Page 3 of 5

Re: I'm new and I have a question.

PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 10:35 pm
by pedawson
Give me the LAW that states a treaty can be repealed without consent of those that brought it into existence.

Re: I'm new and I have a question.

PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 10:47 pm
by robinr22
pedawson wrote:Give me the LAW that states a treaty can be repealed without consent of those that brought it into existence.


A treaty is an agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely sovereign states and international organizations. If one party wants to repeal it then they can, and there isn't much the other can do, short of sanctions and invading them. There's no law that says that as such but the reality is that international law is little more than two countries agreeing to do something and if one party changes their mind then that's the way it goes.

What does that have to do with anything?

EDIT: Would you care to venture an answer to my questions?

Re: I'm new and I have a question.

PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 10:54 pm
by enegiss
is law agreement ?

Re: I'm new and I have a question.

PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 10:57 pm
by enegiss
agreement
late 14c., "mutual conformity of things;" c.1400, "mutual understanding" (among persons), also (of things) "mutual conformity," from O.Fr. agrement, noun of action from agreer "to please" (see agree)

Re: I'm new and I have a question.

PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 11:03 pm
by pitano1
hi robin.
quote..There seems to be a lot of reference to statutes laws not being real law.

maxim.
the law can give rise to a fiction,but a fiction cannot give rise to law.

any one holding office in a corporation is a fictional entity.

i have a question for you.

the united kingdom is a corporation`as is the government itself,they create the statutes/legislation.?

if these are laws why call them acts `legislation` statutes.
is this because they are unable to make any LAWS?
sorry thats two questions. :grin:
pitano1

Re: I'm new and I have a question.

PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 11:10 pm
by robinr22
enegiss wrote:is law agreement ?


Well, that would depend on what you mean by that. If you mean from a philisophical jurisprudence standpoint then, yes, the law exists and has power over us because we agree to abide by it. Social contract theory is very close to this idea and it makes sense. After all, we can all see what happens in countries like Somalia where the rule of law has broken down - it's not a very nice place to live. This is the kind of argument that get's discussed during introductory law courses and, let me be clear about this, it's a valid argument. There is no real foundation for any of the law in this country, other than we agree to it.

But that is simply a theoretical standpoint, and has no practical applications at all. In practical real world terms the law exists, and is effective, because there is an efficient and punitive system for ensuring that people comply with it. If you don't, you get sent to prison. It makes little difference how compelling your arguments are if no one else agrees with them.

So, in answer to your question, theoretically yes but practically no.

WOuld you care to venture an answer to my earlier questions?

Re: I'm new and I have a question.

PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 11:24 pm
by robinr22
pitano1 wrote:hi robin.
quote..There seems to be a lot of reference to statutes laws not being real law.

maxim.
the law can give rise to a fiction,but a fiction cannot give rise to law.

any one holding office in a corporation is a fictional entity.

i have a question for you.

the united kingdom is a corporation`as is the government itself,they create the statutes/legislation.?

if these are laws why call them acts `legislation` statutes.
is this because they are unable to make any LAWS?
sorry thats two questions. :grin:
pitano1


I'm afraid I don't recognise your maxim and I don't agree that anyone holding office in a corporation is a fictional entity. That doesn't even make sense.

In answer to your question the word "legislation" comes from the latin term "legislationem" which in turn is formed from the latin words "lex" meaning "law" and "lātum" meaning "I carry”. Roughly translated it means "The giving of the law". Statute is much the same coming from the latin phrase "statuere" meaning "enact or legislate".

Legislation, law and statute all share a common latin heritage which is why they are often used interchangeably. Also the UK isn't a corporation. If it was it would be registered at Companies House. Here is a link to their online webcheck:

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/50cc4b5aaa266816c45c56e33d5253bd/wcframe?name=accessCompanyInfo

Have a look. It's not there, I promise you! Just to head off the obvious argument, Dunn and Bradstreet are a credit reference agency, not a listing of companies.

I don't really understand why you are all being so vague though. If this is as obvious as you say it it, why can't anyone provide some actual clear straightforward evidence that they are right?

Re: I'm new and I have a question.

PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 11:32 pm
by enegiss
my single strongest argument is, what has the crown got to make laws, that i havent got myself, obviously not counting the head crushers :grin: i mean, what makes it the Crown?

Re: I'm new and I have a question.

PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 11:42 pm
by robinr22
enegiss wrote:my single strongest argument is, what has the crown got to make laws, that i havent got myself, obviously not counting the head crushers :grin: i mean, what makes it the Crown?


You are entirely right - from a theoretical standpoint, absolutely nothing. The only reason the Queen is the Queen and gets to be the source of law is because her ancestors wacked someone with an axe a lot harder than they wacked back. I completely agree that there is no real basis for our legal system. It's a load of nonsense.

But the reality is that you identified the real difference in your question - the reason that the Crown gets to make laws is because they have the biggest head crushers. And you can't fight that. It's no use protesting that the person crushing your head has no legal foundation for doing so if they are still going to crush your head...

Making these arguments is going to to get you nowhere in court and that is what counts. So why persist with it?

Re: I'm new and I have a question.

PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 11:48 pm
by enegiss
if i am in disagreement, what remedy is there other than nothing,? (edit)
I completely agree that there is no real basis for our legal system. It's a load of nonsense.
and there sir is where we are :grin: