random comments, random questions and thread titles made for Google

[science_man_88]

Originally Posted by jasong

That's one of the tricks the government uses, calling us tax protesters when we're actually constitutionalists. Constitutionalists believe that if you're not going to respect the will of the original writers, you need to either abolish what they wrote or gtfo. (and, no, gtfo is not legal parlance, I'm just a little pissed at how people dismiss us. No offense)


I remember writing that thread, not sure how hard it will be to find it again. I think the reason I walked away is because people weren't arguing against what I felt to be good points, they were just repeating what they read on the internet. Quoting isn't the same as reasoning.

I'll search for the old thread. And I'll review what you gave me, but those posts tend to dodge the actual issue, which is the fact that we're intended to be a nation of written law, not a nation run by judges that disagree. Also, I object to the word interpret when it comes to US law, law isn't supposed to be interpreted, it's supposed to be read. If a law is subject to interpretation, that should be seen as a flaw, not a reason to let a judge have their say.

shouldn't be all that hard if you remember enough. you can say all threads started by jasong 1 year ago or older and sort ascending and get threads from 2005 for example and you could limit the search to soapbox possibly etc.

[wombatman]

Originally Posted by jasong

That's one of the tricks the government uses, calling us tax protesters when we're actually constitutionalists. Constitutionalists believe that if you're not going to respect the will of the original writers, you need to either abolish what they wrote or gtfo. (and, no, gtfo is not legal parlance, I'm just a little pissed at how people dismiss us. No offense)


I remember writing that thread, not sure how hard it will be to find it again. I think the reason I walked away is because people weren't arguing against what I felt to be good points, they were just repeating what they read on the internet. Quoting isn't the same as reasoning.

I'll search for the old thread. And I'll review what you gave me, but those posts tend to dodge the actual issue, which is the fact that we're intended to be a nation of written law, not a nation run by judges that disagree. Also, I object to the word interpret when it comes to US law, law isn't supposed to be interpreted, it's supposed to be read. If a law is subject to interpretation, that should be seen as a flaw, not a reason to let a judge have their say.

So be it. I don't intend to engage you on it again except to say that if you're that confident in your legal scholarship, you're welcome to try it out in the courts (or try and convince someone else to do it). If you're as correct as you believe you are, then you'll be fine, and you'll set the legal precedent for anyone else to follow behind you. Reality, however, is that you'll go to jail for failure to pay your taxes because neither the Constitution nor the law (as written or interpreted) supports you.

[CRGreathouse]

Originally Posted by jasong

Also, I object to the word interpret when it comes to US law, law isn't supposed to be interpreted, it's supposed to be read. If a law is subject to interpretation, that should be seen as a flaw, not a reason to let a judge have their say.

The trouble is that different people have interpreted the text differently, as the matter at hand indicates. You're trying to convince us (or others) that your interpretation should be preferred to that of essentially all the judges who have considered the matter in the past.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by jasong

Also, I object to the word interpret when it comes to US law, law isn't supposed to be interpreted, it's supposed to be read. If a law is subject to interpretation, that should be seen as a flaw, not a reason to let a judge have their say.

You misunderstand. Law is software written by and for humans. Mostly it is interpreted; rarely compiled.

To continue the analogy, the Judges are the CPUs; you are just a User.

[jasong]

Originally Posted by wombatman

So be it. I don't intend to engage you on it again except to say that if you're that confident in your legal scholarship, you're welcome to try it out in the courts (or try and convince someone else to do it). If you're as correct as you believe you are, then you'll be fine, and you'll set the legal precedent for anyone else to follow behind you. Reality, however, is that you'll go to jail for failure to pay your taxes because neither the Constitution nor the law (as written or interpreted) supports you.

Tbh, the wind went out of my sails after I reread the thread. I think the real problem is this whole idea of the law being "interpreted." We've been going down this road for a century or more, so everyone just sees it as the status quo.

In my strongly held opinion, our problem is that the God of man has become man himself, and that is our true problem, with the legal clusterfuck known as the US government simply being a side effect.

The world is headed into a great turmoil and, while I'd rather it not happen, things are going to get very bad very quickly.

Makes me wonder if the seven trumps of the Apocalypse are a reference to Donald Trump. Obviously, the original word wasn't "Trump," but English is the most widely known language in the world, with more people speaking it as a second language than a first. If God is who He says He is, He could have anticipated these things, all the way down to the specific words His prophecies would be translated into.

Consider the nepotism Trump practices, even with governmental stuff. He could easily use his connections to put his family and, therefore, himself, into all sorts of positions he doesn't have access to now.

[jasong]

Originally Posted by CRGreathouse

The trouble is that different people have interpreted the text differently, as the matter at hand indicates. You're trying to convince us (or others) that your interpretation should be preferred to that of essentially all the judges who have considered the matter in the past.

When you interpret the law, it is best to try to invoke the mindset of the original people that passed the law. Just like, when Christians interpret the Bible, they're supposed to invoke the attitude of Jesus in their interpretation.

That's another huge problem, judges "interpreting" the law in a way that suits them, rather than indirectly respecting the will of the people by invoking the attitude of the original writer of the law when deciding a case.

[jasong]

Originally Posted by chalsall

You misunderstand. Law is software written by and for humans. Mostly it is interpreted; rarely compiled.

To continue the analogy, the Judges are the CPUs; you are just a User.

Let's take the analogy a little further, the CPUs iterate the law, they don't make decisions about it. If we are willing to go back to the compile analogy, then the judge's cases can be seen as pointing out the flaws in the "code."

[wombatman]

Originally Posted by jasong

When you interpret the law, it is best to try to invoke the mindset of the original people that passed the law. Just like, when Christians interpret the Bible, they're supposed to invoke the attitude of Jesus in their interpretation.

That's another huge problem, judges "interpreting" the law in a way that suits them, rather than indirectly respecting the will of the people by invoking the attitude of the original writer of the law when deciding a case.

You're still doing what is described below by asserting that Originalism is the best way to deal with the law. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism) There are numerous legal scholars who disagree with you, and even among those who agree with you, there is disagreement on what that actually means in practice.

Originally Posted by CRGreathouse

The trouble is that different people have interpreted the text differently, as the matter at hand indicates. You're trying to convince us (or others) that your interpretation should be preferred to that of essentially all the judges who have considered the matter in the past.

I'm curious how you square away the interaction of the Constitution with technological advancements the writers could not have imagined. Additionally, how do you deal with the limitations placed on rights enumerated in the Constitution (see, for instance, limitations on free speech with regards to inciting violence)? No matter what, judges must be interpreting the law, even in the form of the Constitution. Shit, look at the 8th amendment (barring cruel and unusual punishment). I daresay that our collective idea of what constitutes "cruel and unusual" has changed somewhat significantly from when the writers wrote that.

Originally Posted by chalsall

You misunderstand. Law is software written by and for humans. Mostly it is interpreted; rarely compiled.

To continue the analogy, the Judges are the CPUs; you are just a User.

I like this analogy.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by jasong

Let's take the analogy a little further, the CPUs iterate the law, they don't make decisions about it.

I have to admit that is a rather clever response. But, again, you are incorrect.

If you have done any work with modern software, you would know that both interpreters and compilers make many decisions. As do the CPUs (predictive branching, for example).

Originally Posted by jasong

If we are willing to go back to the compile analogy, then the judge's cases can be seen as pointing out the flaws in the "code."

A better analogy would be JIT compiling (precedents).

As wombatman said above, if you are confident you are a better interpreter than many judges, go at it!

[jasong]

Originally Posted by chalsall

I have to admit that is a rather clever response. But, again, you are incorrect.

If you have done any work with modern software, you would know that both interpreters and compilers make many decisions. As do the CPUs (predictive branching, for example).

Even with the branch prediction, it is a deterministic behavior.

A better analogy would be JIT compiling (precedents).

As wombatman said above, if you are confident you are a better interpreter than many judges, go at it!

I'm not saying I'm better at reading the law, I'm saying I believe the way they read the law is misguided.

[jasong]

Can we at least agree that if people are going to make fun, they should refrain from posting?

I've never claimed I'm smarter or better than the judges, I'm simply giving my views on what I think is badly wrong in the US of A.