Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SampleMan

“Further, an law that requires that a group of lawyers vote on it to determine its meaning is worthless by definition.”

I think you hit the jackpot. It’s only worthless to us it’s a winner for lawyers.

If the reasonable man, of common law fame, can’t understand it it shouldn’t be made into a law.


27 posted on 02/07/2011 6:48:43 AM PST by A Strict Constructionist (Oligarchy...never vote for the Ivy League candidate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]


To: A Strict Constructionist

“If the reasonable man, of common law fame, can’t understand it it shouldn’t be made into a law.”

This was pretty much the express objective of Napoleon with the Code Civile of 1804. He wanted a body of law that any reasonably competent citizen could comprehend and rely upon. He considered the civil code to be his most significant achievement, and indeed it has proven to be so.


32 posted on 02/07/2011 7:47:49 AM PST by Psalm 144 (Voodoo Republicans - Don't read their lips. Watch their hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

To: A Strict Constructionist

If the reasonable man, of common law fame, can’t understand it it shouldn’t be made into a law.


What law can’t you understand? I know there are laws we don’t like (such as the tax code) but eliminating lawyers wouldn’t eliminate taxes.


39 posted on 02/07/2011 9:06:59 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson