| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Why is it wrong for Christians to impose; their morals on people? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 22 2004, 05:47 PM (2,210 Views) | |
| DEFIANT | Dec 3 2004, 07:25 PM Post #151 |
|
Commodore
|
Anova, about Roe vs. Wade, it's okay, I wasn't disagreeing with you. You said The right to life is stated in our declaration of independance as a chief right. I was just pointing out that the DIC is not law and won't count if you are looking for legal reasons why roe vs wade is unfair. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| gvok | Dec 3 2004, 09:42 PM Post #152 |
|
Unregistered
|
Not necessarily. The law distinguishes between "binding authority" (e.g., constitutional statutory provisioins and un-overturned decisions of higher courts) and "persuasive authority" (e.g. documents such as the Declaration of Independence and learned writings). That does not mean that the Declaration of Independence is not authoritative necessarily. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| ANOVA | Dec 5 2004, 09:24 AM Post #153 |
|
Vice Admiral
|
^^^ Thanks Gvok: My point exactly. The federalist papers and other writings of the founders can be used to determine the original intent of a law. ANOVA |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ANOVA | Dec 5 2004, 09:34 AM Post #154 |
|
Vice Admiral
|
Gvok: As much as it pains me to end an argument, I think that we are arguing definitions not fact. The difference between executing the laws and enforcing them may be at the root of the problem. By executing the laws a President makes sure that the taxes are collected, the shores are defended as well as many other things. By enforcing the laws an individual brings the law breakers to justice. By being the Chief executive, the president must ensure his branch of governement is performing in accordance with the laws of the land. As Commander in Chief he is responsible for for the actions of our defence, but he is not responsible for law enforcement. The task of law enforcement belongs to the justice department and therefor, its head is our chief law enforcement officer. ANOVA |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| gvok | Dec 5 2004, 12:16 PM Post #155 |
|
Unregistered
|
Again, the Attorney General is appointed by the President, serves at the pleasure of the President, and follows Administration policy. So, I think I am standing on good authority when I say that the President does enforce the law albeit usually indirectly through his subordinate. I think we're quibbleing at this point. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| DEFIANT | Dec 6 2004, 10:06 PM Post #156 |
|
Commodore
|
Gvok My point was that the Declaration of Independance is not law and no one has to follow it. You said that it is persuasive authority. Persuasive authority is not law and no one has to follow it. Right on about the president and attorney general, I tried to say that earlier. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| gvok | Dec 7 2004, 10:20 AM Post #157 |
|
Unregistered
|
Technically you are correct. Persuasive authority is not law in that it is not binding. However, in a practical sense persuasive authority is used in arguements both by lawyers and judges (all the way to the Supreme Court) all the time especially when there is no directly applicable statute or case. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| DEFIANT | Dec 7 2004, 04:54 PM Post #158 |
|
Commodore
|
Lawyers use persuasive authority as a last resort and usually when they find no mandatory authority, which you pretty much said. But as far as that goes it seems like it's just as valid as a lawyer religious veiws (it's persuasive to them). I never said the Declaration had no wieght or influence and it is good to follow it and understand the intentions. Though I don't understand why people care so much about intentions (like the 2nd amendment). Can't we decide what we feel now. What we find out the founders intent was to enslave or kill all the Indians? (sorry, not starting another topic, I just think that persuasive influence, as a term, is stupid, whatever someone believes has influence and uses it in court is what I'd like to call opinion). I don't like to shake things up further but I am a bid offended how you said that technically I am correct. There is no technicality that makes me correct. I am. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | Dec 7 2004, 09:50 PM Post #159 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
^^^ Don't be offended. Gvok is a lawyer and lives for technicalities. :lol: |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| gvok | Dec 7 2004, 10:22 PM Post #160 |
|
Unregistered
|
This isn't really true. Persuaisive authority is often used in conjunction with binding authority. It is used when there is no direct law which governs a situation (which happens all the time) and it is used to argue that and an existing law is unconstitutional or non binding on some other ground. But enough. I suppose to a non lawyer this sounds like quibbling as Minuet's post seems to suggest. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| DEFIANT | Dec 7 2004, 11:46 PM Post #161 |
|
Commodore
|
Yes, I shouldn't have said Lawyers use persuasive authority as a last resort, but though I have no statistics I'd like to say mostly, and of course conjunctions are there to make the nail go in deeper (it just sounds redundant). About your non lawyer comment it makes sense, but would you disagree what minuet said? I think you guys use a lot of semantics too.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Fesarius | Dec 8 2004, 09:47 AM Post #162 |
|
Admiral
|
Defiant, Only when discussing music theory and musicology in general.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| gvok | Dec 8 2004, 09:56 AM Post #163 |
|
Unregistered
|
I don't really agree with Minuet but I went to Law School and was trained to think the way I do. Words (especially in a legal context) have to have precise meanings. Most litigation involves differing views over the definitions of statutes, contract provisions, deeds, wills, passages in case law etc. So, I don't argue technicalities for the mere purpose of arguing technicalities but rather for the purpose of specifically defining what it is we are talking about. Often on this board you will observe two or more people arguing with each other and failing to reach a meeting of the minds because they are defining the same term differently. I see this all the time. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Minuet | Dec 8 2004, 12:50 PM Post #164 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
Gvok - I was only trying to defend you since Defiant said he was offended. I knew in this case that you had no intent to offend. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| gvok | Dec 8 2004, 12:57 PM Post #165 |
|
Unregistered
|
I understand. Thanks Minuet.
|
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |


3:18 AM Jul 11