So Ugly heard of Pascals wager or intelligent design? I'm thinking not.
And if you are trying to say (most) politicians are godless, meaning they are a bunch of lying two faced arseholes you'll get no argument from me.
Otherwise I'd rather not go over this territory again, once in a lifetime is enough.
Fare thee well
From Bouvier’s dictionary of law.
A LAW DICTIONARY
ADAPTED TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND OF THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE AMERICAN UNION
by John Bouvier
Revised Sixth Edition, 1856
150 years old and confined to America, specifically to prove how American law differed from English law. From Wikipedia (for summary purposes rather than definitiveness):
John Bouvier (1787–1851) was born in Codogno, France, but came to the United States at an early age. He became a U.S. citizen in 1812, was admitted to the bar in 1818, and began practicing law in Philadelphia. During his years of practice and study, he noticed the lack of a solid American law dictionary. He decided to fill this need, and worked on a new law dictionary incessantly for 10 years. One of his main goals was to distinguish American law from its English antecedent. He finally presented it for publication in 1839. Like many of his generation, Bouvier used his preface to justify his work, stating the irrelevance of English legal dictionaries to the American legal system of the United States. He wanted to create a totally new law dictionary that would address the American legal system, so he derived his definitions almost wholly from customs, court decisions, and statutes of the United States.
So, not at all relevant to New Zealand. You need some more relevant base material.
What you don't seem to understand is how common law came to be - it is entirely the creation of courts, based on judicial decisions which create precedent for future reference. Some facets of it can be traced back to Anglo-Saxon times, as well as leftovers from the Roman occupation of Britain.
There is no connection to anything resembling "natural law". The idea that a "natural law" governs morals and ethics, and must therefore derive from some deity, ignores the actuality that human beings can act ethically toward each other without the intervention of religion, and that law comes from a community of individuals deciding a) that they can do better by subsuming some of their independence of action in favour of collective action and b) this new thing called "society" must have some rules so that the rights of individuals are not infringed by other, stronger individuals (which is actually recognition that the darker side of humanity tends to hold sway if not checked)
I honestly don't know what you hope to accomplish here. You won't look at facts, you only use cherry-picked sources and you clothe your "arguments" in simplistic slogans and Latin, which you only half appear to understand. This is not how to progress a debate.
Ah, those pesky facts. You don’t need them, obviously. And thus your ‘argument’ is proved invalid.
There is actually a reasonable argument to be made in support of a natural law that not even parliament can override - the old "what about a duly passed law that mandated the killing of all blue eyed babies?" hypothetical. But that's not what UT's saying. The evidence in support of that argument is scarce - power ultimately stems from the barrel of a gun - but there's some in international law, in concepts like fundamental human rights.
The Anglo Saxon origins of the word oath and the works of 18th century legal writers aren't helpful in demonstrating this.
Alea jacta est.
fundamental human rights.
Ah, now there we're talking about natural justice, rather than natural law. Any lawyer will tell you there is a world of difference between justice and law.
Ehhh, natural justice is a procedural concept. Did you go through a fair process to sack someone. Fundamental human rights is a concept you can get an international court to look into, even if their enforcement is toothless. Which to me makes it law.
So, not at all relevant to New Zealand.
Bouvier's dictionary is relevant because both US law and NZ law draw from English law.
You need some more relevant base material.
No, Bouvier's is relevant.
What you don’t seem to understand is how common law came to be
So why don't you read the wiki and then tell me what I'm missing?
power ultimately stems from the barrel of a gun
Not in a democracy it doesn't.
So why don’t you read the wiki and then tell me what I’m missing?
What you're missing is that your definition is incorrect, in that common law is the decisions of judges in courts interpreting appropriate statutes. These may trace back, in some cases, to Alfred's liber judicialis but, as you note, it is lost and so we'll never know. How you drag Judaic law into that is well beyond my comprehension, but only serves to further your argument's invalidity.
Last edited 8 September 2014 by "UT"?
even if their enforcement is toothless. Which to me makes it law.
Without enforcement, there is no law, only pious warblings from the sidelines.
Last edited 8 September 2014 by “UT”?
I think we've established that that is Ugly Truth's own site, as he was planning to fix the broken links, though that may have been on the other thread.
So Ugly heard of Pascals wager or intelligent design?
Yes, but I don't know the details of Pascal's wager.
Using RationalWiki's precis:
"1. If you believe in God and God does exist, you will be rewarded with eternal life in heaven: thus an infinite gain."
Non sequitur. Just rewards are based on works, not on belief.
You can't go back into the mists of time to find out what the law really is. It changes, to deal with new things, like the impact we have on our neighbours, or how we address pre-existing rights when we colonise new lands. Three million voters in 2014 have to be able to overrule a king a thousand years ago.
The broken links were not from the wiki. Do you have any answer to Blackstone's account of the history of the common law, given that we now have the "dome-book" of King Alfred the Great?
"And indeed our antiquaries and early historians do all positively assure us, that our body of laws is of this compounded nature. For they tell us, that in the time of Alfred, the local customs of the several provinces of the kingdom were grown so various, that he found it expedient to compile his dome-book, or liber judicialis, for the general use of the whole kingdom. This book is said to have been extant so late as the reign of king Edward the fourth, but is now unfortunately lost. It contained, we may probably suppose, the principal maxims of the common law"
As B Jones says, "You can’t go back into the mists of time to find out what the law really is. It changes"
You are refusing to accept that.
Three million voters in 2014 have to be able to overrule a king a thousand years ago.
Not necessarily. The idea that the majority is always right isn't part of modern democracy.
It doesn't matter what Blackstone said more than 200 years ago. 200 years ago, one human being could own another, and sell their children. 200 years ago, the majority of the population had no vote. Fundamental human rights have changed. You can tell what the law is now by what the courts will recognise now. I'll shake the hand of anyone who can cite a recent example of a lawyer successfully arguing a case by citing Alfred the Great.
You are refusing to accept that.
No, I'm not. I'm aware that the law changes.
Are you still unable to reconcile Blackstone with your assertion that common law and case law are equivalent, nzlemming?
It doesn’t matter what Blackstone said more than 200 years ago.
It matters because he is a recognised commentator on the subject of English law, including English common law (NZ law is a development of English law).
The idea that the majority is always right isn’t part of modern democracy.
Yes, but that's a little different to whether one parliament can overrule a past one. The majority isn't always right - binding referenda are a real danger to minority rights, but that's usually dealt with by representative democracy and the rule of law, eg the executive has to obey its own rules. The major human rights findings of recent NZ jurisprudence, where the courts have overridden the executive, have referred to other pieces of legislation - the Treaty of Waitangi Act, the Bill of Rights Act, etc.
Yes, but that’s a little different to whether one parliament can overrule a past one.
Yes, but that wasn't the issue that I was previously arguing.
The majority isn’t always right – binding referenda are a real danger to minority rights, but that’s usually dealt with by representative democracy and the rule of law, eg the executive has to obey its own rules.
Yes, it's dealt with by representative democracy, but the executive obeying its own rules isn't an example of how democracy protects the rights of the minority.
I don't know what you're arguing. The closest I can come to a coherent interpretation is that the NZ government is illegitimate because Blackstone, Alfred the Great etc say so. Good luck with that next time you want to challenge a parking ticket.
I don’t know what you’re arguing.
You and me both. I thought he started out arguing with Ben that ethics and morality are only possible if your laws are based on religious admonition (which he calls "natural law"), but every time you try to pin him down on something, he shifts the goalposts. I'm out, and if he wants to claim that as "victory" I couldn't care less.