The political-minded live in a world of circular arguments, and negative proofs.
If precedent is the only way to know the law, then how did the original case arise? Courts don't legislate, they rule on cases.
(reminds me of the catholic church- only THEY know the Bible, don't read it yourself. follow our "precedent"...but who taught THEM?)
Every case that was ever dropped is a precedent
Every case that failed is a precedent.
Every case that never existed is a precedent.
And while some cases may set a precedent, these are often later overturned on some new angle. Law is a constantly evolving body.
And it depends how these are applied, and where.
Every case is an expansion of the law. The question "is that legal", is utterly false. It calls for speculation.
The outcome will tell the answer, but the questions have first to be processed. Man's law is not a software program, like that message
Quote:
|
"you have performed an illegal operation"
|
that sometimes flashes on the computer screen.
For example, contraband. Possession is criminalised, but subject to other laws, like the right to Privacy, or due process. The real question is, "in this case was there a violation of law?" Yes there are many precedents showing that courts have ruled contraband to be unlawful- but what counts is this case.
It's lawful to possess contraband without detection
It's lawful to possess contraband without admissible proof
It's lawful to possess contraband without any claim to the contrary. No one is randomly charged by a code-book; it takes an accuser.
Anything is lawful if the person stays free from conviction.
So I am waiting for the case cite from any state ruling that esquire attorneys are anything but a Waste Of Time...
but precedent tells me that already.