Monday, May 13, 2013

Verb sap

Today's lesson in Latin:
ignorantia legis neminem excusat
I have been known to say that a trained chimp could practise law (and can if he passes the bar).

On the other hand, I have noticed a bad case of why it is said that anyone who has themselves as a lawyer has a fool for a client coupled with why "A little Learning is a dang'rous Thing".

If you can say that waging war is somehow acceptable according to the Constitution.

And don't understand the significance of this quote (even with my little hint here):
The obvious purpose of the statute is to protect existing Government, not from change by peaceable, lawful and constitutional means, but from change by violence, revolution and terrorism. That it is within the power of the Congress to protect the Government of the United States from armed rebellion is a proposition which requires little discussion. Whatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a “right” to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change. We reject any principle of governmental helplessness in the face of preparation for revolution, which principle, carried to its logical conclusion, must lead to anarchy. No one could conceive that it is not within the power of Congress to prohibit acts intended to overthrow the Government by force and violence. The question with which we are concerned here is not whether Congress has such power, but whether the means which it has employed conflict with the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951)
Then, you really have no reason to pretend you understand law.

Or to criticise my intellect.

3 comments:

  1. Laci - is there any action the government could take that you would say permits a violent rebellion against it?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Laci, you keep missing the point. Of course, legal systems aren't going to include a mechanism to allow insurrection. That's not the point. The real argument is as follows:

    1. Governments and legal systems do at times run amok and decompensate into tyranny.

    2. Such governments and systems thereby lose their moral authority.

    3. In such a case, an armed citizenry has a better chance to resist tyranny and overthrow it.

    You keep ignoring point #2. The implication of your postings is that the law always has moral force, regardless of the nature of the law. That's a valid philosophical position to take, no matter how repugnant it is to me. But I'd like you to be explicit about it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Then, you really have no reason to pretend you understand law.

    Or to criticise my intellect."

    Laci, when you say stuff like that it takes me back to the reason I stopped listening to Rush, because he said stuff like that a lot too.

    ReplyDelete