Laws are WordGames.
|
This page is mostly about 'Lex Humana', Man-Made Law, and partly about 'Lex Posit', Positive Law, law by the Will of Whomever Made It (and thus there can equally be divine positive law as there is man-made positive law).
Here is an Interesting Something to start; Just a Teeny Tiny Little Part found in an old Definition of Law...
"In old English jurisprudence, "law" is used to signify an oath, or the privilege of being sworn; as in the phrases "To wage one's law," "To lose one's law." (Blacks, 6th Edition, 4th paragraph)
... A similar past is revealed in an article i found on a site called "Encyclopedia of the New American Nation" when i was reading about Extraterritoriality and Sovereignty, interestingly enough in a paragraph referring to European law...
".... was related to the theory of the personalization of laws: that a foreigner carried his own law wherever he went. It was the ruler's duty to protect those who swore personal allegiance to him. Such allegiance was usually rendered by military service, and, in the case of Asian nations, by the payment of tribute as well." (source) (3rd paragraph)
Unfortunately, no source was mentioned and unto now i haven't really dug deeper here... (watch this space...)
UPDATE!
A bit found reserching 'Stadsrechter' (city rights) for the duch portion of the site...
(the specific part of the article is about the court systems in the different cities)
'A special feature of this legal form of justice was that it was personal, the kind of right depends on person in question, not the territory in which that person found himself. That meant that when a resident of, for example Breda, committed a murder in Antwerp, he was tried according to the law of Breda, not that of Antwerp'
So, 'Law', in the past, seems to have been more of a 'personal' thing...
If this all is about 'Lex Humana', the Man-Made Law, does that mean since it is man-made, 'the law' in itself is a thing?
I mean, it is a tool, isn't it?
If 'the law' is a thing, does the law than allow for the law to be used so that one man can claim certain 'rights'
and, in doing so, put other man under obligation of duty? What about 'All men are equal under the law'?
to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
Anatole France
ok...ok.... but that's just one of those things, isn't it? Not everybody is forced to become a criminal,
some people choose the thug life...
it thereby justifies, in a way, all similar actions that lie outside those limits.”
Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoy
This, in my opinion, is the fundamental flaw that is causing the thing known as 'loopholes'....
...
People or Persons can Act in Accordance to the law. (or not). But 'the Law' itself is still a thing...
Of course 'the Law' itself is not the kind of 'Thing' the Black's people had in mind when that definition was written. But, with 'the law' being a man-made thing, of course, man has the opportunity to change it at will. There are a lot of people out there who claim the need for something often called 'the Need for a Level Playing Field' and Use the law to Stop others to do things the Way They Seem Right...
So how is this possible? Surely 'the law' is a tool meant to promote Justice and Equality Among Men?
Apparently, the main principle that allows fore these triangles to develop is an other fundamental flaw... It is possible to create an construct where certain acts appear to 'break' the law even though that act is not forbiden by law...
(it's also a nice Introduction to "the WordGame"...)
It's the Difference Between the words "Lawful" and "Legal"...
(No, Lawful is Not Just Old Fashioned.)
"The terms lawful and legal differ in that the former contemplates the substance of law, whereas the latter alludes to the form of law. A lawful act is authorized, sanctioned, or not forbidden by law. A legal act is performed in accordance with the forms and usages of law, or in a technical manner. In this sense, illegal approaches the meaning of invalid. For example, a contract or will, executed without the required formalities, might be regarded as invalid or illegal, but could not be described as unlawful."
"The term lawful more clearly suggests an ethical content than does the word legal. The latter merely denotes compliance with technical or formal rules, whereas the former usually signifies a moral substance or ethical permissibility. An additional distinction is that the word legal is used as the synonym of constructive, while lawfulis not. Legal fraud is Fraud implied by law, or made out by construction, but lawful fraud would be a contradiction in terms. Legal is also used as the antithesis of equitable, just. As a result, legal estate is the correct usage, instead of lawful estate. Under certain circumstances, however, the two words are used as exact equivalents. A lawful writ, warrant, or process is the same as a legal writ, warrant, or process." West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc.
"The term lawful more clearly suggests an ethical content than does the word legal. The latter merely denotes compliance with technical or formal rules, whereas the former usually signifies a moral substance or ethical permissibility. An additional distinction is that the word legal is used as the synonym of constructive, while lawfulis not. Legal fraud is Fraud implied by law, or made out by construction, but lawful fraud would be a contradiction in terms. Legal is also used as the antithesis of equitable, just. As a result, legal estate is the correct usage, instead of lawful estate. Under certain circumstances, however, the two words are used as exact equivalents. A lawful writ, warrant, or process is the same as a legal writ, warrant, or process." West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc.
So, something that is 'Illegal' is not necessarily 'Unlawful', it is only 'against' a Lawful Construct. On the other hand it is Not necessarily Wrong to say that something that is 'Unlawful' is 'Illegal' (as it is, in a way, also'against' the structure of the law...)
...
For some Obscure Reason, this has Not been Made Clear to us during our 'Education'...
Hey, Beuselaer! (i hear you say), what are you going on about this 'wordgame'???
A picture....
So the story that goes with this picture goes something like this; A farmer in Germany was under the impression he had to 'ask for permission' to build a shelter for his horses. To his great surprise and disappointment he was refused this 'right'... until he realized no-one could stop him from putting a table and a couple of chairs on the land...
Showing Up the Wordgame... A Good Example Deserves it's Own Page...
How it's done on a 'higher' level, look at this;
It's a Comparison between a 'Declaration' and a 'Convention' that is Based Upon the former:
'the Universal Declaration of Human Rights' -Versus- 'the European Convention on Human Rights'.
They make damn sure the words that are written in what is considered the actual law are chosen just right...
Ah, that farmer.... So he found an in more than one way creative way out of his dilemma. But why does it have to be a dilemma in the first place? There seems to be an assumption in law that goes something like; 'People are responsible for their own actions'. Therefore,if you don't agree with a law you can eider;
a) act irresponsible by acting to it, or b) act responsible by disobeying...
So, what seems to be the result of laws that you don't agree with? You eider;
a) are being punished for your convictions, or b) stop living by your conviction because of the fear of being punished
....
Henry David Thoreau
A bit of trivia:
On July 24 or July 25, 1846, Thoreau ran into the local tax collector, Sam Staples, who asked him to pay six years of delinquent poll taxes. He refused because of his opposition to the Mexican-American War and slavery, and he spent a night in jail because of this refusal.
(The next day he was freed when someone, likely his aunt, paid the tax against his wishes.) (Source)
"I submit that an individual who breaks the law that conscience tells him is unjust and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for law."
Martin Luther King, Jr.
page not done....
###research; Difference Crime/offence. Crime redefined for use in statute law?####
England and Wales Whether a given act or omission constitutes a crime does not depend on the nature of that act or omission. It depends on the nature of the legal consequences that may follow it.[8] An act or omission is a crime if it is capable of being followed by what are called criminal proceedings.[9][10]
History
The following definition of "crime" was provided by the Prevention of Crimes Act 1871, and applied[11] for the purposes of section 10 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1908:
The expression "crime" means, in England and Ireland, any felony or the offence of uttering false or counterfeit coin, or of possessing counterfeit gold or silver coin, or the offence of obtaining goods or money by false pretences, or the offence of conspiracy to defraud, or any misdemeanour under the fifty-eighth section of the Larceny Act, 1861. Scotland For the purpose of section 243 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, a crime means an offence punishable on indictment, or an offence punishable on summary conviction, and for the commission of which the offender is liable under the statute making the offence punishable to be imprisoned either absolutely or at the discretion of the court as an alternative for some other punishment.[12]
Sociology
History
The following definition of "crime" was provided by the Prevention of Crimes Act 1871, and applied[11] for the purposes of section 10 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1908:
The expression "crime" means, in England and Ireland, any felony or the offence of uttering false or counterfeit coin, or of possessing counterfeit gold or silver coin, or the offence of obtaining goods or money by false pretences, or the offence of conspiracy to defraud, or any misdemeanour under the fifty-eighth section of the Larceny Act, 1861. Scotland For the purpose of section 243 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, a crime means an offence punishable on indictment, or an offence punishable on summary conviction, and for the commission of which the offender is liable under the statute making the offence punishable to be imprisoned either absolutely or at the discretion of the court as an alternative for some other punishment.[12]
Sociology
Joseph Sobran
priv·i·lege [priv-uh-lij, priv-lij] noun Among others:
2. a special right, immunity, or exemption granted to persons in authority or office to free them from certain obligations or liabilities: the privilege of a senator to speak in Congress without danger of a libel suit.
3. a grant to an individual, corporation, etc., of a special right or immunity, under certain conditions.
5. any of the rights common to all citizens under a modern constitutional government: We enjoy the privileges of a free people.
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/privilege)
2. a special right, immunity, or exemption granted to persons in authority or office to free them from certain obligations or liabilities: the privilege of a senator to speak in Congress without danger of a libel suit.
3. a grant to an individual, corporation, etc., of a special right or immunity, under certain conditions.
5. any of the rights common to all citizens under a modern constitutional government: We enjoy the privileges of a free people.
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/privilege)
"Justice that love gives is a surrender, justice that law gives is a punishment." Mahatma Gandhi
"In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place." Mahatma Gandhi
"Law and equity are two things which God has joined, but which man has put asunder." Charles Caleb Colton
you must always come back to the pleasant fact that there are only ten of them."
Henry Louis Mencken