Statutes that make sense

Statutes that make sense

Postby Kiko4564 » Thu Apr 28, 2016 5:45 pm

Have you considered that some statutes make sense and how would you regulate society without them? For instance if it weren't for the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 am I correct in saying that stalkers would be able to do their dirty business without fear of prosecution and that if weren't for the Licencing Act 2003 pubs would be able to sell to under 18s with impunity? I am far from an avid supporter of statute law and agree with you that some of them are ridiculous but still thing that some of them have their place.
Kiko4564
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 9:17 pm

Re: Statutes that make sense

Postby Dreadlock » Sun May 01, 2016 11:25 pm

The first staute passed in England was in 1275. Was there no society before then? If there was, was it unregulated?
Statute was originally the codification of law (now it's just blatantly unlawful). What does codify mean? What is the purpose of codifying law? What does codification of law actually achieve?
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: Statutes that make sense

Postby juliegrace » Sat May 07, 2016 3:36 pm

This is a post about canons, and why, although lawyers should know them, they should not really rely on them to interpret text.
In a case to be argued Tuesday, Lockhart v. United States, the question presented is basically this. When a statute says, regarding a mandatory minimum provision in a child pornography statute:....or under the laws of any State relating to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward, or the production, possession, receipt, mailing, sale, distribution, shipment, or transportation of child pornography..
In their book, Scalia and Garner argue that statutory interpretation can always be gleamed from the text (which I generally dispute but am not taking issue with here, exactly). More specifically, they point to 57(!) canons of interpretation which can be used to discern the meaning of any statute, and posit that even when the Court gets to the right result in interpreting statutes by looking outside of the text, the canons would produce the same result.
http://franksms.com/
I am an online market and working for "Frank Sms" that is the new experience in this field.
http://franksms.com/
juliegrace
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat May 07, 2016 3:30 pm
Location: Unitedkingdom

Re: Statutes that make sense

Postby Dreadlock » Mon Jun 06, 2016 10:56 am

I was hoping someone else would answer my questions but anyway...

1. Law belongs to no one. Everyone has the right to interpret law as they see fit. Disagreements are decided by juries. This is how the common law works.
2. Codificaiton of law is a WORK as it is written. It belongs to its creator who, as creator, has total authority as to how and who shall use this work. He has JURISDICTION over it.
3. Codification of law in no way changes the original. Codification is merely colour of law.

There are your answers people. The UK creates statutes, via parliament, which are its works - its property. Authority is given to the BAR association to interpret and use the code. If you are not a member of the BAR nothing you say about statutes are of any relevance whatsoever - even if your interpretation is spot on. Why? Because you have no authorisation from the UK. You can stand in court and say this that and the other and be 100% correct - yet the court can completely ignore everything you say because you are not qualified and have no standing with regard to THEIR statutes.

Thus the purpose of codification is to:
1. Make colour of law so that people think it is still law.
2. Gain jurisdiction over the "law" by creating a WORK, statute, which represents it - the actual codification.
3. Control interpretation of the "law" by ensuring only a few are qualified to do so and having them act according to the rules of the club of which they must be a member - the BAR association.
4. More control by removing the necessity for juries - which the (common) law requires and merely having judges/magistrates.

When you have some time try comparing fraud at common law to the Fraud Act 2006.
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: Statutes that make sense

Postby Dreadlock » Wed Jun 08, 2016 10:53 am

A little analogy to help people comprehend:

Anyone can play naughts and crosses. The game belongs to no one.

But I write computer CODE so that the game can be played on computer. The CODE belongs to me, it's my property because I created it. I decide who can use it, when they can use, where they can use it etc. IT'S MINE.

Is the game naughts and crosses mine? Nope. You can still play it whenever the hell you want - it's none of my business, but if you use MY CODE to play it... ! Now that IS my business.

That's all the government has done to the law. Naughts and crosses represents the law. The computer code represents statutory codification.
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: Statutes that make sense

Postby Dreadlock » Sat Jun 11, 2016 8:45 pm

Ah, I didn't know the Crown could do that but I'm not surprised. Is this something different from the royal prerogative or is that what you are referring to?
Anway, whatever the source, the purpose of statute is to disenfranchise the ordinary man from the law and thus control him - which it does very well indeed.
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am


Return to General Freeman related questions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests