decision making to the lowest feasible level in society. As an example, the decision as to what is best for the family belongs w/parents, not the State.

Back to my earlier example involving Spain. Assume the Spanish People desire to enact a law/rule controlling/monitoring the entry on Moroccans into Spain from North Africa. Subsidiarity would argue that this law/rule should emanate from the collective voices and wishes of the Spanish people while being formed through the guidance of their parliamentary representatives. The Spanish Courts should have no role in judging the intent or meaning of this law/rule as it is the considered  will of the people of Spain.

As an side, because Angel Merkel refused to honor this Principle by allowing some 500,000 Muslims into Germany, she lost heavily in recent local elections. And in an up coming vote of no confidence in the Bundestag, she is expected to lose and be forced to resign as Chancellor.

[jack ludwig]

TVC using your example how do the Spanish people communicate that a law should be written controlling/monitoring the entry on Moroccans into Spain from North Africa? Who writes the law and who gets to approve the wording of the law? Once the law is written and passed by the parliamentary representatives who then gets to rule on a challenge when the first case is presented?

[Thomas Vincent Coffey]

I assume this is an earnest question, so assume the following:

1) Ferment begins to slowly bubble among the Spanish citizenry about the quantity and quality of Moroccan emigres in Spain.

2) Ferment rises to the point where this becomes a topic of conversation in the workplace, in pubs, on the street; and so on.

3) Citizens first individually, then later in groups meet w/their parliamentary representative to voice concern/alarm.

4) The condition/situation continues to ferment bringing more parliamentary representatives into the discussion.

5) Legislation to deal w/the situation is brought to the Floor of the Parliamentary Body(The Cortes) for a binding vote.

6) If passed, it becomes law and is enforced by the police authorities.

What challenge are you talking about????????????????