June 12, 2007
What Is It About The Law That You Don't Understand? The L., The A., Or The W.?
My good friend John Bambenek writes a terrific blog over at Part Time Pundit and is a blogger's blogger. John puts thought out posts, and very well thought out posts I might add, in a variety of places. Today, John sent me an e-mail letting me (and a few others) know that he had posted at Blog Critics a new article titled "What the Law is vs. What the Law Ought to Be". Now THIS is a read.
John's premise is that the law needs to be interpreted as it is written, not as someone thinks it ought to read. And he makes some outstanding arguments. Go and read, comment there then come back and let me know what you thought. Good job John, damn good job!
Posted by GM Roper at June 12, 2007 03:32 PM | TrackBackThe basic principle seems rather uncontroversial. The lines aren't always so clear in practice. In mental health law, we have several things which have grown up over the years in response to worst-case scenarios which are simply terrible interpretations of law for 95% of patients and communities. Some judges apply the precedents strictly, reasoning that they force the system, and thus the laws, to become better. Others rule more broadly, reasoning that dangerousness in the community, or abridgement of rights, is a problem right now today, with an actual citizen on the receiving end.
Posted by Assistant Village Idiot at June 12, 2007 05:43 PM
It's not up to judges to "correct errors" of the legislature. Sure there are injustices against individuals caused by laws not completed thought through, such as with that kid in Georgia sentenced to ten years for a Lewinsky with a minor, but there are right ways to correct them and to do so without far reaching consequences. The legislature can correct the errors or the governor can give pardons. The judges just need to enforce the laws or rule if they are honestly unconstitutional.
Andrew Jackson is claimed to have said about a Supreme Court ruling overturning an act, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!" Ahhh, the good ol' days.
Posted by Woody at June 13, 2007 06:02 AM
Cases like this should cause a society to look at the laws involved; laws are drafted in response to issues faced by the people. Old stale rulings and silly laws should be reviewed periodically and a process of change initiated when called for. Going by the book, without regard to the modern societal expectations and morals and values is dumb; the law is the law but there has to be a fair process to change outdated ones. Excellent post by John.
Posted by Raven at June 13, 2007 04:10 PM
I don't accept the concept of a "living, breathing Constitution," as forwarded by liberals who think that such a term justifies corrupting its intent. Granted, I don't think that a law requiring someone to walk ten feet in front of a motor car at night with a lantern is still needed since we have headlights that shine further, but that isn't the type of thing that the liberals and ACLU want changed.
Posted by Woody at June 14, 2007 08:24 AM
