Posts by B Jones
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Up Front: Oh, God, in reply to UglyTruth,
there is no available evidence against the proposition that deity exists.
Argument from evil. If a deity that is powerful, knowledgeable and good exists, you'd expect there not to be pointless suffering in the world they've created. It's easy to prove there's pointless suffering, therefore if there's a deity, they can't be powerful, knowledgeable and good.
Anyway, I'm bored and nobody's actually getting anywhere useful with this. Could we not agree to disagree and move on to more interesting subjects?
-
I'll feel comforted then, if the civil state chucks my person in jail, that it's only my person and not the rest of me, whatever that is.
-
My brain hurts. Lawyers are good at churning out buckets of spurious tosh, but that personam stuff is even more spurious than the usual sort. It's like those ads that talk about quantum fields energising water and so forth - it sounds like science but it's not.
Expelliarmus.
-
There are a number of recent cases where the defendant has attempted to argue that they are not subject to parliament's laws because it's not sovereign, usually in the context of the Treaty of Waitangi. They've failed. I don't understand how you can hold your position in the absence of any successful case law arguing that Alfred the Great trumps statute law.
-
I don't know what you're arguing. The closest I can come to a coherent interpretation is that the NZ government is illegitimate because Blackstone, Alfred the Great etc say so. Good luck with that next time you want to challenge a parking ticket.
-
Up Front: Oh, God, in reply to UglyTruth,
The idea that the majority is always right isn’t part of modern democracy.
Yes, but that's a little different to whether one parliament can overrule a past one. The majority isn't always right - binding referenda are a real danger to minority rights, but that's usually dealt with by representative democracy and the rule of law, eg the executive has to obey its own rules. The major human rights findings of recent NZ jurisprudence, where the courts have overridden the executive, have referred to other pieces of legislation - the Treaty of Waitangi Act, the Bill of Rights Act, etc.
-
Up Front: Oh, God, in reply to UglyTruth,
It doesn't matter what Blackstone said more than 200 years ago. 200 years ago, one human being could own another, and sell their children. 200 years ago, the majority of the population had no vote. Fundamental human rights have changed. You can tell what the law is now by what the courts will recognise now. I'll shake the hand of anyone who can cite a recent example of a lawyer successfully arguing a case by citing Alfred the Great.
-
You can't go back into the mists of time to find out what the law really is. It changes, to deal with new things, like the impact we have on our neighbours, or how we address pre-existing rights when we colonise new lands. Three million voters in 2014 have to be able to overrule a king a thousand years ago.
-
Last edited 8 September 2014 by "UT"?
-
Ehhh, natural justice is a procedural concept. Did you go through a fair process to sack someone. Fundamental human rights is a concept you can get an international court to look into, even if their enforcement is toothless. Which to me makes it law.