|
get updated
What is this fascination the wackos have with Bouvier's pre-Civil War legal dictionary? That thing is so old that many modern legal concepts that we take for granted...like the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment...aren't even in there because they did not exist yet. The world can change a lot in 150 years. Would you use an Encyclopedia Britannica set that was that old?
In modern times, grand juries return either a "true bill" for an indictment or a "no bill" for failure to indict. Because of the modern, negative meaning of the term ignoramus, I doubt anyone would want to sign a document that used that word.
Pre-civil war legal dictionaries are of historical interest, and that is about it. Time to wake up and smell the 21st century, folks.
__________________
We reject Skurdal's argument that he is a "free man" exempt from the laws because he has "no contracts" with either the state or federal governments...No persons in Montana may exempt themselves from any law simply by declaring they do not consent to it applying to them...Accepting Skurdal's assertion of exempt status is an invitation to anarchy. We decline that invitation. - State v. Skurdal, Supreme Court of Montana, 235 Mont. 291, 767 P.2d 304 at 308 (1988).
|