It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I've noticed a lot of misconceptions about the law on this board

page: 3
39
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Light of Night
 


You are right in that judges often go with their gut rather than with the law. The law is not necessarily mechanical in its application and there are gray areas. Judges often decide how to maneuver within the gray areas by going with their gut. They may maneuver by not necessarily overruling a case, but by distinguishing a case.

There are many decisions out there that get overturned by appeals courts because trial court judges do not follow precedent. There are many cases that do not get overturned because the losing party did not appeal, even though they should have.




posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


Good luck on my LSAT. You are welcome to the class, just remember to forget everything you learn here because your Con Law professor will probably think it is rubbish!

Now, Alice, Bob, Charles, Diane, Edward, and Fred go out to dinner. Alice is a vegetarian. Edward orders a pasta dish. Fred orders Seafood. Charles and Diane share a dish. Who ordered the lobster?...You have 2 minutes to figure this one out.


A -> Vegetarian
B -> ?
C -> Eats w/D
D -> Eats w/C
E -> Pasta
F -> Eats Meat

The best guess with this information would be Fred ordered the lobster.

[edit on 26-4-2010 by ExPostFacto]



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


By recollection, the California case of seizure of bodily fluids or dna were not considered to be protected under the 4th amendment or some such other thing.

It has actually been over 18 years since I researched that. Someone got a drunk driving, at the time they did not have a driver's license so they refused the breathalyzer knowing that they did not have a chance on the failure to comply component of the DWI. Hence they would not have the evidence for the DWI. Well, the person was forced to have blood taken.

I then did research into how they had the right to do this and it went back to precedent set up in a California murder trial that decided that compulsion to get the dna superseded the right of not compelling or some such thing. It has been over 18 years and I am a little foggy on the details of the case law.


reply to post by WTFover
 


That sounds familiar. The California case is probably what set that up. See that, only a few minutes of discussion and the answer is found. Excellent WTFover.

reply to post by zaiger
 


Okay, you win, I do not know what you won but I guess you think you did.


[edit on 4/26/2010 by endisnighe]



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Very interesting, made me do something not many people are able to make me do often, and that is to actually ponder upon the meaning of a statement.

Thanks for that I'm going to find that document and put it to the side and read it when I get a chance, unless it is something I can read in an hour.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Light of Night
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Very interesting, made me do something not many people are able to make me do often, and that is to actually ponder upon the meaning of a statement.

Thanks for that I'm going to find that document and put it to the side and read it when I get a chance, unless it is something I can read in an hour.


bastiat.org...

There you go. It is a real easy read, and the man speaks with a clarity unheard of in this modern age. While there is, in my mind, a huge distinction between the French Enlightenment and The Age of Reason, on being French the other American, Bastiat was a voice of reason in that French Enlightenment.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Light of Night
 


The 1st amendment is not my strong suit, so if somebody knows more about 1st amendment law, feel free to chime in and correct me. My guess is that the law banning violent video games for children would be subject to strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny requires a law (1) address a compelling state interest and (2) be narrowly tailored to further that compelling state interest.

Laws that prevent kids from buying pornography are valid because there is a compelling state interest in not allowing kids to look at porn. Laws that simply ban porn sales to minors are generally narrowly tailored to further the interest of keeping porn out of the hands of kids. The video game may withstand scrutiny if (1) keeping violent games out of the hands of kids is a compelling state interest and (2) the law in question is narrowly tailored to further that interest.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


You are on the ball! You are going to kill the games section!



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 10:30 PM
link   
Just a reminder to everybody, U2U if you are interested in the "class." I already U2U'd others and tentatively scheduled it a week from this Wednesday (May 5). I am out.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


That seems to be my strength which is good, as I understand it's like 50% of the test. I am not so good at the reading section as I look too hard for some type of trick and waste time.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


Wasn't there a recent SC case where the act of animal cruelty are illegal but videos of them are not.

I think that would be your closest current case law for the violent videos (edit to clarify video game).

[edit on 4/27/2010 by endisnighe]



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Awesome thanks for the link. I'll definitely be checking that out.

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


Okay cool, actually I forgot all about porn laws.


I could understand the reasoning behind it though, porn laws because if you actually conducted a study there is a good chance that the study would come out that kids allowed to watch porn would increase the pregnancy rate among other things.

Violent video games though, that would be interesting because I doubt a study could actually prove that violent video games actually increase the crime rate. For the reason being that kids do know right from wrong. Where as sex is a natural human instinct.

I could be wrong though. Thanks for your answer though.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Hi, I have a couple easy questions for you,

1) What is the legal definition of a statute? Is a statute a law?

1b) Factually what is a statute?

2) What is the legal definition of a "STATE"?

2b) Factually, what is a state?

2c) What is the legal definition of a citizen?

3) In a court case, who does the prosecutor represent? Who does the judge represent? Who does a police officer represent?

3b) Who pays for the prosecutor, judge, and police officers?

4) Can a "STATE" be an injured party?

5) Is the constitution a legal contract?

5b) Factually speaking, all legal opinions set aside, what is the constitution?

and finally,

6) Should services be rendered at the barrel of a gun?

Sorry, I realize thats more than a couple, but they are pretty easy.
Thank you for your consideration.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by webpirate
Maybe go over better in R.A.T.S.?
Unfortunately I have to agree with Boondock, I'm afraid too many of the ones who make the blanket statements you are referring to would either not show up or everything said would be lost. Like usual...


[edit on 26-4-2010 by webpirate]


speak for your self buddy

I'm gonna learn me some law, spill four cups of coffee on my face and then sue
the cup company for manufacturing the product that colluded with the homicidal beverage.

Or at the very least I am going to audit the class

remember; the surest way to fail is by not trying in the first place.


OP, thank you, and I must say I love the idea...

I would like to learn about the classifications of law, jurisdictions of these "classes",
degrees of guilt or what ever you deem pertinent.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
I've noticed a lot of posters have misconceptions about the law. As a lawyer, I could patronizingly wave my finger at people with these misconceptions and tell them, "no you are wrong."

That's what I do! lol


What if we created an online law school where I was the professor and you were my pupils. Each week I can pick one or two cases on a subject of your choosing. We can agree to meet on ATS and discuss the cases. Bulletin boards like ATS are a great way to discuss cases as they allow people to question each other back and forth.

All you would need to do to participate is read the cases, maybe brief them, and show up to the thread and give us your 2 cents.

Ok, but only if there were formal recitation.


Is there any topic that anybody is particularly interested in? I think a great topic would be the commerce clause of the US constitution.

Oh, that would be a good one - the "bootstrap clause."

I kind of wish people would get a clue about evidence, personally.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 02:19 AM
link   
The constitution is a broad frame of reference which no 'legitimate' law in these United States can contradict.

It also confines & contains certain operations of government, at least it is supposed to.

It reflected the values of its authors which arose from their experience, observations & perceptions.

One of its most outstanding thrusts is limiting government('s) power(s).
It specifies the manner in which procedures must be done to be lawful.

It isn't sacred. It isn't magic. But it reflects real people's real experiences with bad government.

Only fools would not try to observe & learn from other people's negative experiences as a means to avoid them.

But America is first & foremost the people.
Even the constitution had to be accepted by the people,
& the government, the military, the courts, & myriad agencies are not even the constitution.

People, people, people, & everything else is secondary.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 06:29 AM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


Lawyers are the biggest part of the problem, you do realize that by holding a BAR card you are actually a traitor as you are a British agent, don't you?

Common Law is the only real true law, Equity law, Statutory Law and Regulatory Law all are superceded by Common Law.

What you would teach is the subversion of peoples sovereign rights. WE, flesh and blood living souls, have the power over ALL government and courts. A flesh and blood living soul can not be sued, only a corporate fiction/strawman can be sued as they are the ones acting in commerce.

This is a fact and nothing YOU teach will change that.

I went to law school and dropped out because the professor and I were constantly butting heads. I was right and Common Law is the rule. I found out later what a scam law schools really are.

Don't waste your time. We aren't that stupid.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 06:35 AM
link   
I second endisnye's request on 16th am., color of law, ect.

It'll be for morbid curiosity as nothing will come from it.

Political power issues forth from the barrel of a gun. at the moment, THEY are holding the gun. at the moment



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by daddio
 



I tend to agree with you.

Hotpink (I believe) is trying to do a service. With lawyers, you have to be careful
.He will obviously not agree with your accusations.

I would like to see him discuss what you have mentioned.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Light of Night
So actually in your capacity as a lawyer you can actually cause laws to be reversed. Now the reason why I say that is because I've talked to a judge before and this judge pretty much said almost verbatim "it doesn't really matter what the law is, it's which ever side can convince me that they are right."

Which would go back to the points being made about how case law changes all the time.


In the end, this pretty much sums it up,
Attorneys argue and present their views,
The Judge has the final word.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


EXCELLENT project. S&F.


Following your "course" on Constitutional Law, could you please address International Trade Laws? Specifically, the impacts on the Internet and national/state law, especially considering the mandate for "harmonization" and the legal definition of information as commodity.

Sorry. Dense, I know, but important imo.

Thanks, sofi.



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join