Up Front by Emma Hart

Read Post

Up Front: Oh, God

339 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 5 6 7 8 9 14 Newer→ Last

  • BenWilson,

    What about the Thetan who utters the words "I am a liar". Antinomy?

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • JacksonP,

    This conversation is about to enter the noumena...

    Do doo be-do-do.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2011 • 2450 posts Report Reply

  • Joe Wylie, in reply to ,

    See that, I just spoke the word of God.

    Darn tootin'.
    Thanks to the interhosen, we got more popes than catholics.

    flat earth • Since Jan 2007 • 4593 posts Report Reply

  • B Jones, in reply to UglyTruth,

    The legislation is not effective because there is more to sovereignty than political supremacy, and the NZ parliament doesn't meet the criteria.

    Is this a Maori sovereignty argument? Because it looks like that's the logical conclusion, but people arguing that usually use a lot less carthago delenda est and a lot more rangatiratanga.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 976 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson, in reply to B Jones,

    It's hard to see how it could be, since it's asserting the supremacy of English common law. But maybe the aliens want to play around with this. I'm curious to see what they come up with.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • UglyTruth,

    Yes, I believe that the laws passed by the NZ parliament are the laws of the land, and every court, judge, lawyer, and police officer in the land will back me up on that one.

    You are mistaken.

    Lex terræ: /léks téhriy/. The law of the land. The common law, or the due course of the common law; the general law of the land. Equivalent to "due process of law". In the strictest sense, trial by oath; the privilege of making oath. (Blacks 5th)

    http://wiki.actsinjunction.info/CommonLaw/LexTerre

    As distinguished from law created by the enactment of legislatures, the common law comprises the body of those principles and rules of action, relating to the government and security of persons and property, which derive their authority solely from usages and customs of immemorial antiquity, or from the judgments and decrees of the courts recognizing, affirming, and enforcing such usages and customs; and, in this sense, particularly the ancient unwritten law of England.

    http://wiki.actsinjunction.info/CommonLaw/References

    New Zealand • Since Sep 2014 • 89 posts Report Reply

  • UglyTruth,

    Is this a Maori sovereignty argument?

    It's related, but it's based on English law rather than assertion of Maori custom or rangatiratanga. One of the critical points is that the NZ state was established as "civil government", which divorces it from the common law necessary for the Westminster system to function effectively.

    New Zealand • Since Sep 2014 • 89 posts Report Reply

  • B Jones,

    I could give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're talking about grundnorm etc, but I read that link, and it's up there with Ken Ring and David Icke. I guess if there's alternative history and science, there's alternative legal theory.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 976 posts Report Reply

  • UglyTruth,

    I guess if there's alternative history and science, there's alternative legal theory.

    Which theory is the better one, the one that fits the facts, or the one which results in fictions like the NZ state's position on sovereignty and the common law?

    New Zealand • Since Sep 2014 • 89 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming, in reply to UglyTruth,

    http://wiki.actsinjunction.info/Sovereignty
    http://www.actsinjunction.info/nzsov.html</q>

    You keep quoting this site as if it has some value or authority. I've looked at it. It is not compelling, consisting of self-referential one-liners with no reference to external supporting evidence. I suspect it is your own site.

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2935 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson, in reply to UglyTruth,

    You are mistaken.

    The subsequent bunch of stuff you dump to justify the claim that I'm mistaken makes no reference to what you claim I'm mistaken about, which is that the entirety of the legal and enforcement apparatus in this nation will back up the sovereignty of our parliament. A bunch of quotes lifted from some quack website is not going to convince anyone that laws passed in this land do not have to be obeyed if the common law is in conflict with them.

    All you actually have there is a strictly legalistic interpretation of the phrase "the law of the land", for which you have as much authority to assert the meaning as you do over the word "oath", ie none at all. The law of the land is a common phrase referring to the laws that hold in a land, and that includes statute law. That is how I meant it, and how I continue to mean it. We're not in a courtroom here, we're on an internet blog. If you want to split hairs forever on this, I'd concede that you don't use the phrase that way, and could even use it in discussions with you to avoid wasting more time. But for now, no, I'm not wrong.

    The laws that hold in this country are considerably more than the common law on my definition of "hold" and "country" and "considerably", and "common law" and "definition" and "are" and "more" and so on and so on. Split hairs all you like but the basic thrust of what I'm saying is that if you think you win arguments by becoming an inflexible walking talking latin regurgitating link-whore, you got another think coming. You're trying to actually argue for natural law and God and our parliament not being sovereign via being a language Nazi, and it won't wash. You can't convince anyone of anything that way, they'll just laugh at you wanting to insist on using your private language to prove the existence of your God, your "natural" laws, your opinion about the sovereignty of our Parliament. It's got all the force of my 4 year old telling me that his toy dog Woofy says he doesn't have to eat his beans.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • UglyTruth,

    It is not compelling, consisting of self-referential one-liners with no reference to external supporting evidence.

    They're not self-referential. Just follow the wiki links, eg "References"

    External references for http://wiki.actsinjunction.info/Sovereignty/References

    http://www.etymonline.com/
    Bouvier's 1856 dictionary of law
    Blacks dictionary of law, 2nd, 5th, and 8th editions.

    External references for http://www.actsinjunction.info/nzsov.html

    http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/AboutParl/HowPWorks/FactSheets/0/e/7.htm
    http://www.bennion.co.nz/mlr/2003/mlr0803.pdf
    Commentaries on the Laws of England, William Blackstone
    Institutes of the Lawes of England, Edward Coke
    Legal Fictions and Common Law Legal Theory Some Historical Reflections, Eben Moglen
    Thomas Edward Scrutton, Roman Law Influence In Chancery, Church Courts, Admiralty, and Law Merchant
    Rights, remedies, and the impact of state sovereign immunity, Christopher Shortell
    London Gazette, 2nd October 1840
    http://www.waitangi-tribunal.govt.nz/treaty/english.asp
    http://www.egs.edu/faculty/giorgio-agamben/articles/state-of-exception/

    New Zealand • Since Sep 2014 • 89 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming,

    You don't deny that it's your own site, though, do you George?

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2935 posts Report Reply

  • B Jones,

    Some references from after slavery was abolished and women got the vote would be more persuasive. The Tom Bennion and NZ Parliament links don't work.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 976 posts Report Reply

  • UglyTruth,

    Some references from after slavery was abolished and women got the vote would be more persuasive

    Why? Has anything relevant happened?

    The Tom Bennion and NZ Parliament links don't work.

    Thanks for that, I'll fix it later.

    The NZ Parliament quote can be found at this page.

    New Zealand • Since Sep 2014 • 89 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming,

    http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/AboutParl/HowPWorks/FactSheets/0/e/7.htm

    Link broken but you really need to study how Parliament works rather than cherry pick quotes.

    http://www.bennion.co.nz/mlr/2003/mlr0803.pdf

    Link broken but available via the Wayback Machine. Tom’s a good lawyer and a friend, and I’ve argued alongside him, so I may be a little more familiar with his thought than you, and what he’s arguing about the Crown’s trampling of Māori sovereignty does more to refute your thesis than support it.

    Commentaries on the Laws of England, William Blackstone
    Institutes of the Lawes of England, Edward Coke

    Laws of England, not of New Zealand. “Common Law” does not mean the same law, forever and ever. Common law is case law, or precedent, not the entire body of English law. While case law can modify statute law in some circumstance, and in the process highlight where statute law was lacking and needs amendment, it does not over-ride statute law as of right, because it is interpretation of a particular statute by a judge. I think you misunderstand the fundamentals of law and read only what you want to see, e.g you quote Blackstone:

    "Sovereignty and legislature are indeed convertible terms; one cannot subsist without the other.”

    This is the antithesis of your argument that our Parliament is not sovereign, yet you quote him as support. Strange.

    Legal Fictions and Common Law Legal Theory Some Historical Reflections, Eben Moglen

    Focused mainly on the development of American law, which is also based on common law extant at the point of separation from Britain via the American Revolution.

    Thomas Edward Scrutton, Roman Law Influence In Chancery, Church Courts, Admiralty, and Law Merchant

    In case you missed it, those courts are specialised courts and bear no reflection on the development of law in New Zealand after we became a Dominion, rather than a colony.

    Rights, remedies, and the impact of state sovereign immunity, Christopher Shortell London Gazette, 2nd October 1840

    1840. Right. We haven’t moved from there, I take it? All laws are the same as they were then. The Empire still exists and we are all subjects of the Queen of England. #yeahright Don’t be ridiculous. The world __has__changed. You need to recognize that.

    http://www.waitangi-tribunal.govt.nz/treaty/english.asp

    Link broken but you can find it here. I suppose you are citing this to show that the Queen asserts sovereign authority in making the treaty. You fail, however, to consider that, since the Restoration, England, the later additions to the United Kingdom, the subsequent colonies, dominions and realms have all been governed as constitutional monarchies. The monarch can assent to legislation or decline it (in theory – it would be a constitutional crisis were it to happen) agreed to by the legislature. A constitutional monarch cannot change the law of the land by fiat.

    http://www.egs.edu/faculty/giorgio-agamben/articles/state-of-exception/

    I don’t even begin to understand why you are talking about state of exception, which is a very circumscribed set of eventualities. Please feel free to not enlighten me, because I don’t care.

    None of the above supports your perceived thesis that a) natural law exists and b) it trumps statute law. Common law does not equal “natural law” which seems to me your main point of argument.

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2935 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming,

    Oh, dear. I appear to have frightened him off. I apologize to anyone who was sincerely attempting to debate with him.

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2935 posts Report Reply

  • Kirk Alexander,

    Well that was an entertaining diversion. Thanks everybody...

    Chch • Since May 2013 • 17 posts Report Reply

  • UglyTruth, in reply to nzlemming,

    Oh, dear. I appear to have frightened him off.

    Real world kept me busy.

    you really need to study how Parliament works rather than cherry pick quotes.

    No, I really don't.

    New Zealand • Since Sep 2014 • 89 posts Report Reply

  • UglyTruth,

    Common law is case law, or precedent, not the entire body of English law.

    LOL

    I never said that common law was the entire body of English law.

    LAW, COMMON. The common law is that which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. It has never received the sanction of the legislature, by an express act, which is the criterion by which it is distinguished from the statute law….The common law is derived from two sources, the common law of England, and the practice and decision of our own courts.

    From Bouvier’s dictionary of law.

    New Zealand • Since Sep 2014 • 89 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming, in reply to UglyTruth,

    you really need to study how Parliament works rather than cherry pick quotes.

    No, I really don’t.

    Ah, those pesky facts. You don't need them, obviously. And thus your 'argument' is proved invalid.

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2935 posts Report Reply

  • andin,

    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

    raglan • Since Mar 2007 • 1890 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming, in reply to UglyTruth,

    From Bouvier’s dictionary of law.

    Which is:

    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,[citation needed] 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.

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2935 posts Report Reply

  • UglyTruth, in reply to nzlemming,

    Ah, those pesky facts. You don’t need them, obviously. And thus your ‘argument’ is proved invalid.

    Non sequitur.

    New Zealand • Since Sep 2014 • 89 posts Report Reply

  • B Jones,

    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.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 976 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 5 6 7 8 9 14 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.