|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 01 2012 @ 06:09 PM EDT |
Does an ordinance that says that “no person may bring a vehicle into
the park” apply to an ambulance that enters the park to save a person’s life?
I wonder how they mow the lawn? With a lawnmower? isn't that a
vehicle? My lawn tractor is, and parks & recs use bigger machines then I
have.
or goats? Or common sense?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 01 2012 @ 07:55 PM EDT |
I've decided "conservatives" want to use the 10th Amendment to nullify
the entire rest of the Constitution and reinstate the Articles of
Confederation.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 01 2012 @ 08:43 PM EDT |
Does an ordinance that says that "no person may bring a vehicle into
the park" apply to an ambulance that enters the park to save a person's life?
For Scalia and Garner, the answer is yes. After all, an ambulance is a
vehicle-any dictionary will tell you that. If the authors of the ordinance
wanted to make an exception for ambulances, they should have said so.
I don't know how laws in the USA are drafted, but where I am
something like this would typically say: "no person without authorisation
may bring a vehicle into the park". The "authorisation" part would then be left
up to some official's discretion. Anything else just isn't realistic as
parliamentarians can't micro-manage the day to day operations of the state.
If legislators are required to include all possible eventualities in
their legislation, they will respond by simply adding vague and all encompassing
boilerplate to their bills. The end result would be legislation that could be
interpreted any way that any particular judge wanted to interpret it, giving
judges what amounts to dictatorial powers. And perhaps that's what the judge in
question wants in reality despite what ever else he might say.
A
"judge" isn't some supernatural entity that sits outside of society.
Fundamentally, he or she is just another bureaucrat. Anyone who phrases an
argument along the lines of "we need to protect our liberties by concentrating
power into my hands" should be viewed with some suspicion.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 02 2012 @ 01:29 PM EDT |
While I heartily agree with Posner that Scalia's point of view is incoherent, I
find Posner's own view point to be incoherent as well.
For instance, if "textualism is conservative" because it requires
legislators to give deep thought to the laws they pass, then non-textualism is
fascist because it allows judges to reinterpret words at their own discretion.
(I feel compelled to point out, because most citizens are not well versed in
political theory these days, that fascism means the "leadership
principal", that is whatever the "leader" says goes. Since
federal judges are appointed presidents, "the leader", and in Posner's
view judges are allowed to redefine the meaning of things unconstrained by text,
Posner's view is fascist.)
As another example, Posner's claim that the identification of flag burning as
free speech is non-textual is completely incoherent to the point of absurdity.
Posner's does not cite any text in the constitution that allows the government
to prohibit flag burning. Therefore, even if one where to accept Posner's
definition of speech from the 18th century, there is no need even to define
speech for flag burning to be fully protected.
Posner makes many other incoherent and illogical statements throughout his
article. As I said, I agree with him that Scalia is incoherent, but so is
Posner. The root of the problem is that once we move away from an ethical
framework of what the government is and is not allowed to do, we necessarily
move towards the "leadership principal", which is inherently
incoherent and arbitrary. Over time, arbitrary law leads to might makes right,
in other words no law at all.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
