I don't really see bastardizing the law to further your ideology as tuning it up.
Advertisement
by The Parkus Empire » Sat Apr 21, 2018 7:00 am
by Petrolheadia » Sat Apr 21, 2018 7:02 am
by The Parkus Empire » Sat Apr 21, 2018 7:11 am
by Petrolheadia » Sat Apr 21, 2018 7:14 am
by The Parkus Empire » Sat Apr 21, 2018 7:26 am
by Petrolheadia » Sat Apr 21, 2018 7:59 am
by The Greater Ohio Valley » Sat Apr 21, 2018 8:27 am
by The Parkus Empire » Sat Apr 21, 2018 8:36 am
by The Parkus Empire » Sat Apr 21, 2018 8:37 am
The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:The Parkus Empire wrote:I want the purpose of the Constitution followed. The interpretation according to the Constitution itself includes equity
The purpose of the constitution hardly matters, especially when the purpose will often directly contradict the written word of the constitution.
by Vassenor » Sat Apr 21, 2018 8:39 am
by Conserative Morality » Sat Apr 21, 2018 8:44 am
The Parkus Empire wrote:I never said it supported my religious views about the soul, I said abortion was a misdemeanor. The law did not recognize the fetus was alive prior to then (as your quote shows--and "quick" then meant alive, e.g. "the quick and the dead"). Abortion became outlawed from conception in the next century due to advances in medical science making it clear that it was erroneous to think a fetus only lived from sensible movement. As it were, legal "quickening" (to come alive) was pushed back. You are incorrectly looking at this as women being entitled to kill a fetus in the past: they were not, it was very much a crime. The only reason a pregnancy could be terminated earlier is because it was presumed the fetus was not alive, and therefore was not being killed.
by The Greater Ohio Valley » Sat Apr 21, 2018 8:45 am
by Conserative Morality » Sat Apr 21, 2018 8:45 am
by Petrolheadia » Sat Apr 21, 2018 8:47 am
by The Parkus Empire » Sat Apr 21, 2018 8:50 am
by The Parkus Empire » Sat Apr 21, 2018 8:53 am
The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:The Parkus Empire wrote:I don't try to use the Constitution to impose my views, neither do other conservatives
Too bad you’re wrong.The Parkus Empire wrote:The purpose obviously matters in equity
Not when it directly contradicts the written word of the constitution, then the purpose can be thrown entirely out the window.
by Conserative Morality » Sat Apr 21, 2018 8:57 am
The Parkus Empire wrote:No really. Blackstone cites a law for instance in which a doctor is arrested (this happened historically because he had political enemies) because he performed an operation when someone was suffering an emergency in the street. The law said anyone who sheds blood in the streets shall be put to death. The judge still acquitted him
Was the judge right to do so?
by The Parkus Empire » Sat Apr 21, 2018 9:01 am
Conserative Morality wrote:The Parkus Empire wrote:No really. Blackstone cites a law for instance in which a doctor is arrested (this happened historically because he had political enemies) because he performed an operation when someone was suffering an emergency in the street. The law said anyone who sheds blood in the streets shall be put to death. The judge still acquitted him
Was the judge right to do so?
Yes. But I don't expect you to agree with that - after all, that would be far too Thurgood Marshallesque for you. =^)
by The Greater Ohio Valley » Sat Apr 21, 2018 9:47 am
The Parkus Empire wrote:The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:Too bad you’re wrong.
Not when it directly contradicts the written word of the constitution, then the purpose can be thrown entirely out the window.
No really. Blackstone cites a law for instance in which a doctor is arrested (this happened historically because he had political enemies) because he performed an operation when someone was suffering an emergency in the street. The law said anyone who sheds blood in the streets shall be put to death. The judge still acquitted him
Was the judge right to do so?
by The Parkus Empire » Sat Apr 21, 2018 9:58 am
The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:The Parkus Empire wrote:No really. Blackstone cites a law for instance in which a doctor is arrested (this happened historically because he had political enemies) because he performed an operation when someone was suffering an emergency in the street. The law said anyone who sheds blood in the streets shall be put to death. The judge still acquitted him
Was the judge right to do so?
Yes. It doesn't take a genius to deduce that "sheds blood in the streets" is a euphemism for murder.
by The Xenopolis Confederation » Sat Apr 21, 2018 10:08 am
The Parkus Empire wrote:The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:Too bad you’re wrong.
Not when it directly contradicts the written word of the constitution, then the purpose can be thrown entirely out the window.
No really. Blackstone cites a law for instance in which a doctor is arrested (this happened historically because he had political enemies) because he performed an operation when someone was suffering an emergency in the street. The law said anyone who sheds blood in the streets shall be put to death. The judge still acquitted him
Was the judge right to do so?
by The Parkus Empire » Sat Apr 21, 2018 10:11 am
The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:The Parkus Empire wrote:No really. Blackstone cites a law for instance in which a doctor is arrested (this happened historically because he had political enemies) because he performed an operation when someone was suffering an emergency in the street. The law said anyone who sheds blood in the streets shall be put to death. The judge still acquitted him
Was the judge right to do so?
There's a difference between following what a document says instead of what one believes the intention behind it is, and taking metaphors literally.
by The Greater Ohio Valley » Sat Apr 21, 2018 10:19 am
The Parkus Empire wrote:The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:Yes. It doesn't take a genius to deduce that "sheds blood in the streets" is a euphemism for murder.
It's not really a euphemism. It's an idiom. Specifically it wasn't just about murder, but fighting and feuding as well. But what I am saying is that using the letter to override the point of the law is perverse.
by The Parkus Empire » Sat Apr 21, 2018 10:30 am
The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:The Parkus Empire wrote:It's not really a euphemism. It's an idiom. Specifically it wasn't just about murder, but fighting and feuding as well. But what I am saying is that using the letter to override the point of the law is perverse.
Not really, the judge knew what phrases meant and knew it didn't apply and ruled correctly in line with the law since the doctor didn't murder or fight anybody. But since we are talking about US Constitutional law, ruling by the letter of the constitution is a lot better than ruling by intent in the majority of circumstances because you then get into potential slippery slopes.
by The Xenopolis Confederation » Sat Apr 21, 2018 10:40 am
The Parkus Empire wrote:The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:There's a difference between following what a document says instead of what one believes the intention behind it is, and taking metaphors literally.
It's not a metaphor, it's an idiom.
The intention behind it is of course not something that can be feasibly and easily discerned. Blackstone says the best option in going for intent is looking to the reason the law was made, which is not so obscure.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Deblar, Eahland, Google [Bot], Gregstonicats, Hurdergaryp, Ifreann, Nephitia, New-Minneapolis, Philjia, Southland, Statesburg, Tarsonis, The Black Forrest, Uiiop, Washington Resistance Army
Advertisement