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
von



Male Number of posts : 166
Age : 56
Location : Texas
Registration date : 16/02/2009

PostSubject: Re: Legislature   Tue Apr 28, 2009 8:06 am

Like 'case applications'.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://vonstakes.blogspot.com
Sir Emeth Mimetes
Admin
Admin


Male Number of posts : 446
Age : 27
Location : Cork, co. Cork, Ireland
Registration date : 07/01/2009

PostSubject: Re: Legislature   Wed Apr 29, 2009 12:12 pm

Quote :
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case applications become equal in power and effectiveness to the constitutional law with the exception that they can be repealed or altered if necessary.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.

I altered it to read 'equal in power' instead of 'similar in power' to reflect that breaking a case application is really just breaking the constitutional law. Make sense?

_________________
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 29, 2009 4:19 pm

I'm in total agreement.

-Caleb
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Dr. Hipopótamo
Honor roll member
Honor roll member


Male Number of posts : 131
Age : 24
Location : USA
Registration date : 11/02/2009

PostSubject: Re: Legislature   Sun May 03, 2009 6:47 pm

I'm not sure I understand this conclusion, so I don't know if I agree with it. If legeslatures are unneccessary and counterproductive, who makes the case applications?

_________________
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
Sir Emeth Mimetes
Admin
Admin


Male Number of posts : 446
Age : 27
Location : Cork, co. Cork, Ireland
Registration date : 07/01/2009

PostSubject: Re: Legislature   Mon May 04, 2009 3:23 am

Dr. Hipopótamo wrote:
I'm not sure I understand this conclusion, so I don't know if I agree with it. If legeslatures are unneccessary and counterproductive, who makes the case applications?

Because case applications are merely a consensus opinion among the judges about certain guideline judgments for a certain type of situation, then the judges would be having a principal part in making case applications. Make sense?

_________________
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 : 56
Location : Texas
Registration date : 16/02/2009

PostSubject: Re: Legislature   Mon May 04, 2009 7:02 am

Quote :
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.

I would state it like this:

2. Because of developing technologies or unique situations, there will arise a need for case applications to be made which apply the constitutional law to each specific situation. These applications are only binding to the extent that they indicate to the people and other judges how previous judges have applied the law. They serve the people and the judges in laying out the expectations that individuals would have had when entering into and acting in situations.

Explanation:

A judge makes a ruling in a case, such as I mentioned before, of internet 'theft'. If one judge rules that something isn't theft, ordinary citizens may act on that ruling with safety that some new judge cannot come along and 'throw the book at them'. At the most the new judge could overrule the old judge... but not prosecute the people that acted on the old ruling.

Example: Copyright.

I take and use part of Calebs post on my blog. He takes me to the judge for 'theft'. The judge rules that I didn't steal, that Caleb, by posting it, made it freely available. Years later Jay does the same thing, but a new judge rules that it is 'theft'.

Jay could not then be punished, but others would know of the new application, and they, if they did the same thing later, could be.
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   Tue May 05, 2009 1:39 pm

Mr. Ohlman,
I disagree with your rewording as it gives judges unrestrained and unlawful power to interpret the law as they like without strong checks and balances. Your suggestion would eventually usurp the importance of the constitutional law and turn into the mess we have today. What I proposed eliminates this as best as possible. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your suggestion, but I don't see any difference between it and the situation we are currently in where courts basically make the laws.

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



Male Number of posts : 166
Age : 56
Location : Texas
Registration date : 16/02/2009

PostSubject: Re: Legislature   Tue May 05, 2009 7:16 pm

caleb wrote:
Mr. Ohlman,
I disagree with your rewording as it gives judges unrestrained and unlawful power to interpret the law as they like without strong checks and balances. Your suggestion would eventually usurp the importance of the constitutional law and turn into the mess we have today. What I proposed eliminates this as best as possible. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your suggestion, but I don't see any difference between it and the situation we are currently in where courts basically make the laws.

To God be the glory,
-Caleb

The differences are huge.

First of all, todays courts barely even make a pretense of interpreting the law nowadays. See the doctrine of 'evolving constitution'.

Secondly, you need to take into account the fact that we have eliminated 'police' as an institution. Thus the people themselves would be a huge check and balance. A judge that made a ruling evidently against the Law of God would have no way to enforce it.

Thirdly, why don't you take the exact case I have outlined and tell me how you see it going under your system so I (we) can understand it.
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   Fri May 08, 2009 3:34 pm

von wrote:
Thirdly, why don't you take the exact case I have outlined and tell me how you see it going under your system so I (we) can understand it.

Mr. Ohlman,
Here is how the law and case applications would work in the example which you proposed.

Let us assume for the sake of this example that the Constitutional law simply says this in regards to property and ownership:

A person has the right of ownership for anything tangible he has bought, created, been given, or inherited. This ownership means that he reserves the right of all use or contact with the thing he owns.

(Again, this is only for the sake of the example. I'm not saying this is a good or bad law, but simply using it to make a point.)

So you use some of my work for your blog without my permission. I take you to the judge on charges of theft. The judge looks back to this constitutional law and decides that you indeed used something that I had created without my permission which the Constitutional law prohibits. He condemns you.

Let's say later, Jay does the same thing to Jonathan. Jonathan takes him to a judge. This judge looks at the Constitutional law, not the previous judge's decision, and makes a ruling. Let's say he finds that Jay is innocent because writing on blogs isn't tangible property.

If someone else does the same thing, the judge always goes back to the Constitution, never a previous judge's ruling. So let's assume that judges around the nation get swamped with these same cases. They ask other judges about it and find that this is the case all over the country. They decide to convene and form a case application. They meet and let's say they eventually decide that taking someone else's writing off of the computer and using it without permission goes against the Constitutional law's statement about property and ownership. This now becomes equally powerful or applicable to the Constitutional law. Now when this kind of case comes up, judges look to this case application and rule that the offender is guilty. However, if at a later time judges decide this law isn't necessary, they can meet again and remove this case law.

So, judge's rulings never affect other judges' decisions. The judge is always to go back to the Constitutional law or case applications. Case applications are only made when all (or most) of the judges meet and pre-try a case. This becomes something that future judges can look to in making decisions.

Hope that helps.

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



Male Number of posts : 166
Age : 56
Location : Texas
Registration date : 16/02/2009

PostSubject: Re: Legislature   Fri May 08, 2009 3:45 pm

caleb wrote:
von wrote:
Thirdly, why don't you take the exact case I have outlined and tell me how you see it going under your system so I (we) can understand it.

Mr. Ohlman,
Here is how the law and case applications would work in the example which you proposed.

Let us assume for the sake of this example that the Constitutional law simply says this in regards to property and ownership:

A person has the right of ownership for anything tangible he has bought, created, been given, or inherited. This ownership means that he reserves the right of all use or contact with the thing he owns.

(Again, this is only for the sake of the example. I'm not saying this is a good or bad law, but simply using it to make a point.)

So you use some of my work for your blog without my permission. I take you to the judge on charges of theft. The judge looks back to this constitutional law and decides that you indeed used something that I had created without my permission which the Constitutional law prohibits. He condemns you.

Let's say later, Jay does the same thing to Jonathan. Jonathan takes him to a judge. This judge looks at the Constitutional law, not the previous judge's decision, and makes a ruling. Let's say he finds that Jay is innocent because writing on blogs isn't tangible property.

If someone else does the same thing, the judge always goes back to the Constitution, never a previous judge's ruling. So let's assume that judges around the nation get swamped with these same cases. They ask other judges about it and find that this is the case all over the country. They decide to convene and form a case application. They meet and let's say they eventually decide that taking someone else's writing off of the computer and using it without permission goes against the Constitutional law's statement about property and ownership. This now becomes equally powerful or applicable to the Constitutional law. Now when this kind of case comes up, judges look to this case application and rule that the offender is guilty. However, if at a later time judges decide this law isn't necessary, they can meet again and remove this case law.

So, judge's rulings never affect other judges' decisions. The judge is always to go back to the Constitutional law or case applications. Case applications are only made when all (or most) of the judges meet and pre-try a case. This becomes something that future judges can look to in making decisions.

Hope that helps.

To God be the glory,
-Caleb

Yo, dude. Some huge problems:

1) Where did you get that 'law'? Missed reading that in the Scriptures. I believe it says something closer to 'thou shalt not steal'.

2) The case was the first judge finds me innocent. Then the second judge looks at the same law and finds Jay guilty. If you change that, you really ruin the whole point of the example. Like seriously.

So again the case. The first judge reads the law and finds me INNOCENT (important, remember that part Smile ).

Jay, acting on the knowledge that the first judge found me innocent, relies on that interpretation and does the same thing.

The second judge disagrees with the first judge and finds that Jay 'stole'.

What happens to Jay? How does anyone else know how to behave? Live in fear that some judge will find what has always been deemed legal illegal?
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   Fri May 08, 2009 5:19 pm

von wrote:

Yo, dude. Some huge problems:

1) Where did you get that 'law'? Missed reading that in the Scriptures. I believe it says something closer to 'thou shalt not steal'.

2) The case was the first judge finds me innocent. Then the second judge looks at the same law and finds Jay guilty. If you change that, you really ruin the whole point of the example. Like seriously.

So again the case. The first judge reads the law and finds me INNOCENT (important, remember that part Smile ).

Jay, acting on the knowledge that the first judge found me innocent, relies on that interpretation and does the same thing.

The second judge disagrees with the first judge and finds that Jay 'stole'.

What happens to Jay? How does anyone else know how to behave? Live in fear that some judge will find what has always been deemed legal illegal?

I thought I said several times that this law was an example only to illustrate a point in the use of the law. I even said that I was not condoning or condemning that law, but only using it for an example. So your first point is irrelevant. Your second point is valid. One judge rules innocent, the next guilty. This was intentional for the sake of the illustration. The judge is always to judge according to the law, not according to personal interpretation. If a judge is found to be doing this, or ruling against the law or case application, he is to be disbarred. However, in this case, I worded the law so that it was rather vague (a mistake I hope we will avoid making when we write a constitution.) Because of this and the fact the the judges were being swamped with the same type of case, they found it necessary to convene to "pre-try" this case. Their decision becomes case application whereby all future rulings are made by. This case application is much more specific, so it becomes harder for a judge to legally rule the opposite of another judge. You're right that the people would not know how to legally behave, so that's why we set up the case application system.

The problem with your interpretation of case application is that it does the same thing as ours, only with no resolution. You basically say that the last ruling is the standard. If the first judge ruled you were innocent, then you can copy other people's writing without permission. However, if another judge comes along and says that isn't right and rules the opposite, now everyone has to be careful not to use other people's information. People would live in fear that their actions could become illegal overnight simply from a judges ruling. You get into the mess we are in now where judges' rulings stand higher than law. (See proposition 8 in California where the people voted biblical marriage as law. The governor turned to the homosexuals and told them not to worry, the courts would fix it. In other words, by one court ruling, the law the people voted in would become obsolete.)

With our system, we start out with the same problem because of bad incomplete wording in the Constitutional law, but we fix it by convening the judges to collectively pre-try the case. After that, the people don't need to worry about braking the law because they know the standing case application. Any judge that goes against this application will be disbarred. This keeps all of the power with the law (Lex Rex- law is king) instead of your system which eventually gives the power to the judges. (Unless I'm totally misunderstanding your system.)

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



Male Number of posts : 166
Age : 56
Location : Texas
Registration date : 16/02/2009

PostSubject: Re: Legislature   Fri May 08, 2009 5:49 pm

You lost me dude.

Tell me, please, what happens in your system if the first judge rules (because of the difficulty of the application of a law) innocent and the second finds a different application of the same law.

That was my question, and I don't yet get how the answer works in your system.
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 : 24
Location : USA
Registration date : 11/02/2009

PostSubject: Re: Legislature   Fri May 08, 2009 9:17 pm

What about this? I'm not sure it's perfect, but it might deal with some of the problems Von and Caleb brought up. The people will vote for judges. So to continue with the example being used:
I'm running against Peter G. for district judge. If the question comes up in the campaign, I say that I will interpret the constitutional law to include use of all published material -whether online or on paper- without the author's permission to be stealing. Peter G. says that he will interpret anything posted on the internet to be in the public domain. (I'm just using this as an example, in reality Peter may not think this, and I'm not completely sure what I think). So if Peter wins, Caleb and Jonathan shouldn't post anything they don't want Von and Jay to use. If I win, Von and Jay will have to get permission first, or they might be prosecuted. If they situation does not come up in the campaign questions, then we go by Von's method of precedent, so that people know what's okay to do and what's not. However, if people see that things are moving away from the constitution, they will elect someone else as judge the next time they get a chance.

_________________
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
Sir Emeth Mimetes
Admin
Admin


Male Number of posts : 446
Age : 27
Location : Cork, co. Cork, Ireland
Registration date : 07/01/2009

PostSubject: Re: Legislature   Sat May 09, 2009 2:18 am

Greetings,

von wrote:
You lost me dude.

Tell me, please, what happens in your system if the first judge rules (because of the difficulty of the application of a law) innocent and the second finds a different application of the same law.

That was my question, and I don't yet get how the answer works in your system.

Then someone (either a judge, some other person, whoever) would request a case study. The judges would convene and study how the constitutional law ought to be applied in that specific kind of case. If possible, the contrary rulings that sparked the case study would be revoked (if necessary).

The benefit of doing it the way that we are presenting, is that the focus constantly remains on the constitutional law; your system retains a loophole that could eventually aggravate into the judges effectively making the laws. Does that make sense?

Dr. Hipopótamo wrote:
What about this? I'm not sure it's perfect, but it might deal with some of the problems Von and Caleb brought up. The people will vote for judges. So to continue with the example being used:
I'm running against Peter G. for district judge. If the question comes up in the campaign, I say that I will interpret the constitutional law to include use of all published material -whether online or on paper- without the author's permission to be stealing. Peter G. says that he will interpret anything posted on the internet to be in the public domain. (I'm just using this as an example, in reality Peter may not think this, and I'm not completely sure what I think). So if Peter wins, Caleb and Jonathan shouldn't post anything they don't want Von and Jay to use. If I win, Von and Jay will have to get permission first, or they might be prosecuted. If they situation does not come up in the campaign questions, then we go by Von's method of precedent, so that people know what's okay to do and what's not. However, if people see that things are moving away from the constitution, they will elect someone else as judge the next time they get a chance.

The problem with this system is that it assumes that the people have the power to declare laws: making them over the law. They will always seek the most licentious route, and will in the end subvert the government into a democratic mob-rule.

The key to this decision rests in looking to how people might pervert the system over time. The worthy Dr's system would eventually result in mob-rule; Von's would eventually result in an oligarchy. Neither are good.

With joy and peace in Christ,
Jay Lauser
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://siremethmimetes.wordpress.com
von



Male Number of posts : 166
Age : 56
Location : Texas
Registration date : 16/02/2009

PostSubject: Re: Legislature   Sat May 09, 2009 6:22 am

Quote :
Then someone (either a judge, some other person, whoever) would request a case study. The judges would convene and study how the constitutional law ought to be applied in that specific kind of case. If possible, the contrary rulings that sparked the case study would be revoked (if necessary).

I think we are close to agreement, altho you misunderstand some of what I said. A couple of points to clear up:

1) Every case is an application. Some may be more clear than others, but every case is an application. I can easily think of a hundred different things that can seperate even 'thou shalt not kill' cases.

2) You misunderstand the way I said my case applications work. It would have been nice if you had worked through the case yourself. Again:

a) I am ruled innocent. Many people, including myself and my judge, thot that what I did was NOT a violation of 'thou shalt not steal'. (For background on this discussion it should be noted that Drudge Report was originally sued for its format... and the judge later ruled it was not a violation of copyright.) Thus I am not punished.

b) Jay does substantially the same thing. However his judge rules that that was theft. But. Because of what my judge ruled Jay is NOT punished. (thus people do not 'live in fear' as you suggest.

c) Obviously in that case, with contradictory rulings, there would need to be some kind of appeal situation, so the cases can be clarified. The clarification by a higher court, or court of courts as you suggest, would need to decide:
--) That my judge was right.
--) That Jays judge was right.
--) That the circumstances were different enough that they both were right.

Let me give you the case, so you will be clear on that last:

You state on this blog 'Trees are just like people' in the middle of a long post.

I go to my blog and say, "I can't believe that Caleb said 'Trees are just like people' and I post a big long blog explaining why you are incorrect.

You post a long post disagreeing with me and disparaging my post. Among other things you say 'Von posted such a small section of my post that he misled his readers. If he had p osted the entire post..."

So I post the entire post, and show how I still disagree.

You take me to court. How dare I post your entire post on my blog!
--

Later Jay just posts one of your posts on his blog and responds to it.

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


Male Number of posts : 446
Age : 27
Location : Cork, co. Cork, Ireland
Registration date : 07/01/2009

PostSubject: Re: Legislature   Sat May 09, 2009 2:20 pm

von wrote:
Quote :
Then someone (either a judge, some other person, whoever) would request a case study. The judges would convene and study how the constitutional law ought to be applied in that specific kind of case. If possible, the contrary rulings that sparked the case study would be revoked (if necessary).

I think we are close to agreement, altho you misunderstand some of what I said. A couple of points to clear up:

1) Every case is an application. Some may be more clear than others, but every case is an application. I can easily think of a hundred different things that can seperate even 'thou shalt not kill' cases.

2) You misunderstand the way I said my case applications work. It would have been nice if you had worked through the case yourself. Again:

a) I am ruled innocent. Many people, including myself and my judge, thot that what I did was NOT a violation of 'thou shalt not steal'. (For background on this discussion it should be noted that Drudge Report was originally sued for its format... and the judge later ruled it was not a violation of copyright.) Thus I am not punished.

b) Jay does substantially the same thing. However his judge rules that that was theft. But. Because of what my judge ruled Jay is NOT punished. (thus people do not 'live in fear' as you suggest.

c) Obviously in that case, with contradictory rulings, there would need to be some kind of appeal situation, so the cases can be clarified. The clarification by a higher court, or court of courts as you suggest, would need to decide:
--) That my judge was right.
--) That Jays judge was right.
--) That the circumstances were different enough that they both were right.

Let me give you the case, so you will be clear on that last:

You state on this blog 'Trees are just like people' in the middle of a long post.

I go to my blog and say, "I can't believe that Caleb said 'Trees are just like people' and I post a big long blog explaining why you are incorrect.

You post a long post disagreeing with me and disparaging my post. Among other things you say 'Von posted such a small section of my post that he misled his readers. If he had p osted the entire post..."

So I post the entire post, and show how I still disagree.

You take me to court. How dare I post your entire post on my blog!
--

Later Jay just posts one of your posts on his blog and responds to it.

Does that help?

Von,

Yes, I see how we are in significant agreement. I do believe that we are all in agreement in the principal. We mainly differ on what could be termed a variation of system, rather than a variation of principle. I and Caleb believe that the principle is best served via the system we propose, while you believe that the same principle is best served in another way. Thankfully, we are not here to devise a complete system of government: only to decide upon basic principles that can be striven for and applied across the board in every culture and time. So if someone would like to (I might if I find time) rewrite the conclusion post to reflect the principle which we are in agreement on, I think that we might be able to archive this thread.

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
Dr. Hipopótamo
Honor roll member
Honor roll member


Male Number of posts : 131
Age : 24
Location : USA
Registration date : 11/02/2009

PostSubject: Re: Legislature   Sat May 09, 2009 9:46 pm

OK, so Jay is convicted, but not punished, and then the judges have a conference? I think that sounds pretty good. Here's another, similar idea: if the judge finds Jay guilty of stealing, he sentences Jay to be punished, but Jay has the oppurtunity to appeal to a higher court. He can there make the case that he was acting on a previous ruling, and if the higher court (which could be something like a conference of several judges like in Jay's example, or maybe something else) agrees, then they decide not to punish Jay, and while their at it, they can make a case application. Jay is not punished, but now all the trees/people know how this will be applied in the future. This would mean that instead of looking for previous rulings that Jay may have acted on to decide whether or not to punish him, the judge gives its ruling and the punishment that goes with it, and it is up to Jay, not the judge, to show the previous ruling that he acted on.
What do you think of that?

_________________
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
Dr. Hipopótamo
Honor roll member
Honor roll member


Male Number of posts : 131
Age : 24
Location : USA
Registration date : 11/02/2009

PostSubject: Re: Legislature   Sat May 09, 2009 9:51 pm

Oh, I didn't see Jay's last post before I wrote that. Are we supposed to be done discussing the system?

_________________
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
Sir Emeth Mimetes
Admin
Admin


Male Number of posts : 446
Age : 27
Location : Cork, co. Cork, Ireland
Registration date : 07/01/2009

PostSubject: Re: Legislature   Mon May 25, 2009 8:44 am

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 situations unseen by us, 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 on all decisions when there is a need to have a unanimous opinion for the application of the constitution in certain situations. These case applications are equal in power and effectiveness to the constitutional law with the exception that they can be repealed or altered if necessary.

_________________
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 : 56
Location : Texas
Registration date : 16/02/2009

PostSubject: Re: Legislature   Mon May 25, 2009 11:55 am

Sir Emeth Mimetes wrote:
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 situations unseen by us, 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 on all decisions when there is a need to have a unanimous opinion for the application of the constitution in certain situations. These case applications are equal in power and effectiveness to the constitutional law with the exception that they can be repealed or altered if necessary.

this doesn't seem to address the issue I raised. All cases are different, so each decision will, to a certain extent, always be 'new'.
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 : 24
Location : USA
Registration date : 11/02/2009

PostSubject: Re: Legislature   Mon May 25, 2009 2:58 pm

What exactly do you mean by, "unanimous opinioin"? Do you mean that after the case application is made, then all judges will rule the same way, or do you mean that in order for the case application to be ratified, everyone will have to agree on it?

_________________
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
caleb
Moderator
Moderator


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

PostSubject: Re: Legislature   Mon May 25, 2009 4:26 pm

Dr. Hipopótamo wrote:
What exactly do you mean by, "unanimous opinioin"? Do you mean that after the case application is made, then all judges will rule the same way, or do you mean that in order for the case application to be ratified, everyone will have to agree on it?

If I understand what you're asking, it is the latter. The judges would convene together and pre-try the case. All of the judges rule on the case and the majority wins. The winning decision becomes a case application (which is like a law) which they can go to and rule by when that situation arises again.

To God be the glory,
-Caleb
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Dr. Hipopótamo
Honor roll member
Honor roll member


Male Number of posts : 131
Age : 24
Location : USA
Registration date : 11/02/2009

PostSubject: Re: Legislature   Mon May 25, 2009 6:01 pm

So the majority wins. OK. I thought maybe because it said "unanimous," that meant there would only be a decision if everyone voted the same way. I wouldn't agree with that, because there would be too many cases where there wouldn't be a unanimous vote. But the majority rule would be fine.

_________________
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
Sir Emeth Mimetes
Admin
Admin


Male Number of posts : 446
Age : 27
Location : Cork, co. Cork, Ireland
Registration date : 07/01/2009

PostSubject: Re: Legislature   Tue May 26, 2009 2:15 am

Greetings,

After some review, and some discussion with my father, I again think that we have too much in this conclusion. What follows is an amended conclusion that addresses my own and all of your concerns.

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 the people's rights that are within the government's jurisdiction. (Lex Rex- Law is king)

2. These constitutional laws are not subject to the rulings of judges, but rather govern the judges' decisions. The only "laws" that can be made by anyone by any method are what we call case applications: a ruling explaining how the constitution ought to be applied in a certain case. They do not supersede the constitutional law, they augment it, without overstepping its boundaries.


The questions of how case applications are made, when, by whom, and etc. are outside of the scope of this forum.

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 May 26, 2009 5:24 am

OK. Well, I agree will everything in those conclusions. I do think we can determine how case applications are made in another post; maybe one on judges.

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




PostSubject: Re: Legislature   

Back to top Go down
 
Legislature
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 4 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: