Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Imagine the possible legal implications!
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dave70968" data-source="post: 3178919" data-attributes="member: 13624"><p>This case is about a lot more than culture and who conquered whom. It's subtle, but it's very important: it's about the rule of law. As the article notes (about 1/3 of the way down, and it's a long article), there are treaties involved, as well as federal statutes. If the appellant's claim is correct, then it really <em>should</em> be federal jurisdiction, not state.</p><p></p><p>Sometimes, the principles involved are more important than the case at bar, and I can't imagine a principle more important than the idea that the government must be bound by its own laws. That principle--that the government be bound by law--is the seminal principle behind Magna Carta, a legal code of significance on par with the Code of Hammurabi and the Constitution of the United States (which it predated by almost six centuries, and to which it lent significant influence).</p><p></p><p>Historically, the United States government has treated the tribes pretty shabbily. That's nothing news; conquerors often do that to the conquered. But when the conqueror prides itself--<em>defines itself</em>--on the rule of law and the concept of limited government, then completely disregards its own law, that's a very scary road to go down. <em>If</em> the appellant's position is correct (and I haven't read the briefs, so I don't know), the correct outcome would certainly be a mess, but it'd be a lot less bad than ratifying the concept that the government is, well, ungoverned by law.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dave70968, post: 3178919, member: 13624"] This case is about a lot more than culture and who conquered whom. It's subtle, but it's very important: it's about the rule of law. As the article notes (about 1/3 of the way down, and it's a long article), there are treaties involved, as well as federal statutes. If the appellant's claim is correct, then it really [I]should[/I] be federal jurisdiction, not state. Sometimes, the principles involved are more important than the case at bar, and I can't imagine a principle more important than the idea that the government must be bound by its own laws. That principle--that the government be bound by law--is the seminal principle behind Magna Carta, a legal code of significance on par with the Code of Hammurabi and the Constitution of the United States (which it predated by almost six centuries, and to which it lent significant influence). Historically, the United States government has treated the tribes pretty shabbily. That's nothing news; conquerors often do that to the conquered. But when the conqueror prides itself--[I]defines itself[/I]--on the rule of law and the concept of limited government, then completely disregards its own law, that's a very scary road to go down. [I]If[/I] the appellant's position is correct (and I haven't read the briefs, so I don't know), the correct outcome would certainly be a mess, but it'd be a lot less bad than ratifying the concept that the government is, well, ungoverned by law. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Imagine the possible legal implications!
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom