perris said:
few peole know what i'm about to say;
there is no law that is not decided as the action stands...a jury (and a judge) is entitled to hold the law to account as well as the person charged with the "crime"
and an individual situation can easily be "legal" even though "laws" seem to have been brokien
for instance, "justifiable homicide"
...there are times when a jury will find a person innocent of a law he clearly broke, because the charge did not suit the cirmumstance
our system of justice provides for exemption from the "written law"...it's the spirit of the law that prevails or should prevail
This would be consitent with, for instance self defence, where a person who killed another person would not likely be convicted by a jurty when their motive and intent was to save their own life. It would yes, be called justifiable homicide.
What you're saying here, is in part my thoughts upon the matter. Someone mentioned in another forum that our nation is based in part upon a history of civil disobediance. To some degree this is true. The Boston Tea Party, resisting the taxes of England at the time of the colonies, and various ideas leading up to the American Revolution. In fact having a revolution period would not be consistent with blindly following whatever, because some power determined to make it so. The opening words of the Declaration of Independence hold anotehr idea.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
It's not my intention to suggest that people should just become long bearded rebels or the like. However there are times where to merely acquisese to something, regardless of the consequences can be, quite frankly dangerious. There's a rather fine line here, and an extremly subtle point. I'm not sure words are always adequate enough to convey the subtlety here, at least that I have seen.
Edit: Sorry, in trying to chop up the 2 posts, my original words got lost. I'm trying to re-construct what I said from memory (and doubt it came out as well the second time as the first)...
