Separation of Powers

[Ausinus]

This for all you people who say that we have to take the constitution as it way when it was written.

The way the Westminster system government works is it is separated into three groups, the Executive, the Legislature, and the Judiciary. The roles of these three groups are;

The Executive; To collect taxes, pay public servants, assure the security of the state, regulate the economy and approve laws made by the legislature.
The Legislature: To make laws, acts and bills, set the budget, ratification of treaties and declaration of war.
The Judiciary: To intepret both the constitution and the statutes and regulations made by the legislature, to try people for offenses.

The role of the judiciary is to INTERPRET, which means that it CHANGES.

[Ausinus]

Come on, lets have some discussion people.

[yea_thats_right1]

people arnt discussing because most of us completly agree... :D

[Ausinus]

yay.:D Im happy now.

[General Septem]

That's bullshit. If you say something, and someone whose job it is to "interpret" what you said, uses your words to make laws that are entirely against your point in saying those words, that's not interpretation. That's word-twisting.

"The right to a wall-regulated militia, being necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

[Ausinus]

That's bullshit. If you say something, and someone whose job it is to "interpret" what you said, uses your words to make laws that are entirely against your point in saying those words, that's not interpretation. That's word-twisting.

"The right to a wall-regulated militia, being necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

In the westminster system, the role of the judiciary is to interpret the laws and the constutition, in case of either laws not being specific enough, or new concepts that can be covered by a certain law, amongst other things. This is why we have separation of powers, so that the executive and legislature cannot directly interfere with the constitutional interpretation. But being an anarchist, I cannot expect you to know that.

It is not word twisting, it is simply giving more clarity to the definition and understanding of a law.

For example, I could interpret the 2nd amendment to the constitution in a number of ways. It states in the original format

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The commas around "being necessary....state", could be interpreted as something akin to parentheses. Also, the lack of an "and" before "the right of the people" could be interpreted as "is". (On a side note, the wording of this clause varies markedly from similar clauses in other amendments, which could imply a different interpretation than the people have the right to bear arms.) Well regulated, it could be intepreted as regulated by the government or the people. Additionally, it does not specify what is defined as arms, it could be interpreted as melee weapons, or non chemical projectile weapons, or nuclear weapons. Also the time period is not mentioned, it could refer to in times of war, or in times of peace.

[theicidal maniac]

That's bullshit. If you say something, and someone whose job it is to "interpret" what you said, uses your words to make laws that are entirely against your point in saying those words, that's not interpretation. That's word-twisting.

"The right to a wall-regulated militia, being necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

There were no ak47's when that was written, or AR15's or MAC10's or Tech9's. There were no bazookas or explosive-mortar cannons or grenades. No napalm. No columbine incidents. No portable long-range automatic weaponry of any kind. There were no household refrigerators or telephones. People used guns to get food, not to maintain drug turf. VERY FEW American citizens in the lower 48 today NEED a gun to hunt their food. We have refrigerated food available in Wal-Marts in every city. We defend our land by paying taxes and TELEPHONING the POLICE. We don't need everyone to own a gun, and we don't need to encourage that notion, we need responsibility, we need people to demonstrate that they have the capacity to be armed, and we need to have a way to keep tabs on them. I hate to think of Big Brother watching, but when it comes to weapons that were designed to kill humans, i think it's ok to make an exception there.

[who897]

Seems like your either splitting hairs or playing semantics.

[Ausinus]

In terms of law, the wording of a law or amendment, or even a constitution is extremely important. For example, say I made it illegal to drink coffee, and I worded it like this;

"It is now illegal to drink coffee"

it raises a lot of legal questions like "when is now?", and "what constitutes coffee?"

If you intend for that law to be followed to the letter, you have to provide an inordinate amount of definition and clarity. A better version of the no drinking coffee law would be;

"From this date, January 8th, 2007, it is henceforth illegal to imbibe a refreshment which is based upon the plant coffea arabica."

This may seem clear in common speech, but in legal terms it still leaves a lot of holes. It does not specify the quantity of coffee in the drink that makes it illegal, if the caffeine content of the coffee makes any difference, etc.