Did you ever wonder why Moses didn't bring down 2,742 commandments from Mount Sinai instead of 10? Maybe because God knew people would barely remember 10 (can you name all ten without looking them up?) and wouldn't even try with 2,742 commandments. With 2,742 commandments, you were bound to be breaking one or two without even realizing it.
Of course the Levites didn't refrain from commenting on the "BIG 10" until the books containing the commentaries were too difficult to lift without help.
I fear that our legislators think they are being paid by how many words they write into law, and they need to make sure their constituents are getting their moneys worth.
Will Rogers said "Yes, Government is expensive. Just be happy we aren't getting as much Government as we are paying for!"
God help us...
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
tyrany of the precendent
The Judiciary is there to moderate the law. If there is a situation brought to court that the law covers, but doesn't cover properly. Then the courts could make a ruling on the specifics of that particular case. This gave the judge the opportunity to render justice within the law when the letter of the law would create more harm then good. This put a lot of pressure on the judge to have good judgement.
Being human, a judge can have good days and bad days. The judge can have a bias that would cause the judge to consistently incline in one direction or another, creating a situation where a ruling could change less on the merits of a case than on simply cherry-picking one judge over another. Not so good.
The idea of a precedent, is that how one judge ruled on a particular case, would require that the judge on this case would be required to uphold the previous judgement. This would lend consistency, but would also tie the hands of the following judges. You also assume the first judge is smarter, wiser, and was generally "on his game" better than anyone following. Also not good.
If precedent is sovereign, then a situation arises where the Judiciary begins to interpret the law in such a way that the Legislature hadn't intended. You end up with a situation where we are ruled by "who had the better lawyer" in any given situation. This may be worse than the other two combined.
So we end up with a "Zero tolerance policy" that demands 100% compliance with 0% freedom and justice.
God help us!
Being human, a judge can have good days and bad days. The judge can have a bias that would cause the judge to consistently incline in one direction or another, creating a situation where a ruling could change less on the merits of a case than on simply cherry-picking one judge over another. Not so good.
The idea of a precedent, is that how one judge ruled on a particular case, would require that the judge on this case would be required to uphold the previous judgement. This would lend consistency, but would also tie the hands of the following judges. You also assume the first judge is smarter, wiser, and was generally "on his game" better than anyone following. Also not good.
If precedent is sovereign, then a situation arises where the Judiciary begins to interpret the law in such a way that the Legislature hadn't intended. You end up with a situation where we are ruled by "who had the better lawyer" in any given situation. This may be worse than the other two combined.
So we end up with a "Zero tolerance policy" that demands 100% compliance with 0% freedom and justice.
God help us!
Monday, March 26, 2012
Government legislation.
The things the government does tends to be "one size fits all". Unfortunately we aren't all the same size. I have my own thoughts about abortion, religion, the death penalty, fiscal responsibility, and dental hygiene. And with all due respect, my thoughts are better than yours. Or the Government's thoughts for that matter.
Giaus Cornelius Tacitus was a Senator, Governor and Historian in ancient Rome during the reigns of Tiberius, Caligulia, and Nero.
Tacitus made the observation that "the more corrupt the Government, the more numerous the laws".
Sound familiar?
I am sure that our Government feels that it is making the best decisions for the welfare of the American people, but the people in government really need to read Tacitus.
Don't get me wrong. I am not fomenting rebellion or talking treason. I am just observing that, like Thomas Jefferson, Governments tend to govern best which govern least.
Giaus Cornelius Tacitus was a Senator, Governor and Historian in ancient Rome during the reigns of Tiberius, Caligulia, and Nero.
Tacitus made the observation that "the more corrupt the Government, the more numerous the laws".
Sound familiar?
I am sure that our Government feels that it is making the best decisions for the welfare of the American people, but the people in government really need to read Tacitus.
Don't get me wrong. I am not fomenting rebellion or talking treason. I am just observing that, like Thomas Jefferson, Governments tend to govern best which govern least.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)