Oh source of all knowledge, I need help

izzarina · Post by **izzarina** » Wed Aug 20, 2008 10:47 am

Denny wrote:having a clue has become a prerequisite to posting?

some of the members here are NOT going to take that well....

Ummm......yeah........I won't be posting for a while

Denny · Post by **Denny** » Wed Aug 20, 2008 10:53 am

little late for that innit?

where ya been?

Innocent Bystander · Post by **Innocent Bystander** » Wed Aug 20, 2008 10:53 am

Denny wrote:having a clue has become a prerequisite to posting?

some of the members here are NOT going to take that well....

I had a clue once. It's around here someplace.

izzarina · Post by **izzarina** » Wed Aug 20, 2008 11:05 am

Denny wrote:little late for that innit?

where ya been?

Trying to find my clue?

Denny · Post by **Denny** » Wed Aug 20, 2008 11:10 am

I'd dropped mine while hiding under my desk...

found it the next time

YMMV

Cork · Post by **Cork** » Wed Aug 20, 2008 11:18 am

A clue?

No!

I lost mine years ago, which then made life so much easier.

:-D

s1m0n · Post by **s1m0n** » Wed Aug 20, 2008 11:22 am

Bloomfield wrote:
Innocent Bystander wrote:The law is built to be literal. That is why it is so wordy: the words have an exact meaning.
Exact meaning my foot.

I'm with Bloom. Law codes which operate according to the "words have literal meanings" principle have been created, but while the idea makes some sense in the abstract, in the concrete they were disasters.

Napoleon's legal reforms (the Napoleonic Code) were predicated on this. He thought France to do away with judges during sentencing; that the law would be just like a mathematic equation--apply the correct formula, and the law indicates the appropriate punishment.

It worked really badly, as you might expect. Humans and conditions are too complex for that rigid approach, and words--the 'exact' meanings of words--were too fluid.

Even if a word has only one meaning the day it was written into the legal code, in remarkably short order that word can come to have a very different meaning which changes thrust of whatever law its in.

So back the judges came. It turns out that laws need judges--people who apply the essential but impossible to define degree of human understanding who are charged with interpreting the laws.

Lambchop · Post by **Lambchop** » Wed Aug 20, 2008 8:45 pm

BigDavy wrote:
Lambchop wrote:

One example was for revocation of a driver's license for DUI. While this may be required by the statute, one also has to consider if revocation will prevent the individual from earning a living.

That may work in the US Lamby, but that argument would not work here, get caught DUI - bye bye license whether you need it for your job or not. You might get a reduced ban if there are extenuating circumstances, but it will likely be a minimum of 1 year plus a fine of the equivelant of $1000 upwards (to a max of $5000). If the offence is judged serious enough it can mean prison.

David

Well, I see your point. The citation, however, was from a case in Virginia. West Virginia, to be exact. You have to make allowances for that. They still moonshine and eat possum there.