Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: John Fields on 29 Nov 2006 19:29 On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 14:44:53 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >John Fields wrote: > >> On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 12:12:59 -0600, unsettled >> <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >> >>>John Fields wrote: >>> >>>>On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 11:55:48 +0000, Eeyore >>>><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>John Fields wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>--- >>>>>>Nothing is forever. >>>>>> >>>>>>You all now have a Supreme Court, no? >>>>> >>>>>The Law Lords. >>>> >>>> >>>>--- >>>>No I meant a _real_ Supreme Court, separate from Parliament even to >>>>the extent of their building. >>>> >>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Reform_Act_2005 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>In recent times they have IIRC ruled that some legislation was illegal. >>>> >>>> >>>>--- >>>>OK, but _that_ was the Law Lords. There was no provision for an >>>>actual Supreme Court before the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, I >>>>believe. >>> >>>They still don't have a single element codified constitution. >>> >> >> --- >> Yes, one of the few nations in the modern world who don't. >> >> Perhaps the reticence to frame one is the same as that which plagued >> some of our founders, namely that if you say what you're allowed to >> do, then unless you're careful you'll write yourself into a box >> where that's _all_ you'll be allowed to do. > >A.V. Dicey wrote extensively about constitutions, in particular >the British virtual one and that of the US. > >Here's an interesting tidbit written by him which relates to >a comment I made earlier in this thread, that those things >not specifically prohibited are permitted: > >"The rule of law, as described in this treatise, remains >to this day a distinctive characteristic of the English >constitution. In England no man can be made to suffer >punishment or to pay damages for any conduct not definitely >forbidden by law; every man's legal rights or liabilities >are almost invariably determined by the ordinary Courts of >the realm, and each man's individual rights are far less >the result of our constitution than the basis on which >that consitution is founded. > >"The principles laid down in this treatise with regard to >the rule of law and to the nature of droit administratif >need little change. My object in this Introduction is first >to note a singular decline among modern Englishmen in their >respect or reverence for the rule of law, and secondly, to >call attention to certain changes in the droit administratif >of France." > >http://www.constitution.org/cmt/avd/law_con.htm > >Dicey's texts are of interest to anyone researching the >origins of our US constitution and common law. They sit >well next to Blackstone's commentaries. --- I'm in your debt. Thank you very much, that's just exactly what I was looking for. -- JF
From: John Fields on 29 Nov 2006 20:54 On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 21:15:56 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Fields wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >John Fields wrote: >> >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >> >John Fields wrote: >> >> >>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>>John Fields wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>>>Nothing is forever. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>>You all now have a Supreme Court, no? >> >> >>> >> >> >>>The Law Lords. >> >> >> >> >> >> --- >> >> >> No I meant a _real_ Supreme Court, separate from Parliament even to >> >> >> the extent of their building. >> >> >> >> >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Reform_Act_2005 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>In recent times they have IIRC ruled that some legislation was illegal. >> >> >> >> >> >> --- >> >> >> OK, but _that_ was the Law Lords. There was no provision for an >> >> >> actual Supreme Court before the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, I >> >> >> believe. >> >> > >> >> >They still don't have a single element codified constitution. >> >> > >> >> --- >> >> Yes, one of the few nations in the modern world who don't. >> >> >> >> Perhaps the reticence to frame one is the same as that which plagued >> >> some of our founders, namely that if you say what you're allowed to >> >> do, then unless you're careful you'll write yourself into a box >> >> where that's _all_ you'll be allowed to do. >> > >> >The British Constitution is famously 'unwritten' and is based on precedent >> >AFAIK. >> >> --- >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/asguru/generalstudies/society/27constitution/constitution03.shtml > >That's a nice clear summary. > >The BBC's educational programming is very good indeed. --- I agree, except for their not correcting the misspelling of 'Parliament' in: http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/asguru/generalstudies/society/27constitution/constitution08.shtml -- JF
From: unsettled on 29 Nov 2006 21:47 John Fields wrote: > On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 14:44:53 -0600, unsettled > <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > > >>John Fields wrote: >> >> >>>On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 12:12:59 -0600, unsettled >>><unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>John Fields wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 11:55:48 +0000, Eeyore >>>>><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>John Fields wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>--- >>>>>>>Nothing is forever. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>You all now have a Supreme Court, no? >>>>>> >>>>>>The Law Lords. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>--- >>>>>No I meant a _real_ Supreme Court, separate from Parliament even to >>>>>the extent of their building. >>>>> >>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Reform_Act_2005 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>In recent times they have IIRC ruled that some legislation was illegal. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>--- >>>>>OK, but _that_ was the Law Lords. There was no provision for an >>>>>actual Supreme Court before the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, I >>>>>believe. >>>> >>>>They still don't have a single element codified constitution. >>>> >>> >>>--- >>>Yes, one of the few nations in the modern world who don't. >>> >>>Perhaps the reticence to frame one is the same as that which plagued >>>some of our founders, namely that if you say what you're allowed to >>>do, then unless you're careful you'll write yourself into a box >>>where that's _all_ you'll be allowed to do. >> >>A.V. Dicey wrote extensively about constitutions, in particular >>the British virtual one and that of the US. >> >>Here's an interesting tidbit written by him which relates to >>a comment I made earlier in this thread, that those things >>not specifically prohibited are permitted: >> >>"The rule of law, as described in this treatise, remains >>to this day a distinctive characteristic of the English >>constitution. In England no man can be made to suffer >>punishment or to pay damages for any conduct not definitely >>forbidden by law; every man's legal rights or liabilities >>are almost invariably determined by the ordinary Courts of >>the realm, and each man's individual rights are far less >>the result of our constitution than the basis on which >>that consitution is founded. >> >>"The principles laid down in this treatise with regard to >>the rule of law and to the nature of droit administratif >>need little change. My object in this Introduction is first >>to note a singular decline among modern Englishmen in their >>respect or reverence for the rule of law, and secondly, to >>call attention to certain changes in the droit administratif >>of France." >> >>http://www.constitution.org/cmt/avd/law_con.htm >> >>Dicey's texts are of interest to anyone researching the >>origins of our US constitution and common law. They sit >>well next to Blackstone's commentaries. > > > --- > I'm in your debt. > > Thank you very much, that's just exactly what I was looking for. My pleasure entirely. Sometimes usenet is useful after all. :-) Interestingly, it is the economics text of Hayek (The Road to Serfdom) that completes a completely understandable description of what the "rule of law" is. Most people you'd meet don't have an actual understanding though they'll freely bandy about the expression as a talking point. I found these left-hand right-hand texts some years back when I was trying to close a gap in my education, wanting a proper description of "the rule of law." Such matters are important to know if we wish to really understand what the relationship between the state and each of us is supposed to be. I don't know why it isn't part of every civics class. What we today call "due process" is essentially defined as fundamental fairness. It is incorporated in the Mayflower Compact, "...and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts...". The mere fact that the resulting ordering of legal philosophy took centuries is indicative, IMO, of the importance of the power that was being wrested from the rulers through the centuries. It was, better than 6 centuries from the Henry I restrictions on the crown ~1100 till the framing of the US constitution that appears to finally have had it all in one place in the late 1700's.
From: krw on 29 Nov 2006 22:29 In article <mbqrm2tehvvmhdeg07aale5r81gad9dpha(a)4ax.com>, jfields(a)austininstruments.com says... > On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 12:12:59 -0600, unsettled > <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > > >John Fields wrote: > >> On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 11:55:48 +0000, Eeyore > >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >>> > >>>John Fields wrote: > >> > >> > >>>>--- > >>>>Nothing is forever. > >>>> > >>>>You all now have a Supreme Court, no? > >>> > >>>The Law Lords. > >> > >> > >> --- > >> No I meant a _real_ Supreme Court, separate from Parliament even to > >> the extent of their building. > >> > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Reform_Act_2005 > >> > >> > >> > >>>In recent times they have IIRC ruled that some legislation was illegal. > >> > >> > >> --- > >> OK, but _that_ was the Law Lords. There was no provision for an > >> actual Supreme Court before the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, I > >> believe. > > > >They still don't have a single element codified constitution. > > > --- > Yes, one of the few nations in the modern world who don't. > > Perhaps the reticence to frame one is the same as that which plagued > some of our founders, namely that if you say what you're allowed to > do, then unless you're careful you'll write yourself into a box > where that's _all_ you'll be allowed to do. Actually, ours says what the federal government is *not* allowed to do. The only exception is the XIIIth amendment. -- Keith > > >
From: unsettled on 29 Nov 2006 22:50
krw wrote: > In article <mbqrm2tehvvmhdeg07aale5r81gad9dpha(a)4ax.com>, > jfields(a)austininstruments.com says... > >>On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 12:12:59 -0600, unsettled >><unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >> >>>John Fields wrote: >>> >>>>On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 11:55:48 +0000, Eeyore >>>><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>John Fields wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>--- >>>>>>Nothing is forever. >>>>>> >>>>>>You all now have a Supreme Court, no? >>>>> >>>>>The Law Lords. >>>> >>>> >>>>--- >>>>No I meant a _real_ Supreme Court, separate from Parliament even to >>>>the extent of their building. >>>> >>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Reform_Act_2005 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>In recent times they have IIRC ruled that some legislation was illegal. >>>> >>>> >>>>--- >>>>OK, but _that_ was the Law Lords. There was no provision for an >>>>actual Supreme Court before the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, I >>>>believe. >>> >>>They still don't have a single element codified constitution. >>> >> >>--- >>Yes, one of the few nations in the modern world who don't. >> >>Perhaps the reticence to frame one is the same as that which plagued >>some of our founders, namely that if you say what you're allowed to >>do, then unless you're careful you'll write yourself into a box >>where that's _all_ you'll be allowed to do. > > > Actually, ours says what the federal government is *not* allowed to > do. The only exception is the XIIIth amendment. I urge you to read it for statements ordering what shall be done, when, and how. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html We get this far in Article I before we get the the first "no" statement: "Section 1 - The Legislature "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. "Section 2 - The House "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature." There's a lot of text written in positive terms, some in the negative. It's a real mix. One can legitimately make the case that by setting out the specifics of how things are to be done alternatives are prohibited. This is the context in which I wrote earlier in this thread. |