Liberty's Light

A Christian forum dedicated to the discussion of how a nation based entirely off of biblical principles ought to be like. We believe that Righteousness Exalteth a Nation, and that God's righteous hand is necessary for the blessing of any nation.
 
HomeHome  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  MemberlistMemberlist  RegisterRegister  Log inLog in  

Share | 
 

 Legislature

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
AuthorMessage
Hannah Marie
Moderator
Moderator


Female Number of posts : 99
Age : 25
Registration date : 15/01/2009

PostSubject: Re: Legislature   Fri Apr 17, 2009 5:56 pm

caleb wrote:
I like your ideas in part Hannah. I'll have to do some study on them to verify if I whole-heartedly agree with them. It brings up an interesting point as well. Do we need a head leader like a president, prime minister, or king? Or do we just need a head judge like Moses? Another problem. (I am anticipating the answer that we need a head judge like Moses.) How does he get into office. As far as Moses is concerned, he was appointed by God. That's not happening anymore, nor will it happen again. (I mean a direct appointment like what Moses experienced. Obviously we all agree that God sovereignly appoints kings and rulers in the eternal scheme of things.) Should the people vote this judge into office? Should he too be appointed? If so, by whom? Is he the one that appoints all of the "70 elders" or legislators and the "rulers [or legislators] over tens, hundreds, thousands, etc"? In regards to this last group of legislators, what should we do? Do we appoint one for ever ten people, another for every hundred, etc.? Or a different numbering system? Have fun answering!

To God be the glory,
-Caleb

Caleb,

Man, you sure do keep me busy with all these questions. Smile

First of all, yes, we need a head judge, like Moses and Joshua. Both the president and prime minister, in today's terms, hold too much power and don't represent the given role of a judge at all.

Second, as to how the leader would come to office is an interesting question, and one that is difficult to answer. To help with the reasoning, let's go to the Scripture. God appointed Moses and Joshua directly. After Joshua, God did not appoint another leader until the time of kings. Instead, the leader was raised up from among the people to save Israel from it's many attackers over the next so many years (Judges 2:16, 2:18). Because these men saved Israel, they were put into leadership (or head judge position) by the support of both the people and the elders/officals. In some ways, we could almost say that these judges were "voted in" but not in the traditional way we think of now-a-days.

That’s Israel’s history until the time of the Kings. Now to answer your question, ‘Should the head judge be appointed or voted in?’ I would say he should be voted in. One reason behind this is simply the history of Israel. Another is, as you said Caleb, God doesn’t do direct appoints any more, though He does raise capable leaders into power (the twelve judges after Moses and Joshua serve as an example). And the third reason is presented in your question, ‘by whom?’ Who are we, as mere human beings, able to appoint or specify a person or committee to appoint a leader? Is it not better to let God raise into power a leader that is chosen through the people? Also, if we allowed a person or committee to solely have a say in appointing a leader, there is a much greater chance of there being corruption within their choice. By having the head judge/leader voted into office, we allow the people to have say in their government and prevent the government from having too much power or sway in the matter.

Lastly, the head judge would appoint the legislative body that is based on population as Moses specifically did (see Deuteronomy 1:9-17). And this body of legislature, like Von said, would be based off the ‘head’s of house holds’ and not every individual person. There would be one man appointed for a group of ten ‘head’s of house holds’, one for a group of hundred and so forth (just like during the Israel’s time). The ‘seventy elders’ would be chosen by the people though. In Israel’s time, these men were already chosen by the people as elders of the tribes and they were raised up, filled with the Holy Spirit, and given the task of helping Moses lead His people.

Quote :
I just had another thought. Can a legislator or judge be removed from office if they are clearly not ruling by the law? If so, how?

To God be the glory,
-Caleb

Yes, a legislator or judge can be removed from office is they are clearly not ruling by the law, as this would endanger the guidance of the nation and encourage the disobeying of the law. A judge could be put on trial by the two groups of legislature and voted out/judged out. And a legislator could be put on trial in the same fashion. If the enforcers of the Law are disobeying the Law, they are definitely to be removed, as they undermine the power of the Law and the punishments inflicted by the Law.

In Christ,
Hannah

_________________
If you accept my words and store up my commands within you, turning your ear to wisdom and applying your heart to understanding, and if you call out for insight and cry aloud for understanding; and if you look for it as for silver and search for it as hidden treasure, then you will understand the fear of the Lord and find the knowledge of God. Proverbs 2:1-5
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sir Emeth Mimetes
Admin
Admin


Male Number of posts : 446
Age : 26
Location : Cork, co. Cork, Ireland
Registration date : 07/01/2009

PostSubject: Re: Legislature   Sat Apr 18, 2009 5:51 am

Greetings,

You guys are doing pretty good, and I will post a little more later, but I want to point out that we may have gotten a little off topic. We are here to discern what functions men play in civil government as to the creation or altering of laws. Not how civil magistrates of any sort are appointed to office. We will have a different thread discussing voting and elections (any takers for writing to for the Queue?), as there are many issues that go into that. So lets get back online with laws and changing laws.

With joy and peace in Christ,
Jay Lauser

_________________
I am Sir Emeth Mimetes (knighted to the warfare of truth by the calling of Christ, the Master of my order), and thus, though poorly is it ever met by my feeble abilities, is my mission: to combat those ideas that are rooted in mindsets that are contrary to my Master.
May I never forsake abiding in Him, and may His ways never cease to thrive within my heart, for He only is my strength and hope.
note: emeth is Hebrew for truth, right, faithful;
mimetes is Greek for an imitator or follower.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://siremethmimetes.wordpress.com
caleb
Moderator
Moderator


Male Number of posts : 231
Age : 24
Location : Central Indiana
Registration date : 14/03/2009

PostSubject: Re: Legislature   Sat Apr 18, 2009 6:05 am

Sir Emeth Mimetes wrote:
Greetings,

You guys are doing pretty good, and I will post a little more later, but I want to point out that we may have gotten a little off topic. We are here to discern what functions men play in civil government as to the creation or altering of laws. Not how civil magistrates of any sort are appointed to office. We will have a different thread discussing voting and elections (any takers for writing to for the Queue?), as there are many issues that go into that. So lets get back online with laws and changing laws.

With joy and peace in Christ,
Jay Lauser

I'm sorry. I thought we had determined earlier in this post that the legislature does not have the power to alter the law in any way. We determined that they should act more like an appointed or elected jury, deciding whether or not someone broke the law. Based off of this decision, the judge would pass sentence. It seemed natural, after determining this, to talk about the number, voting, appointing, etc. aspects of the legislature since it is somewhat still on topic instead of waiting till we could bring in a new discussion. If everyone agrees (or at least most everyone) to this role of legislature (or elders if you would rather call them) could we continue this direction of discussion?

To God be the glory,
-Caleb
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sir Emeth Mimetes
Admin
Admin


Male Number of posts : 446
Age : 26
Location : Cork, co. Cork, Ireland
Registration date : 07/01/2009

PostSubject: Re: Legislature   Sat Apr 18, 2009 6:12 am

Greetings,

I agree that we have determined that no part of civil government should alter or create foundational laws. But we still have some stuff to decide on case law (at least I have some more stuff to say on it Smile ). And there is a whole slew of stuff to take into account when considering elections (it is a whole 'nother ball of wax!).

I do think that we need to stick to the modern convention for the definition of legislature, rather than redefine it; and then we can condemn it. So say that we condemn legislatures, defined as bodies of officials that make or alter foundational laws, as un-Biblical and dangerous to liberty. Then we can continue with the more Biblical terms (which are in my opinion wholly sufficient) of judges and "elders in the gates." What do y'all think?

With joy and peace in Christ,
Jay Lauser

_________________
I am Sir Emeth Mimetes (knighted to the warfare of truth by the calling of Christ, the Master of my order), and thus, though poorly is it ever met by my feeble abilities, is my mission: to combat those ideas that are rooted in mindsets that are contrary to my Master.
May I never forsake abiding in Him, and may His ways never cease to thrive within my heart, for He only is my strength and hope.
note: emeth is Hebrew for truth, right, faithful;
mimetes is Greek for an imitator or follower.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://siremethmimetes.wordpress.com
caleb
Moderator
Moderator


Male Number of posts : 231
Age : 24
Location : Central Indiana
Registration date : 14/03/2009

PostSubject: Re: Legislature   Sat Apr 18, 2009 6:25 am

Sir Emeth Mimetes wrote:
Greetings,

I agree that we have determined that no part of civil government should alter or create foundational laws. But we still have some stuff to decide on case law (at least I have some more stuff to say on it Smile ). And there is a whole slew of stuff to take into account when considering elections (it is a whole 'nother ball of wax!).

I do think that we need to stick to the modern convention for the definition of legislature, rather than redefine it; and then we can condemn it. So say that we condemn legislatures, defined as bodies of officials that make or alter foundational laws, as un-Biblical and dangerous to liberty. Then we can continue with the more Biblical terms (which are in my opinion wholly sufficient) of judges and "elders in the gates." What do y'all think?

With joy and peace in Christ,
Jay Lauser

So basically we're saying legislature is unnecessary, unbiblical, dangerous, wrong, and should not be in existence. We must replace it with elders and the such? If that is the case, could we continue this discussion, replacing "legislator" with "elder"?

To God be the glory,
-Caleb
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sir Emeth Mimetes
Admin
Admin


Male Number of posts : 446
Age : 26
Location : Cork, co. Cork, Ireland
Registration date : 07/01/2009

PostSubject: Re: Legislature   Sat Apr 18, 2009 6:29 am

caleb wrote:


So basically we're saying legislature is unnecessary, unbiblical, dangerous, wrong, and should not be in existence. We must replace it with elders and the such? If that is the case, could we continue this discussion, replacing "legislator" with "elder"?

To God be the glory,
-Caleb

Sure.

_________________
I am Sir Emeth Mimetes (knighted to the warfare of truth by the calling of Christ, the Master of my order), and thus, though poorly is it ever met by my feeble abilities, is my mission: to combat those ideas that are rooted in mindsets that are contrary to my Master.
May I never forsake abiding in Him, and may His ways never cease to thrive within my heart, for He only is my strength and hope.
note: emeth is Hebrew for truth, right, faithful;
mimetes is Greek for an imitator or follower.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://siremethmimetes.wordpress.com
von



Male Number of posts : 166
Age : 55
Location : Texas
Registration date : 16/02/2009

PostSubject: Re: Legislature   Mon Apr 20, 2009 1:17 pm

Sir Emeth Mimetes wrote:
caleb wrote:


So basically we're saying legislature is unnecessary, unbiblical, dangerous, wrong, and should not be in existence. We must replace it with elders and the such? If that is the case, could we continue this discussion, replacing "legislator" with "elder"?

To God be the glory,
-Caleb

Sure.

Yes. No body of men should: 'legislate', ie make laws. Instead they should judge and rule. I e judges and elders/leaders etc.

We really need the philosophically prior thread (which Hannah is sloooowly working on on my blog: what does a biblical government look like.

Answer one: it doesn't have a legislature. Smile

(this is so cheating Hannah, Smile )
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://vonstakes.blogspot.com
caleb
Moderator
Moderator


Male Number of posts : 231
Age : 24
Location : Central Indiana
Registration date : 14/03/2009

PostSubject: Re: Legislature   Mon Apr 20, 2009 1:29 pm

Huge apology!!!

I talked with my dad about our conclusions concerning legislature and I fear I have been on the wrong track. A few things I must admit.

1. Legislature is correctly defined by Webster as: the body of men in a state or kingdom, invested with power to make and repeal laws; the supreme power of a state. (Italics added) We have strayed far from this topic and are really discussing the judicial branch of government, not the legislative. Though the judicial branch is necessary, as we have seen, it should be referred to a different discussion.

2. Our modern legislative system is in a mess and has way over-stepped the bounds of its intended role and jurisdiction.

3. The term or idea of legislature is not mentioned in the Bible according to my knowledge, (unless it is found in the NT under the Roman empire.) That being said, I do think that legislature as a body of men with the power to make and repeal laws is necessary in modern government.

I will now attempt to defend this last point, and explain the bounds of legislature. Israel was uniquely different from us today, and thus had some different applications to follow.
1. Israel was God's specially chosen and called out people; we are not.
2. Israel was comprised of people who were all of the same faith; we are not.
3. The Pentateuch is largely a descriptive portion of Scripture rather than a prescriptive portion (like Paul's letters).
4. God foresaw that Israel would not need a legislature for a number of reasons, thus it was not instituted.

In the post on OT Laws I explain my third point, so I refer all discussion of that point to that post. For now, I would like to explain the last point. The following is a list of some of the reasons why God would not have instituted a body of law makers.

1. Israel would only be under the form of government that God instituted in the Pentateuch (whatever you want to call it) for a short time before a monarchy was established. This would eliminate any need of a legislature as there would not be enough time for circumstances to give cause for new laws to be made.

2. All Israelites were of the same faith and practices, thus, new laws would not need to be added before Israel became a monarchy.

3. God Himself was the lawgiver. So, in a sense, He filled the role of legislature. He was invested with the power to make and repeal laws, thus, there was no need for men to fill this role.

Our goal is not to reinstitute the ancient Israeli form of government. (An impossible task for many reasons.) I will argue that a legislature is vastly important to any biblical government nowadays. Here's why:

1. Checks and balances: Our founding fathers rightly saw that government must have a three group system to keep power balanced. (i.e. legislative, executive, and judicial branches.) If we simply have one or two groups, the power will sway to one or the other, and the role of government will be abused. A three group system balances this power, and for the most part, keeps each group even and effective.

2. Need for new laws: Israel would not last long under the God instituted government before she would desire to become a monarchy. Technologies and the need for new laws would not arise in that short time, whereas they would in a modern setting. God foresaw that Israel would desire to be a monarchy in a short time, and thus did not institute a body of legislators as the need was not there. (Although a case could be made that He filled that role Himself.) Modern governments, however, do need a legislature because of developing technologies and needs for new laws. A constitution will not be able to be applicable on its own for thousands of years.

Example: Anti-trust law. This law is not in the Bible, yet it is biblical. The need wasn't there for the ancient Israelites to have this law, so it wasn't in God's original law; nor was it in the Constitution of the United States for the same reason. Yet congress rightly saw that it is wrong for companies to monopolize and buy up all of the other companies around it. This could result on that company raising prices to exorbitant rates and robbing the people of liberty and property. The principle of this law can be found in Scripture, though the law itself cannot. Yet it was needful of a body of legislators to be in existence to make this law.

We can craft a constitution as best we can to apply to unforeseen situations or technologies, but we must have a restricted legislature that is able to make laws to further punish law breakers who infringe on people's life, liberty, or property. If we only leave it to the courts to rule under the law for such situations, we either leave it to every court to have to continually make rulings over new technologies, or we give the courts the power to make laws through case laws. (Something which is outside their jurisdiction.)

Thus, it is needful to set up a restricted legislature which works under the law to continue to make laws which protect, and do not restrict, people's life, liberty, and property.

To God be the glory,
-Caleb
Back to top Go down
View user profile
von



Male Number of posts : 166
Age : 55
Location : Texas
Registration date : 16/02/2009

PostSubject: Re: Legislature   Mon Apr 20, 2009 1:34 pm

caleb wrote:
Huge apology!!!

I talked with my dad about our conclusions concerning legislature and I fear I have been on the wrong track. A few things I must admit.

1. Legislature is correctly defined by Webster as: the body of men in a state or kingdom, invested with power to make and repeal laws; the supreme power of a state. (Italics added) We have strayed far from this topic and are really discussing the judicial branch of government, not the legislative. Though the judicial branch is necessary, as we have seen, it should be referred to a different discussion.

2. Our modern legislative system is in a mess and has way over-stepped the bounds of its intended role and jurisdiction.

3. The term or idea of legislature is not mentioned in the Bible according to my knowledge, (unless it is found in the NT under the Roman empire.) That being said, I do think that legislature as a body of men with the power to make and repeal laws is necessary in modern government.

I will now attempt to defend this last point, and explain the bounds of legislature. Israel was uniquely different from us today, and thus had some different applications to follow.
1. Israel was God's specially chosen and called out people; we are not.
2. Israel was comprised of people who were all of the same faith; we are not.
3. The Pentateuch is largely a descriptive portion of Scripture rather than a prescriptive portion (like Paul's letters).
4. God foresaw that Israel would not need a legislature for a number of reasons, thus it was not instituted.

In the post on OT Laws I explain my third point, so I refer all discussion of that point to that post. For now, I would like to explain the last point. The following is a list of some of the reasons why God would not have instituted a body of law makers.

1. Israel would only be under the form of government that God instituted in the Pentateuch (whatever you want to call it) for a short time before a monarchy was established. This would eliminate any need of a legislature as there would not be enough time for circumstances to give cause for new laws to be made.

2. All Israelites were of the same faith and practices, thus, new laws would not need to be added before Israel became a monarchy.

3. God Himself was the lawgiver. So, in a sense, He filled the role of legislature. He was invested with the power to make and repeal laws, thus, there was no need for men to fill this role.

Our goal is not to reinstitute the ancient Israeli form of government. (An impossible task for many reasons.) I will argue that a legislature is vastly important to any biblical government nowadays. Here's why:

1. Checks and balances: Our founding fathers rightly saw that government must have a three group system to keep power balanced. (i.e. legislative, executive, and judicial branches.) If we simply have one or two groups, the power will sway to one or the other, and the role of government will be abused. A three group system balances this power, and for the most part, keeps each group even and effective.

2. Need for new laws: Israel would not last long under the God instituted government before she would desire to become a monarchy. Technologies and the need for new laws would not arise in that short time, whereas they would in a modern setting. God foresaw that Israel would desire to be a monarchy in a short time, and thus did not institute a body of legislators as the need was not there. (Although a case could be made that He filled that role Himself.) Modern governments, however, do need a legislature because of developing technologies and needs for new laws. A constitution will not be able to be applicable on its own for thousands of years.

Example: Anti-trust law. This law is not in the Bible, yet it is biblical. The need wasn't there for the ancient Israelites to have this law, so it wasn't in God's original law; nor was it in the Constitution of the United States for the same reason. Yet congress rightly saw that it is wrong for companies to monopolize and buy up all of the other companies around it. This could result on that company raising prices to exorbitant rates and robbing the people of liberty and property. The principle of this law can be found in Scripture, though the law itself cannot. Yet it was needful of a body of legislators to be in existence to make this law.

We can craft a constitution as best we can to apply to unforeseen situations or technologies, but we must have a restricted legislature that is able to make laws to further punish law breakers who infringe on people's life, liberty, or property. If we only leave it to the courts to rule under the law for such situations, we either leave it to every court to have to continually make rulings over new technologies, or we give the courts the power to make laws through case laws. (Something which is outside their jurisdiction.)

Thus, it is needful to set up a restricted legislature which works under the law to continue to make laws which protect, and do not restrict, people's life, liberty, and property.

To God be the glory,
-Caleb

Almost all of this deals with the nature and usefulness of the OT law economy, and I will rebut it on that thread.

Needless to say I disagree with pretty much all of this except for the first two points of his 'oops'. A legislature is a bad and unBiblical idea.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://vonstakes.blogspot.com
Sir Emeth Mimetes
Admin
Admin


Male Number of posts : 446
Age : 26
Location : Cork, co. Cork, Ireland
Registration date : 07/01/2009

PostSubject: Re: Legislature   Tue Apr 21, 2009 8:05 am

Caleb,

Let me point out that I agree with what you mean. Now let me point out where we may seem to differ because of different semantics.

Let us separate 'law' into two categories: foundational law and case law. The difference is as follows: foundational law is unchangeable, not able to be made by humans (non-legislatable), and applicable to all cultures and technology levels, so that it needs no changes made to it; case law is changeable, legislatable by humans, and is dependent upon culture and technology. Case law is utterly derived from the foundational law, and cannot contradict or go beyond the limits of foundational law. Case law is secondary to foundational law.

Now, we agree that case law needs to change and be legislated, whereas foundational law cannot be. So if we define a legislature as a body of men who make and change foundational laws, legislatures become evil and against the Bible. If we define a legislature that make and change case laws, then they are fine. I believe that the latter is what you are proposing.

A danger ensues, however, when you have a body of men whose whole job is to sit there and legislate case laws. They begin to encroach upon the liberties of the people and upon the boundaries given them from the foundational laws. What I propose is that when it becomes evident (a judge might notice and call the other judges attention to it, or by some other means) that there is a need to add or change some of the case law, then the judges all convene to decide upon that proposed change. This seems to follow with the Biblical examples given, and it seems to answer all of the problems with current legislatures.

What do you think?

With joy and peace in Christ,
Jay Lauser

_________________
I am Sir Emeth Mimetes (knighted to the warfare of truth by the calling of Christ, the Master of my order), and thus, though poorly is it ever met by my feeble abilities, is my mission: to combat those ideas that are rooted in mindsets that are contrary to my Master.
May I never forsake abiding in Him, and may His ways never cease to thrive within my heart, for He only is my strength and hope.
note: emeth is Hebrew for truth, right, faithful;
mimetes is Greek for an imitator or follower.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://siremethmimetes.wordpress.com
caleb
Moderator
Moderator


Male Number of posts : 231
Age : 24
Location : Central Indiana
Registration date : 14/03/2009

PostSubject: Re: Legislature   Tue Apr 21, 2009 10:04 am

Sir Emeth Mimetes wrote:
Caleb,

Let me point out that I agree with what you mean. Now let me point out where we may seem to differ because of different semantics.

Let us separate 'law' into two categories: foundational law and case law. The difference is as follows: foundational law is unchangeable, not able to be made by humans (non-legislatable), and applicable to all cultures and technology levels, so that it needs no changes made to it; case law is changeable, legislatable by humans, and is dependent upon culture and technology. Case law is utterly derived from the foundational law, and cannot contradict or go beyond the limits of foundational law. Case law is secondary to foundational law.

Now, we agree that case law needs to change and be legislated, whereas foundational law cannot be. So if we define a legislature as a body of men who make and change foundational laws, legislatures become evil and against the Bible. If we define a legislature that make and change case laws, then they are fine. I believe that the latter is what you are proposing.

A danger ensues, however, when you have a body of men whose whole job is to sit there and legislate case laws. They begin to encroach upon the liberties of the people and upon the boundaries given them from the foundational laws. What I propose is that when it becomes evident (a judge might notice and call the other judges attention to it, or by some other means) that there is a need to add or change some of the case law, then the judges all convene to decide upon that proposed change. This seems to follow with the Biblical examples given, and it seems to answer all of the problems with current legislatures.

What do you think?

With joy and peace in Christ,
Jay Lauser

Mostly agreed. I would term the foundational law as Constitutional law, that being the law found in the nation's Constitution. This law would be unchanging. I don't like the term case law, because it sounds like laws being made based off of court decisions. This is something I disagree with. I share your views in the danger of allowing men to make jobs, but, I believe that it is necessary. I agree with your proposed process except for one thing. I don't think it should be the judges who convene. This gives too much power to the judges. We need a three group system to keep the power even. Thus, they should be different elected or appointed legislators.

To God be the glory,
-Caleb
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sir Emeth Mimetes
Admin
Admin


Male Number of posts : 446
Age : 26
Location : Cork, co. Cork, Ireland
Registration date : 07/01/2009

PostSubject: Re: Legislature   Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:39 am

caleb wrote:

Mostly agreed. I would term the foundational law as Constitutional law, that being the law found in the nation's Constitution. This law would be unchanging. I don't like the term case law, because it sounds like laws being made based off of court decisions. This is something I disagree with. I share your views in the danger of allowing men to make jobs, but, I believe that it is necessary. I agree with your proposed process except for one thing. I don't think it should be the judges who convene. This gives too much power to the judges. We need a three group system to keep the power even. Thus, they should be different elected or appointed legislators.

Caleb,

It is fine if we call it constitutional law.

The term case law is good because it is laws based off of court decisions. It is simply an extension of individual cases, not in power, but in influence. It is merely all the judges doing the same thing that they always do: look at a case's unique attributes and apply the law to it. It is just a method of making sure that they all agree on something. It is not a separate function from the judicial function: it is the same function. It does not add any power, it lessens work. It is simply consistency in judgment. If they were going beyond the boundaries of the constitutional law, then they would be having more power, and would need to be separated, but they are not. Do you see what I mean? Or am I being too convoluted?

With joy and peace in Christ,
Jay Lauser

_________________
I am Sir Emeth Mimetes (knighted to the warfare of truth by the calling of Christ, the Master of my order), and thus, though poorly is it ever met by my feeble abilities, is my mission: to combat those ideas that are rooted in mindsets that are contrary to my Master.
May I never forsake abiding in Him, and may His ways never cease to thrive within my heart, for He only is my strength and hope.
note: emeth is Hebrew for truth, right, faithful;
mimetes is Greek for an imitator or follower.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://siremethmimetes.wordpress.com
caleb
Moderator
Moderator


Male Number of posts : 231
Age : 24
Location : Central Indiana
Registration date : 14/03/2009

PostSubject: Re: Legislature   Wed Apr 22, 2009 5:30 am

Sir Emeth Mimetes wrote:
caleb wrote:

Mostly agreed. I would term the foundational law as Constitutional law, that being the law found in the nation's Constitution. This law would be unchanging. I don't like the term case law, because it sounds like laws being made based off of court decisions. This is something I disagree with. I share your views in the danger of allowing men to make jobs, but, I believe that it is necessary. I agree with your proposed process except for one thing. I don't think it should be the judges who convene. This gives too much power to the judges. We need a three group system to keep the power even. Thus, they should be different elected or appointed legislators.

Caleb,

It is fine if we call it constitutional law.

The term case law is good because it is laws based off of court decisions. It is simply an extension of individual cases, not in power, but in influence. It is merely all the judges doing the same thing that they always do: look at a case's unique attributes and apply the law to it. It is just a method of making sure that they all agree on something. It is not a separate function from the judicial function: it is the same function. It does not add any power, it lessens work. It is simply consistency in judgment. If they were going beyond the boundaries of the constitutional law, then they would be having more power, and would need to be separated, but they are not. Do you see what I mean? Or am I being too convoluted?

With joy and peace in Christ,
Jay Lauser

This is Ok, as long as judges aren't using other court's decisions to influence their decision. If you are saying that a ruling can be used by other courts for other cases, you are basically making court rulings step over their intended bounds. They are replacing the law because judges, lawyers, or juries will look to court decisions as a basis for their arguments rather than the law. I have no problem with judges noticing a need for a new law because of a continual reoccurrence of similar cases based on developing technologies or situations that were not in existence during the writing of the nation's Constitution. I believe they should be able to call a meeting of the legislature (a group of elected or appointed men who are not the judges) to decide if the new law needs to be made. This keeps all of the power balanced and everyone in their proper jurisdictions.

To God be the glory,
-Caleb
Back to top Go down
View user profile
von



Male Number of posts : 166
Age : 55
Location : Texas
Registration date : 16/02/2009

PostSubject: Re: Legislature   Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:31 pm

The annoying thing is that I so agree with Caleb as to what the modern courts are doing. An example of the problem of courts making law:

http://www.chalcedon.edu/articles/article.php?ArticleID=769
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://vonstakes.blogspot.com
Sir Emeth Mimetes
Admin
Admin


Male Number of posts : 446
Age : 26
Location : Cork, co. Cork, Ireland
Registration date : 07/01/2009

PostSubject: Re: Legislature   Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:42 am

Greetings,

Psalms 53:1 The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: [there is] none that doeth good.

Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of knowledge: [but] fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Romans 1:21,25 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. ... 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.


When men forsake God, they must adhere to the worship of man. If they believe in no Eternal Lawgiver, they must turn to temporal man made laws. They believe we evolved, they must believe that the law has evolved and is evolving. That is their presupposition and the basis for their actions.

We hold that God is the only valid source for any law, and that His Law does not evolve (although there are different dispensations, but we are in the last one so we don't need to worry about the law changing for us). So we hold that changes in the Constitutional foundational laws are not only unnecessary but wrong. Only the applications may change based upon changing technology and etc.

With joy and peace in Christ,
Jay Lauser

_________________
I am Sir Emeth Mimetes (knighted to the warfare of truth by the calling of Christ, the Master of my order), and thus, though poorly is it ever met by my feeble abilities, is my mission: to combat those ideas that are rooted in mindsets that are contrary to my Master.
May I never forsake abiding in Him, and may His ways never cease to thrive within my heart, for He only is my strength and hope.
note: emeth is Hebrew for truth, right, faithful;
mimetes is Greek for an imitator or follower.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://siremethmimetes.wordpress.com
von



Male Number of posts : 166
Age : 55
Location : Texas
Registration date : 16/02/2009

PostSubject: Re: Legislature   Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:20 am

Except for the 'dispensations' bit, I agree with that.

The argument is going to come in how the 'application' occurs. I do not believe new 'laws' are needed, only application.This application generally occurs via cases. It does NOT then become law, but it does influence future cases. It can be overruled, appealed, etc.

But I do not see a role for a 'legislature', a maker of laws however small. Nor for 'court orders' (see the link I posted above).

Judges should NOT make law, nor should legislatures.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://vonstakes.blogspot.com
Dr. Hipopótamo
Honor roll member
Honor roll member


Male Number of posts : 131
Age : 23
Location : USA
Registration date : 11/02/2009

PostSubject: Re: Legislature   Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:48 pm

What if we have foundational law in the constitution, and we elect "Judge" type people to apply it to each case? We could say that before they are elected, they have to tell people how they will apply certain laws, so that people know a little better how they will be judged. This, I think, would solve the problem that one judge could punish someone for driving 65mph on the same road that another judge said it was OK to drive 70mph on.

_________________
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. (Ephesians 6: 12)
Back to top Go down
View user profile
von



Male Number of posts : 166
Age : 55
Location : Texas
Registration date : 16/02/2009

PostSubject: Re: Legislature   Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:27 pm

elect?
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://vonstakes.blogspot.com
Sir Emeth Mimetes
Admin
Admin


Male Number of posts : 446
Age : 26
Location : Cork, co. Cork, Ireland
Registration date : 07/01/2009

PostSubject: Re: Legislature   Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:36 am

von wrote:
elect?

We are going to have a separate thread for discussing electing.

_________________
I am Sir Emeth Mimetes (knighted to the warfare of truth by the calling of Christ, the Master of my order), and thus, though poorly is it ever met by my feeble abilities, is my mission: to combat those ideas that are rooted in mindsets that are contrary to my Master.
May I never forsake abiding in Him, and may His ways never cease to thrive within my heart, for He only is my strength and hope.
note: emeth is Hebrew for truth, right, faithful;
mimetes is Greek for an imitator or follower.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://siremethmimetes.wordpress.com
caleb
Moderator
Moderator


Male Number of posts : 231
Age : 24
Location : Central Indiana
Registration date : 14/03/2009

PostSubject: Re: Legislature   Fri Apr 24, 2009 5:23 am

Dr. Hipopótamo wrote:
What if we have foundational law in the constitution, and we elect "Judge" type people to apply it to each case? We could say that before they are elected, they have to tell people how they will apply certain laws, so that people know a little better how they will be judged. This, I think, would solve the problem that one judge could punish someone for driving 65mph on the same road that another judge said it was OK to drive 70mph on.

I thought of this (wording the constitution so that we would not need to make any other laws, but rather judges would be able to apply it to any developing technology or special situation without making another law.) However, my dad explained that what would end up happening is judges would repeatedly have to give the same ruling to a situation that would keep recurring because there isn't a law 'set in stone' so to speak for that new situation. You would then get to were judges' rulings become law, because judges would look to previous decisions to influence their choice in a case. This is overstepping the intended role of a judge. Thus, we need to set up a constitutional law which outlines all of the unchanging laws that apply to any civilization. We would then set up a way in which 'case laws' could be made to meet developing technologies or special unforeseen situations. These laws can be repealed, replaced, or added to, unlike the constitutional law. This way, you would not be relying on the judge's interpretation of the constitutional law for developing technologies and the such as you would in your suggestion, but rather the judge would always be using strict law.

To God be the glory,
-Caleb
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sir Emeth Mimetes
Admin
Admin


Male Number of posts : 446
Age : 26
Location : Cork, co. Cork, Ireland
Registration date : 07/01/2009

PostSubject: Re: Legislature   Fri Apr 24, 2009 7:29 am

caleb wrote:
Dr. Hipopótamo wrote:
What if we have foundational law in the constitution, and we elect "Judge" type people to apply it to each case? We could say that before they are elected, they have to tell people how they will apply certain laws, so that people know a little better how they will be judged. This, I think, would solve the problem that one judge could punish someone for driving 65mph on the same road that another judge said it was OK to drive 70mph on.

I thought of this (wording the constitution so that we would not need to make any other laws, but rather judges would be able to apply it to any developing technology or special situation without making another law.) However, my dad explained that what would end up happening is judges would repeatedly have to give the same ruling to a situation that would keep recurring because there isn't a law 'set in stone' so to speak for that new situation. You would then get to were judges' rulings become law, because judges would look to previous decisions to influence their choice in a case. This is overstepping the intended role of a judge. Thus, we need to set up a constitutional law which outlines all of the unchanging laws that apply to any civilization. We would then set up a way in which 'case laws' could be made to meet developing technologies or special unforeseen situations. These laws can be repealed, replaced, or added to, unlike the constitutional law. This way, you would not be relying on the judge's interpretation of the constitutional law for developing technologies and the such as you would in your suggestion, but rather the judge would always be using strict law.

To God be the glory,
-Caleb

I agree with that diagnosis. The manner in which we organize the system that implements this principle is outside of the scope of this forum, but we can craft a statement that declares our conclusion. Anybody want to write a concise, accurate summary of what we have figured out?

_________________
I am Sir Emeth Mimetes (knighted to the warfare of truth by the calling of Christ, the Master of my order), and thus, though poorly is it ever met by my feeble abilities, is my mission: to combat those ideas that are rooted in mindsets that are contrary to my Master.
May I never forsake abiding in Him, and may His ways never cease to thrive within my heart, for He only is my strength and hope.
note: emeth is Hebrew for truth, right, faithful;
mimetes is Greek for an imitator or follower.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://siremethmimetes.wordpress.com
von



Male Number of posts : 166
Age : 55
Location : Texas
Registration date : 16/02/2009

PostSubject: Re: Legislature   Fri Apr 24, 2009 8:55 am

Sir Emeth Mimetes wrote:
caleb wrote:
Dr. Hipopótamo wrote:
What if we have foundational law in the constitution, and we elect "Judge" type people to apply it to each case? We could say that before they are elected, they have to tell people how they will apply certain laws, so that people know a little better how they will be judged. This, I think, would solve the problem that one judge could punish someone for driving 65mph on the same road that another judge said it was OK to drive 70mph on.

I thought of this (wording the constitution so that we would not need to make any other laws, but rather judges would be able to apply it to any developing technology or special situation without making another law.) However, my dad explained that what would end up happening is judges would repeatedly have to give the same ruling to a situation that would keep recurring because there isn't a law 'set in stone' so to speak for that new situation. You would then get to were judges' rulings become law, because judges would look to previous decisions to influence their choice in a case. This is overstepping the intended role of a judge. Thus, we need to set up a constitutional law which outlines all of the unchanging laws that apply to any civilization. We would then set up a way in which 'case laws' could be made to meet developing technologies or special unforeseen situations. These laws can be repealed, replaced, or added to, unlike the constitutional law. This way, you would not be relying on the judge's interpretation of the constitutional law for developing technologies and the such as you would in your suggestion, but rather the judge would always be using strict law.

To God be the glory,
-Caleb

I agree with that diagnosis. The manner in which we organize the system that implements this principle is outside of the scope of this forum, but we can craft a statement that declares our conclusion. Anybody want to write a concise, accurate summary of what we have figured out?

I think we agree on the problem, but I believe the solution is backwards. But I can see why (see my post above) you would be worried about judges making law.

More later...
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://vonstakes.blogspot.com
caleb
Moderator
Moderator


Male Number of posts : 231
Age : 24
Location : Central Indiana
Registration date : 14/03/2009

PostSubject: Re: Legislature   Mon Apr 27, 2009 12:43 pm

Based off of our discussion I have come to the following conclusions. Does everyone agree?

1. There must be an immutable constitutional law based off of the basic laws of God. This law is applicable in all cultures, times, and governments and cannot be reinterpreted or changed. This law is supreme above all actions of the government and is purposed to protect people's life, liberty, and property. (Lex Rex- Law is king)

2. Because of developing technologies or unique situations, there will arise a need for more laws to be made which still fully abide by the constitutional law. These laws are only made laws when there is a need to have a unanimous opinion for the application of the constitution in these situations. These laws become just as powerful and affective as the constitutional law with the exception that they can be repealed if necessary.

3. The need of a body of legislators whose job it is to make these other laws (from here on now called case laws) is not only unnecessary, but counterproductive to the role and jurisdiction of the government. It places far too much power on man and would end up producing far too many case laws which would quickly overstep the bounds of biblical government
.


The discussion of how case laws are made and by whom will be left to the "Utilities" post.

To God be the glory,
-Caleb
Back to top Go down
View user profile
von



Male Number of posts : 166
Age : 55
Location : Texas
Registration date : 16/02/2009

PostSubject: Re: Legislature   Mon Apr 27, 2009 2:32 pm

Quote :
2. Because of developing technologies or unique situations, there will arise a need for more laws to be made which still fully abide by the constitutional law. These laws are only made laws when there is a need to have a unanimous opinion for the application of the constitution in these situations. These laws become just as powerful and affective as the constitutional law with the exception that they can be repealed if necessary.

3. The need of a body of legislators whose job it is to make these other laws (from here on now called case laws) is not only unnecessary, but counterproductive to the role and jurisdiction of the government. It places far too much power on man and would end up producing far too many case laws which would quickly overstep the bounds of biblical government.


I would completely disagree with the concept of 'more laws', even as I understand the main point. The word 'case law' is unfortunate because it does imply 'new law'. Properly understood, it is much more 'application'.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://vonstakes.blogspot.com
Sir Emeth Mimetes
Admin
Admin


Male Number of posts : 446
Age : 26
Location : Cork, co. Cork, Ireland
Registration date : 07/01/2009

PostSubject: Re: Legislature   Tue Apr 28, 2009 2:16 am

von wrote:
Quote :
2. Because of developing technologies or unique situations, there will arise a need for more laws to be made which still fully abide by the constitutional law. These laws are only made laws when there is a need to have a unanimous opinion for the application of the constitution in these situations. These laws become just as powerful and affective as the constitutional law with the exception that they can be repealed if necessary.

3. The need of a body of legislators whose job it is to make these other laws (from here on now called case laws) is not only unnecessary, but counterproductive to the role and jurisdiction of the government. It places far too much power on man and would end up producing far too many case laws which would quickly overstep the bounds of biblical government.


I would completely disagree with the concept of 'more laws', even as I understand the main point. The word 'case law' is unfortunate because it does imply 'new law'. Properly understood, it is much more 'application'.

After some deliberation, I would also like to create a different term than 'case law.' I believe that we do not need to change the conclusion post anymore than to alter it to read 'case applications' rather than 'laws' and 'case laws.' What do you think?

It would read as follows:

1. There must be an immutable constitutional law based off of the basic laws of God. This law is applicable in all cultures, times, and governments and cannot be reinterpreted or changed. This law is supreme above all actions of the government and is purposed to protect people's life, liberty, and property. (Lex Rex- Law is king)

2. Because of developing technologies or unique situations, there will arise a need for case applications to be made which still fully abide by the constitutional law. These applications are only made binding when there is a need to have a unanimous opinion for the application of the constitution in certain situations. These case applications become similar in power and effectiveness to the constitutional law with the exception that they can be repealed or altered if necessary.

3. The need of a body of legislators whose job it is to make these case applications is not only unnecessary, but counterproductive to the role and jurisdiction of the government. It places far too much power on man and would end up producing far too many applications which would quickly overstep the bounds of biblical government.


Make sense? I altered a few things here and there that pertain to wordsmithing as well.

_________________
I am Sir Emeth Mimetes (knighted to the warfare of truth by the calling of Christ, the Master of my order), and thus, though poorly is it ever met by my feeble abilities, is my mission: to combat those ideas that are rooted in mindsets that are contrary to my Master.
May I never forsake abiding in Him, and may His ways never cease to thrive within my heart, for He only is my strength and hope.
note: emeth is Hebrew for truth, right, faithful;
mimetes is Greek for an imitator or follower.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://siremethmimetes.wordpress.com
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Legislature   

Back to top Go down
 
Legislature
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 3 of 5Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Liberty's Light :: Archives :: Definitions Archives-
Jump to: