Court ruling transportation rights

[Garb]

I don't believe SemperFi is saying you must be a lawyer to understand the law. I believe he's saying that if you are going to issue opinions on the law as if they were settled law, then you should base those opinions on the law, and not what you think. The law school jibe is making the point that you are giving an opinion, but not a legal one.

But everyone should agree with my opinion!

No haha, I get what you're saying. Like I said, I don't claim to have any amount of legal training, and I definitely see where you guys are coming from. I just disagree with the laws themselves, not with the fact that they are in place and the government is enforcing them.

 

[MeltonLaw]

I get what you're saying, but the point is that going to law school doesn't automatically make you an expert in the law. It's the person, not the fact that they went to law school. I'm not bashing on you as a person or a lawyer, you've definitely put up a hell of a debate, but the idea that you must be a lawyer to interpret laws is completely ridiculous. That's like saying to work on a car I HAVE to be an ASE certified mechanic. Granted, there are some things that I don't know, but that doesn't mean I'm an illiterate when it comes to the law as you are implying.

Exactly, to be professional and understand the intricacies you must be trained in that specific profession. Sitting here citing to statutory authority without understanding the process behind the statute or how the statute is applied is simply misguided spewing of information. I can change my own oil but I certainly cannot strip my engine down to its components. I would go to someone that is trained to do so. This is why we have people that put forth the effort to be experts in interpreting the laws as they are written and decided. Anyone can read the laws and attempt to say what they mean. But without background knowledge and training you are just grasping at the literal meaning of the words and unable to decipher the intricacies of the actual argument. Case in point, the Virginia case that brought this whole discussion up was not so much about rights but concerned, mostly, the non-delegation doctrine.
As to the philosopher amongst us, you are ridiculous. Do you honestly believe the stuff you are spewing. If so you are completely ignoring the concept of the social compact. Further, if you were/are a philosopher, you would recognize that my prior post referenced the philosopher king. This not a true king but an idealistic king concocted by no other than Plato in his famous work The Republic. But since you have a doctorate in philosophy or know so much about it then you already saw that.

 

[MeltonLaw]

The jury thing is another example of misreading a statute. This would suggest that the jury would be the judge of both law and fact. Any first year law student would tell you that this is not what occurs. The court determines issues of law and the jury issues of fact. In this state the statute may claim that the jury decides both but that is not the way that it works. If this were the case then any time that a jury did not like a law they could just rule the defendant, criminal or civil, not guilty. This is what is known as jury nullification. In Indiana, whose provision mentioned above is an outlier, the Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean that the jury should consider the law in light of the instructions given by the judge. Thus they still have to listen, and ultimately decide, using the law that the judge has instructed them to.

 

[mrjarrell]

Yeah, because it's not written in plain English.

Section 19. In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts.

Nullification is built into the Constitution.

 

[MeltonLaw]

Where is nullification in the Indiana Constitution?

 

[Garb]

Exactly, to be professional and understand the intricacies you must be trained in that specific profession. Sitting here citing to statutory authority without understanding the process behind the statute or how the statute is applied is simply misguided spewing of information. I can change my own oil but I certainly cannot strip my engine down to its components. I would go to someone that is trained to do so. This is why we have people that put forth the effort to be experts in interpreting the laws as they are written and decided. Anyone can read the laws and attempt to say what they mean. But without background knowledge and training you are just grasping at the literal meaning of the words and unable to decipher the intricacies of the actual argument. Case in point, the Virginia case that brought this whole discussion up was not so much about rights but concerned, mostly, the non-delegation doctrine.
As to the philosopher amongst us, you are ridiculous. Do you honestly believe the stuff you are spewing. If so you are completely ignoring the concept of the social compact. Further, if you were/are a philosopher, you would recognize that my prior post referenced the philosopher king. This not a true king but an idealistic king concocted by no other than Plato in his famous work The Republic. But since you have a doctorate in philosophy or know so much about it then you already saw that.

So apparently I have to have a doctorate in philosophy AND be a lawyer to simply have an opinion. I'll give you the fact that I'm not a professional at law, but your whole argument about stripping the engine is bogus, because the average joe, with the right application, can still teach themselves those things. I'm guessing that you DO have a doctorate in philosophy since you keep bringing it up, and you think it makes you the king of all things philosophical, but please, don't talk to me like I'm an ignorant five year old. What stuff am I spewing that I shouldn't believe in? That the income tax and the driver's license are ridiculous? That's a matter of opinion. And no, I didn't recognize your prior post because I really didn't give a crap what you were saying, and I still don't.

 

[MeltonLaw]

No I have a juris doctorate. That was not directed at you. I highly doubt that the average Joe can teach themselves how to strip a complex modern engine. There are simply too many intricate parts that must be put in place in an exact order or you will have a whole lot of troubles. Hence mechanics are trained professionals. As far as income tax and driver's licenses are concerned I have not expressed an opinion either way. I have simply pointed out that: 1. the case that initiated this conversation has no real application; 2. that professionals are called that because of their knowledge of the subject matter; 3. that the other guy, Machete, is spewing a ridiculous concept involving natural law alone without recognizing other elements. But since you want to take offense at my comments then be my guest. Would not be the first time.

 

[Garb]

No I have a juris doctorate. That was not directed at you. I highly doubt that the average Joe can teach themselves how to strip a complex modern engine. There are simply too many intricate parts that must be put in place in an exact order or you will have a whole lot of troubles. Hence mechanics are trained professionals. As far as income tax and driver's licenses are concerned I have not expressed an opinion either way. I have simply pointed out that: 1. the case that initiated this conversation has no real application; 2. that professionals are called that because of their knowledge of the subject matter; 3. that the other guy, Machete, is spewing a ridiculous concept involving natural law alone without recognizing other elements. But since you want to take offense at my comments then be my guest. Would not be the first time.

I was under the impression that your entire post was directed at me considering you quoted me and not Machete. I don't take offense to different opinions, I only take offense when people act like I'm a moron because they don't agree with mine, so I apologize for coming across like a douche lol.

 

[Dashman010]

The problem with the basic premise of this thread, and many like it, is a serious misconception about the term "rights." Contrary to many peoples beliefs, having a "right" does not mean that you can do something with no restirctions whatsoever in any situation under any circumstances. It is not unlimited, or absolute, or something that can't be encumbered. It can. Many will offer that this isn't correct, that our right to bear arms is absolute, that the right to drive is absolute and that a driver's license can never be required, and to those people, I offer one simple example:

Few would disagree that we have a "right" to life -- that is, to actually live, and breath, and exist. But when a rapist breaks into your house in the middle of the night and you wake up with your glock, 1911, [insert your weapon of choice here], his right to life abruptly ends. Society -- "us" -- has decided that your right to life is limited in the event you perform certain actions. The rapist's life in this scenario, which he had a full right to before he decided to break into your house, he now has no interest in. He no longer has a right to live. And why? Because "we" have decided that his right should be so limited for the preservation of other people.

The same applies to a driver's license. You may very well have a "right" to travel among the several states, but that doesn't mean "the people" can't decide who gets to do so in a car based on a set of criteria they prescribe.

Break into someone's house --> No right to life

12 years old? Drive under the influence? Can't show via a test that you won't be a substantial danger to someone else while driving? --> No right to drive a car. It's as simple as that.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I get what you're saying, but the point is that going to law school doesn't automatically make you an expert in the law. It's the person, not the fact that they went to law school. I'm not bashing on you as a person or a lawyer, you've definitely put up a hell of a debate, but the idea that you must be a lawyer to interpret laws is completely ridiculous. That's like saying to work on a car I HAVE to be an ASE certified mechanic. Granted, there are some things that I don't know, but that doesn't mean I'm an illiterate when it comes to the law as you are implying.

You are absolutely right. Going to law school does not make you an expert at interpreting the law. You know what does? Writing legislation. Clerking for a judge. Working in a law firm every day. Lawyers are as specialized, maybe moreso, than doctors. I would never hire a bankruptcy lawyer to do anything other than file a bankruptcy. Or divorce lawyer. Or trademark. Or any of the other dozens of specialties.

What law school does do is teach you the nuances. The meaning of precedence and supremacy. How to apply the law. How the order and meaning of words matter. That the difference in punctuation matters. That the written law is imporant, but that case law (how that law has been applied) is more important. That what you see is not what you get.

Sure you can have an opinion on the law. It might even be correct. Most of the time my education drives me toward a more correct and informed opinion than a layman. That doesn't mean I'm always right. Just more informed. While not trying to speak for him, I think that what Melton is saying, and I would agree, is accept opinions from experts not as the word of but as a more informed opinion. Not lawyer worship, but maybe question rather than no you're WRONG!!!! WRONG..!!!.. WRONG... because everyone else that knows less than you do doesn't agree.

I don't believe SemperFi is saying you must be a lawyer to understand the law. I believe he's saying that if you are going to issue opinions on the law as if they were settled law, then you should base those opinions on the law, and not what you think. The law school jibe is making the point that you are giving an opinion, but not a legal one.

Yes. It's one thing to say I hate the income tax. In fact, I DO hate the income tax. It's another to claim it unconstitutional when you obviously don't even know what the word means. It's yet another to cling to a goofy belief in the face of evidence you are wrong.

So apparently I have to have a doctorate in philosophy AND be a lawyer to simply have an opinion. I'll give you the fact that I'm not a professional at law, but your whole argument about stripping the engine is bogus, because the average joe, with the right application, can still teach themselves those things. I'm guessing that you DO have a doctorate in philosophy since you keep bringing it up, and you think it makes you the king of all things philosophical, but please, don't talk to me like I'm an ignorant five year old. What stuff am I spewing that I shouldn't believe in? That the income tax and the driver's license are ridiculous? That's a matter of opinion. And no, I didn't recognize your prior post because I really didn't give a crap what you were saying, and I still don't.

No, you don't need a PhD or a JD to have an opinion. There's a better chance it will be right if you have some education. But an opinion is just that.

 

[Garb]

You are absolutely right. Going to law school does not make you an expert at interpreting the law. You know what does? Writing legislation. Clerking for a judge. Working in a law firm every day. Lawyers are as specialized, maybe moreso, than doctors. I would never hire a bankruptcy lawyer to do anything other than file a bankruptcy. Or divorce lawyer. Or trademark. Or any of the other dozens of specialties.

What law school does do is teach you the nuances. The meaning of precedence and supremacy. How to apply the law. How the order and meaning of words matter. That the difference in punctuation matters. That the written law is imporant, but that case law (how that law has been applied) is more important. That what you see is not what you get.

Sure you can have an opinion on the law. It might even be correct. Most of the time my education drives me toward a more correct and informed opinion than a layman. That doesn't mean I'm always right. Just more informed. While not trying to speak for him, I think that what Melton is saying, and I would agree, is accept opinions from experts not as the word of but as a more informed opinion. Not lawyer worship, but maybe question rather than no you're WRONG!!!! WRONG..!!!.. WRONG... because everyone else that knows less than you do doesn't agree.

Well honestly, I am still just a humble college student, and am still forming my opinion on many issues. I argue so adamantly in order to validate my position to myself, not necessarily persuade anyone else of it. I still hold to my opinion that both the driver's license and the income tax are unnecessary crap, but I also am open to the possibility that I am wrong on both of those issues. This forum has helped me form many of my opinions, and learn to defend them well. I have to say though, this new trend annoys the crap out of my fiance lol.

 

[MeltonLaw]

Tell me about it. One of my exes would start crying when we were at odds on political issues. Not because I was abusive but because none of her arguments would be well founded enough to resist scrutiny in tact. Instead the emotional aspect would crop up with all of the incidents that attend it.

 

[ocsdor]

...Going to law school does not make you an expert at interpreting the law. You know what does? Writing legislation. Clerking for a judge. Working in a law firm every day.

Out of curiosity, have you done (or do you do) any of these?

 

[Garb]

Tell me about it. One of my exes would start crying when we were at odds on political issues. Not because I was abusive but because none of her arguments would be well founded enough to resist scrutiny in tact. Instead the emotional aspect would crop up with all of the incidents that attend it.

She doesn't cry... she just gets pissed and tells me she doesn't care. She told me the other day that I defend my positions with facts, and she just thinks what she does just because. I asked her how she could feel comfortable taking a position on anything. Sheesh won't do that again lol.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Out of curiosity, have you done (or do you do) any of these?

Yes.

 

[Bondhead88]

Again. Law school is a great place to learn about the law and its application.

States have the powers granted them in the Constitution, which are any powers not specifically delegated to the federal government or denied the States. As goofy as it sounds, as long as it did not interfere with commerce (which it most likely would) strictly speaking a state could regulate what you could eat. What would hopefully happen is that any legislator voting for such a draconian and goofy law would be replaced at the first opportunity.

The ultimate government check and balance occurs every couple years at the ballot box.

Actually law schools are horrible place to learn the law in our society as law schools no longer teach constitutional law as the foundation.

An example of that would be during the O'Donnell/Coons debate.

O'Donnelll asked where in the Constitution does it say "separation of church & state" and the students all gapsed and snickered.

What was amazing was not O'Donnell's comment (which was factual) it was the student's lack of understanding constitutional law.

 

[Archaic_Entity]

Man,,,is that a GREAT response!!!

Governments only have powers given to them by the PEOPLE! Governments arent allowed to do anything they want as long as theres nothing in a state or US constitution telling them they cant,,, They first have to get,,,a permission by the PEOPLE to do something!!! If the government cant point to an express constitutional authority, then they shouldnt be doing it,,,

What you're missing, I think, and someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong (as I am but a layman >.>), is that the people are the first portion of everything. Even in the 10th Amendment, which states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

points out that the powers not delegated are reserved for the States and the people. Note that we are a Republic and when we elect representatives for us within even the state and local governments, we are appointing representatives to be the voice of the people. What this means is that they are the people in power for the people. If they decide to regulate the food we eat (in a lawful manner) then we are to obey the law because this is "the will of the people." If we find this law egregious then we vote out the representative and appoint one that aligns with the views of the people.

The point of this system is that the representatives who make laws are supposed to reflect the viewpoints of their constituents; therefore, if we elected them then they must represent our will which is why their laws are binding. The failsafe, as SemperFi pointed out, is the ballot box where we officially file our complaints. The Constitutional authority is the 10th Amendment.

So is the FBI academy or KGB training camp. Law school and cop academies only teach people a biased version of what you can use the law to get away with and how to craftily justify what youre doing against the law to make it appear legal...

Study law independently if you really want to, learn it, then quote it. Once you can display that you actually do have an understanding of it from your independent study, then maybe there would be more validity in your standing. Otherwise, go to law school. There you do receive training on law from law professionals. Sure, it may be biased, but if you're intelligent, you'll form your own opinions and be able to sift fact from opinion.

If you want to learn what law really is,,,you become a philosopher... Id be happier with philosophy courts with philosophers as judges instead of the system of lawyers and judges (liars and schemers) we have today! Real law doesnt occur in legislatures or in constitutions...real law has always been there....

Untrue. You're speaking about hypotheticals that don't necessarily apply to American law. Just because we draw ideals from the Magna Carta does not mean that it applies verbatim to US law. That is a ridiculous concept. Equally, Plato's ideology of philosopher kings cannot work under US law. You can learn certain aspects of law from philosophy, and you can learn certain applications that pertain to US law from philosophy, but you cannot learn the intricacies of US law from philosophy. You have to learn that by learning specifically US law.

Inalienable rights...they dont spend much time on these in law schools or cop academies...

Inalienable rights were written in the Declaration of Independence. A fancy letter of secession to England. It holds no bearing in actual law. It was a concept and ideology, but nothing more.

In your case,,,theres a huge difference between what the law actually is and what is practiced as the law. You can say driving is a privilige all you want but it doesnt make it The Law...

You are right in that we are a nation of laws - not men,,,

Unfortunately,,,men have ignored The Law and have passed so many statutes (not The Law) contrary to The Law,,,that we have reverted to being a nation of men, not laws...

Nation of Laws meant that one man cant just go around imposing his rule on another man - he must be restrained in his actions... Nation of Laws did NOT!!! mean we have a lot of statutes in books - thats the opposite of what they had in mind because the more the statutes the more the ability of one person or the government to impose momentary will on the another person or THE PEOPLE.

The more silly statutes that get passed,,,means we move farther away from being a nation of LAWS!!!

You keep referring to "the Law." What is it? You seem to think there is some ethereal, unobtainable perfection of law that man cannot reach. Are you trying to hint at some Platonian Forms theory? If so, define "Law" so that I can understand where you're coming from. And even so, you still need to explain its application to US law.

We are a nation of laws, exactly. The laws we have are made through the proper channels in the US Government and therefore retain the intent of a nation of laws. Just because they're not your perfect ideal of "Law" does not make them binding. You have the same channels outlined in the Constitution to get these laws changed. And, according to this nation, they are how you must conduct yourself. Is the Constitution perfect? No. Is our nation's current judicial system perfect? No. But it's what we've got to work with. You don't like it? Change it.

 

[MeltonLaw]

Actually law schools are horrible place to learn the law in our society as law schools no longer teach constitutional law as the foundation.

An example of that would be during the O'Donnell/Coons debate.

O'Donnelll asked where in the Constitution does it say "separation of church & state" and the students all gapsed and snickered.

What was amazing was not O'Donnell's comment (which was factual) it was the student's lack of understanding constitutional law.

I fail to see how one debate between two people is an indictment of the legal education offered by a majority of ABA accredited law schools. When I went through law school Constitutional law was the basis of all of the classes from property to evidence to administrative. Did the professors drone on about every clause in the constitution daily? No. But every concept sprang forth from some interaction with the Constitution. This is a common failure point in considering the legal realm. The Constitution is a very sparse document which has needed interpretation. The interpretations, often, focus on small bits and pieces and then bolster these with logical interpretations based on other interpretations. This has been most evident in the prior 30+ years of 4th amendment jurisprudence and seems to be what is occurring currently with 2nd amendment jurisprudence. I, personally, cannot think of a class that I took during law school that was not based on a constitutional concept of some kind.