What makes law legal?

[JLM]

SirJosephPorter, while it is true that John McCain had no executive experience, neither had Obama. And on the ticket in 2008, Republicans had more qualifications than the Democrats.

Obama got elected only for reasons of political correctness and affirmative action.
The way Obama became a "professor".

Hey, Y.J.- I presume you are a Canadian- yet you are persisting with an American issue. Good or bad (I'm open to having either assessment proven to me) he is what the American people wanted on Nov. 4 2008 and I think that fact trumps all other considerations. :lol:

 

[El Barto]

Well that's what I said right?


''We vote for people who have the responsibility of ensuring justice for all by administering the courts, police, army etc. ''

It's true that we don't vote for judges and policemen. Perhaps we should. I'd have to give it some thought.

To vote for judges we would have to do our duty to get informed on the judges themselves and how they perform, other wise it would be useless to vote for them blindly.

 

[YukonJack]

JLM, I am Canadian by naturalization. I know, in the minds of some people is not worth the certificate it is written on, but having been a citizen longer than some of my detractors, let me say this: While I am Canadian, I am not ready to trash my American friends, who stood guard over us during the Cold War.

I will not join the pseudo-patriot "canadians" whose patriotism is manifested in nothing more than anti-Yankee crap and baseless claims to be the best in the world.

If objectivity is a sin and a vice and a crime, I am guilty.

And the reason I am interested in American history is the undeniable fact - rgardless of the claims of the late Pierre Berton - Canadian history is a deadly bore.

 

[Cliffy]

Cliffy, a murderer lives outside of the law.
An embezzler lives outside of the law.
A rapist and a pedophile lives outside of the law.

Are they really HONEST in your opinion?

If you don't agree that murder is wrong, or if you think that stealing from others is OK, or if you think that diddling kids is just mighty fine and don't agree with the law that says otherwise, makes you an honest person, you are welcome to that view.

People who break the law are just on the wrong side of it. As long as a person knows they are breaking the law, they believe in it, they are subject to it. To live outside the law takes an honest person, one who respects the rights of others, who treats everybody equally, with respect and honour. Do you know many people like that? Do you respect and honour Obama, for example? It looks to me like you need the law Jack.

 

[AnnaG]

Well that's what I said right?


''We vote for people who have the responsibility of ensuring justice for all by administering the courts, police, army etc. ''

It's true that we don't vote for judges and policemen. Perhaps we should. I'd have to give it some thought.

Just what we need, more politicians to vote for. We can't even be happy with the ones we have. Having more won't make anything any better. I kind of like having one standardised version of law (criminal as opposed to municipal) rather than a few hundred different versions.

 

[El Barto]

Just what we need, more politicians to vote for. We can't even be happy with the ones we have. Having more won't make anything any better. I kind of like having one standardised version of law (criminal as opposed to municipal) rather than a few hundred different versions.

No Anna , not voting for more politicians but voting for who's appointed instead ....

 

[AnnaG]

People who break the law are just on the wrong side of it. As long as a person knows they are breaking the law, they believe in it, they are subject to it. To live outside the law takes an honest person, one who respects the rights of others, who treats everybody equally, with respect and honour.

So the guy who phones me and tells me that I won something and can claim it if I just send money to cover shipping and handling is an honest, respectful, and honorable guy? Interesting.
The guy who raped a friend of mine is only on the wrong side of the law and is really a respectful and honest guy?
Cliffy, is it mushroom season over there?

No Anna , not voting for more politicians but voting for who's appointed instead ....

hhhmmmm An elected appointed official.

 

[El Barto]

No Anna , a right to say who will be judge and not left to politicians to appoint friends or special interest

 

[AnnaG]

No Anna , a right to say who will be judge and not left to politicians to appoint friends or special interest

An elected judge. I want to elect my favorite judge. He's a libertarian. The neighbor wants a judge who is a fire and brimstone, tyrannical sadist.
So some guy nailed for distributing a couple bags of pot goes against my judge and gets a $50 fine. The other guy who sold a couple bags of pot goes against the sadistic creep and gets 20 years. Peachy.
More election campaigns? I can't wait.
I think it'd just be easier to screen better the ones we use now.

 

[El Barto]

An elected judge. I want to elect my favorite judge. He's a libertarian. The neighbor wants a judge who is a fire and brimstone, tyrannical sadist.
So some guy nailed for distributing a couple bags of pot goes against my judge and gets a $50 fine. The other guy who sold a couple bags of pot goes against the sadistic creep and gets 20 years. Peachy.
More election campaigns? I can't wait.

I rather that than someone imposing thier agenda in an undemocratic way .

 

[SirJosephPorter]

The democratic process in itself is what makes our laws legal. It's an equal power play between the population and those that are elected.

We should be thankful for this but also careful of the growing movement of apathy and cynicism when it comes to the democratic process.

Quite so, to me the issue is simple. Due process, Democratic process is what makes a law legal. People may agree with the law or they may not, that is of secondary consideration.

However, Democratic process applies in democracies only. But due process holds true in every country, democracy, Communism or dictatorship.

Thus, in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, the due process was that Saddam decrees something to be the law and it is a law. That was the due process. I assume that is also the due process today in North Korea. Or in Saudi Arabia or Iran the due process would be that an Imam, Ayatollah or a Mullah issues a fatwa and it is passed into law by whatever governing body they have there.

So due process would vary from country to country. But again, peoples’ wishes are not paramount.

 

[AnnaG]

I rather that than someone imposing thier agenda in an undemocratic way .

What agendas do Canadian judges have?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

SirJosephPorter, while it is true that John McCain had no executive experience, neither had Obama. And on the ticket in 2008, Republicans had more qualifications than the Democrats.

Obama got elected only for reasons of political correctness and affirmative action.
The way Obama became a "professor".

I see you didn't answer my question. If McCain had been elected, would you have brought up his lack of executive experience? I seriously doubt it.

Your problem is that you think every Democratic president was not qualified, so you will bring up whatever negative you can think of about them. By the same token, you think that every Republican candidate is eminently qualified, so you will overlook their shortcomings (like lack of executive experience in McCain or Bob Dole).

So executive experience (or lack of it) really doesn't have anything to do with it.

 

[El Barto]

What agendas do Canadian judges have?

Not the judges but the politicians that appoint them !

 

[AnnaG]

Quite so, to me the issue is simple. Due process, Democratic process is what makes a law legal. People may agree with the law or they may not, that is of secondary consideration.

However, Democratic process applies in democracies only. But due process holds true in every country, democracy, Communism or dictatorship.

Thus, in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, the due process was that Saddam decrees something to be the law and it is a law. That was the due process. I assume that is also the due process today in North Korea. Or in Saudi Arabia or Iran the due process would be that an Imam, Ayatollah or a Mullah issues a fatwa and it is passed into law by whatever governing body they have there.

So due process would vary from country to country. But again, peoples’ wishes are not paramount.

Which is why societies are in such a mess. The prime concern should be the people's, not the societies' welfare. Societies were developed to serve people and their interests, they weren't developed so that people could serve them. What you seem to want is a "1984" society. Nuts. PEOPLE are the important factor.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

To vote for judges we would have to do our duty to get informed on the judges themselves and how they perform, other wise it would be useless to vote for them blindly.

Voting for judges? Terrible idea.

 

[AnnaG]

Not the judges but the politicians that appoint them !

We do that now. We elect the people that appoint judges. You want the people we elect to elect judges, cops, etc.?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

JLM, I am Canadian by naturalization. I know, in the minds of some people is not worth the certificate it is written on, but having been a citizen longer than some of my detractors, let me say this: While I am Canadian, I am not ready to trash my American friends, who stood guard over us during the Cold War.

You mean you are not ready to trash your Republican friends, you have no problem trashing Democrats.

 

[El Barto]

We do that now. We elect the people that appoint judges. You want the people we elect to elect judges, cops, etc.?

at least the judges

 

[AnnaG]

at least the judges

roflmao I hate politicians in general. (Politicians being the ones we elect to screw up what we want them to do).