Everyone's given a shot at explaining to SteveSy's his logical fallacies a misunderstandings about the nature of law; I figured I'd give it a shot too. I suspect that this board has tried to explain this to Steve for a long, long time, to no avail. BUT, judging by his posts in this thread, I don't think it's impossible that it may "click" for Steve eventually. It's possible that my future participation in the board will make me feel differently, but I hope not.
First off, Steve, when you read my post, try to understand it before you rail against it. I'm not criticizing your opinions of what sort of system would be "better" (like someone else on this thread posted, such discussions are meant for the "Ranting and Raving thread.") If you decide to reply, please include what
you believe I mean rather than only posting what you believe are arguments against my thoughts. There's a disconnect between your attacks and what people are actually saying; when you start to understand those, you might get a better understanding of law.
Outside of the ocassional slap, nobody here is trying to change your opinion of
what you wish the law was, or
what you put forth as an ideal civilization. Everyone is trying to make you understand
what the law actually is and
how it became that way. Nobody is claiming that the legal system fits some Platonic ideal of decision making - the very nature of "law," as I hope you will understand eventually, is
antithetical to the concept of "Platonic ideals." Nobody is arguing about whether or not any particular law is fair or just. Many of us are lawyers (including me) and we are experts on what the law
is. And your arguments about what the law
is are easily dismissed. You're arguments about
what the law should be are not. They are your opinions, and many people here would be happy to discuss them with you if you like.
Yes I will agree on things relating to small issues. As far as the issues like the commerce clause that shape the power of the federal government and affect the fundamental design of our country, no, they haven't done a good job. In fact I would argue they have seriously eroded the foundation laid to protect our individual freedoms and state sovereignty, basically the core of what the constitution was created to protect.
OK! Good start. Here you are arguing that decisions reached by the U.S. Supreme Court (and, I assume, lesser courts) have "seriously eroded the foundation laid to protect our individual freedoms and state sovereignty, basically the core of what the constitution was created to protect." I disagree to varying levels with this statement (e.g.: I believe the Courts have done a good job protecting individual freedoms, I agree that they have eroded state sovereignty but feel that is mostly a good thing, etc.), but your's is certainly not an insane or foolish position to have at the outset. But here's the important thing:
it isn't germane to the discussions on this section of the forums. Here we attempt to focus on what the law actually is, not what it should be. What the structure of society
should be is an interesting and important discussion, but that isn't what we're talking about.
[Judge's are] simply people and just because they claim something is this way or that doesn't change what it really is. If it's baseless nonsense then its nonsense and people should say so regardless of who they are. People should be asking where's the support for this absurdity instead of saying "well, he's a judge what he says is law".
Here's where you screw up. As somone else pointed out, you seem to believe that the "law" exists independently of what is decided by the legislature and the judiciary (this simplifies the system, but I hope you understand what I mean). It DOESN'T. The law
is what the legislature and judiciary
do. We often don't like their decisions, but those decision remain the LAW. You know one way to tell what the law is? If you violate it and are caught, and go to prison or are fined by the government as a result, it is the law. This is a separate issue from whether a particular law or legal system is "moral" or "just." When we don't like those decisions, we can change them - through the vote, through protests, through argument. If we want to be radical, we can simply refuse to obey the law. However, it still remains THE LAW.
Specifically to your comments about "he's a judge what he says is law": we're trying to get you to understand the system first, so we're required to make broad statements to avoid confusing you. I'll try to take it up a notch: sometimes individual judges make mistakes as to what the law is or how to apply it. I'm a lawyer; I see it on ocassion. HOWEVER - and this is the important sentence - THEY ARE NOT THE MISTAKES THAT YOU THINK THEY ARE. They sometimes misinterpret statutes or precedent, or misapply them to the issues in front of them. To fix this, one appeals the decision. That's what appellate courts are for. In certain cases, you appeal it up to the Supreme Court. Eventually, though, the appeals process stops, and we are left with a body of caselaw that determines the interpretation of various statutes, precedent caselaw, the U.S. Constitution, State Constitutions, whatever. That is the LAW. The law is not ethereal - it does not exist outside of this system, waiting to be discovered by SteveSy. You may not like the system or the decisions it has reached - that's up to you - but it is what it is.
On some issues there is uncertainty and grey areas. It's inevitable, and there are methods in place to work them out. On the issue of the legality and constitutionality of the federal tax system there is no grey area. It is absolutely legal and constitutional. Why? Because the courts and the legislature have said it is legal and constitutional. They have said it so firmly, and so often, and for so many years that they have finally tired of listening to arguments to the contrary, and declared such arguments to be frivilous and punsihable by themselves as a waste of the Court's time. Making this sort of declaration is rare, and not done lightly. It means, that when you go to Court and make your ridiculous "legal" arguments, you will no longer be listened to, and you will be fined.
You may not LIKE it. You may find it unjust or immoral or not in the spirit of the founding fathers. These are not legal arguments, however. To eliminate the federal tax system will require: (1) electing enough representatives who also feel we can and should do without it, or (2) open revolution and the overthrow of the government (I'd suggest option one). Arguing in court that the tax system isn't constitutional is a dead-end. And, incidentally, it is not because of corruption on the part of the judiciary - it is because tax protester arguments - every one of them - are stupid and irrational legal gibberish. The courts don't decide against you because they are power-mad and corrupt; they decide against you because you're wrong.
OK, this has gone on too long, so I'm going to zip through a few of your weirder thoughts:
That is what its called isn't it an opinion?
Christ Almighty, Steve. What exactly do you think the role of the courts are? To rend "opinions" that those in front of the court are free to take or leave? Try telling that to someone in prison.
I have never accepted the concept of judge made law.
OK, you're obviously a really tough, independent kind of guy. Who gives a shit? Whether or not SteveSy "accepts the concept of judge made law," it still exists. You don't define reality, Sonny-Jim.
A precedent that goes against reason does not bind.
And who decides what precedents go against reason? You?
Finally, using Stalin as Hitler as demonstrations of leaders who made evil laws is an inapt comparison to the U.S., for all the reasons others have discussed on the thread. This has gone on too long, so I'll leave that discussion for another day.
