|
Post by tits on May 30, 2006 8:37:57 GMT -8
This is a very confusing prospect, it takes an activist who knows law and a community willing to enforce them.
I am still angered that Reno/Clinton sought to silence Pro-Lifers by arresting them under the RICO (Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organization) law. Though all 100 (+) such arrest have been found in admissible, the act of doing so was sufficient to change the way that segment of our population voiced their opinion.
Just last week the US Senate voted to repeal a 3 cent telephone tax that was enacted in 1906 to pay for the Spanish American War. Several years back a community in Missouri voted to repeal a city ordinance that made it a $50 to tie up one's horse in front of the court house.
Enforcement: how many people do you know who were pulled over for using their cell-phone or not wearing their seat belts? Those activities are prohibited in nearly every State & municipality. Yet citations are often issued after the perp was involved in an accident or spotted speeding.
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Jun 1, 2006 22:10:43 GMT -8
To what length are some willing to go to have a law, any law enforced? Is there a line that should not be crossed to enforce a law, and if so what is that line? Is it to answer the question, "yes" there is a line that should not be crossed, even to enforce a just law, a promotion of lawlessness?
Reason has its power of moving from the will, for it is due to the fact that one wills the end, that the reason issues its commands as regards things ordained to the end. But in order that the volition of what is commanded may have the nature of law, it needs to be in accord with some rule of reason. And in this sense is to be understood the saying that the will of the sovereign has the force of law; otherwise the sovereign's will would savor of lawlessness rather than of law.
|
|