4 ms·

The US uses a common law legal system.. meaning the law isn't just what it says.. it's also how it's interpreted by judges and how it has been interpreted in th

The US uses a common law legal system.. meaning the law isn't just what it says.. it's also how it's interpreted by judges and how it has been interpreted in the past. You're arguing that we should use a civil law legal system... but you're several hundred years too late for that debate... and it has no relevance to this question. So back to the interpretation: If this case went to the supreme court, why do you believe they would say: welp guess you're free? They also have the ability to say: Since the constitution says what it says, the court districts must be redrawn, and therefore the defendant must be tried in the redrawn Idaho district court. That's the way it would be solved by the legislature, and that's the way the court is going to force it to be resolved if the legislature doesn't.. because at no point did the legislature intend for a piece of land to be outside of our laws. An oversight is not intention.

giantg2 6y ago
I understand that it's a common law system. But there's also no precedent or prior ruling about this, thus not existing in common law. I think you are right about the redistricting decision. I still think it's wrong and lazy for the legislature to have the courts handle it. This sort of indifference is sloppy and leads to inefficiencies and injustices, such as appeals, retrials, or misinterpretation. The courts really shouldn't be doing much interpreting. The system is supposed to use hundreds of representatives to be the voice of the people, not 1-9 judges. I also see that you are saying that people should be guilty if they violated the spirit of the law. This doesn't currently happen. Look at the tax loopholes in wide use. My opinion is that you can't expect someone to know that something is wrong if the statute says something contrary.
- rgbrenner 6y ago
  I agree with that... except the last part. You can be guilty of violating the spirit of a law. See for example Wickard v Filburn that forced Filburn to pay a fine for violating limits on wheat. Luckily most of these go the other way.. like in Jacobellis v Ohio where the judge says "I'll know it when I see it" to describe his threshold for obscenity... overturning his conviction. [Edit: On the other hand, obscenity is only illegal because it was ruled it's not covered by the first amendment (even though the exception isn't listed in the first amendment)... allowing the legislature to pass laws restricting it.] The Constitution is filled with more examples: Point to where in the Constitution it says you have a right to privacy, which is the basis for Row v Wade. Or point to where it says "beyond a reasonable doubt", a standard set in Winship.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    In my opinion, the only thing Wickard v Filburn should be used for an example of is government overreach and misguided inclusion of n-order impacts. Growing food for your family should not be a crime. What a racket. We might as well find people guilty of conspiricy to commit murder simply because they didn't report a murderer when they saw them speeding prior to the crime. It could have stopped it! The reason it's supposed to go that other way is because you are to be assumed innocent until proven guilty. Any benefit of doubt or uncertainty is supposed to go to the defense.

giantg2 6y ago

I understand that it's a common law system. But there's also no precedent or prior ruling about this, thus not existing in common law. I think you are right about the redistricting decision. I still think it's wrong and lazy for the legislature to have the courts handle it. This sort of indifference is sloppy and leads to inefficiencies and injustices, such as appeals, retrials, or misinterpretation. The courts really shouldn't be doing much interpreting. The system is supposed to use hundreds of representatives to be the voice of the people, not 1-9 judges. I also see that you are saying that people should be guilty if they violated the spirit of the law. This doesn't currently happen. Look at the tax loopholes in wide use. My opinion is that you can't expect someone to know that something is wrong if the statute says something contrary.

rgbrenner 6y ago
I agree with that... except the last part. You can be guilty of violating the spirit of a law. See for example Wickard v Filburn that forced Filburn to pay a fine for violating limits on wheat. Luckily most of these go the other way.. like in Jacobellis v Ohio where the judge says "I'll know it when I see it" to describe his threshold for obscenity... overturning his conviction. [Edit: On the other hand, obscenity is only illegal because it was ruled it's not covered by the first amendment (even though the exception isn't listed in the first amendment)... allowing the legislature to pass laws restricting it.] The Constitution is filled with more examples: Point to where in the Constitution it says you have a right to privacy, which is the basis for Row v Wade. Or point to where it says "beyond a reasonable doubt", a standard set in Winship.
- giantg2 6y ago
  In my opinion, the only thing Wickard v Filburn should be used for an example of is government overreach and misguided inclusion of n-order impacts. Growing food for your family should not be a crime. What a racket. We might as well find people guilty of conspiricy to commit murder simply because they didn't report a murderer when they saw them speeding prior to the crime. It could have stopped it! The reason it's supposed to go that other way is because you are to be assumed innocent until proven guilty. Any benefit of doubt or uncertainty is supposed to go to the defense.