DAST Chat

2015-09-09 02:26:47

#12601

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6345|eXtreme to the maX

Cybargs wrote:
RAF followed their legal duties to eliminate enemies of the crown.

That's not the function of the British military.

ISIS is an enemy of the crown. Whether or not ISIS has the ability to commence an attack on the UK is irrelevant, the organization already declared to kill British citizens and put a flag over Buckingham palace.

Not really no.

If the UK government says it's legal than that's the end all and be all.

Not remotely.

I think there should be a bit more due process than a politician deciding a citizen should die.

Fuck Israel

2015-09-09 04:34:45

#12602

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6955

Dilbert_X wrote:
That's not the function of the British military.

Yeah it is. Look at the oath that every military member swears. It's not to defend the UK, but to fight against enemies of the UK and the crown.

Not remotely

I think there should be a bit more due process than a politician deciding a citizen should die.

You think there should but there isn't really a legal requirement. Parliament is sovereign and has plenary power to essentially do whatever it wants. They can pass a law to shove a dildo up your arse tomorrow and it'd be 100% legal.

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2015-09-09 05:05:08

#12603

uziq: Member; +495|3691

I think what dilbert is obviously gesturing towards is the need for proper international law governing this sort of behaviour. the sovereign and plenary power talk sounds a bit like Prussia circa 1890.

2015-09-09 05:57:31

#12604

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6345|eXtreme to the maX

Some British law would be a start.

Fuck Israel

2015-09-09 15:06:56

#12605

DesertFox-: The very model of a modern major general; +796|6923|United States of America

Reading political news is just disheartening with the clickbaity nature of headlines and spin that pervades the "infotainment" sideshow we seem to have these days. Case in point, the Ayatollah saying he hopes a Zionist regime does not exist in 25 years is not the same as saying "Israel will not exist in 25 years."

2015-09-09 15:52:32

#12606

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,979|6871|949

yeah well half the dumbies on this forum thought the same thing. People are stupid.

2015-09-09 15:56:13

#12607

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6955

Dilbert_X wrote:
Some British law would be a start.

get a written constitution first.

2015-09-09 17:14:21

#12608

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,979|6871|949

forgot, you can't have laws without a constitution!

2015-09-09 17:23:21

#12609

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6955

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
forgot, you can't have laws without a constitution!

the purpose of a constitution is that it creates restrictions for what the gov can or can't do.

2015-09-09 17:25:30

#12610

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5597|London, England

Cybargs wrote:
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
forgot, you can't have laws without a constitution!
the purpose of a constitution is that it creates restrictions for what the gov can or can't do.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2015-09-09 17:30:03

#12611

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6955

Jay wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
forgot, you can't have laws without a constitution!
the purpose of a constitution is that it creates restrictions for what the gov can or can't do.

So how are those new gun laws coming in?

2015-09-09 17:30:13

#12612

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5597|London, England

Do you understand how our English common law system works? It's built on case law and precedent. A constitution is a nice place to start but in reality case law can twist it to fit whatever the prevailing government wants.

Besides, who is going to force the government to obey it's own laws? The disarmed populace?

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2015-09-09 17:31:28

#12613

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6955

Jay wrote:
Do you understand how our English common law system works? It's built on case law and precedent.

You do realize statute trumps common law all the time right?

IT goes like this

Constitutions are the highest body of statute, legislation passed cannot override it, courts can interpret the constitution. Why do you think you can't ever have restrictions on protest or free speech in the USA compared to Aus/UK? Why do you think all anti-gay marriage laws are invalid now?

However, legislation ALWAYS trumps the common law. If common law says xyz, you can pass a legislation that removes it. It happens all the time.

Last edited by Cybargs (2015-09-09 17:34:50)

2015-09-09 17:34:15

#12614

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5597|London, England

Cybargs wrote:
Jay wrote:
Do you understand how our English common law system works? It's built on case law and precedent.
You do realize statute trumps common law all the time right?

No, because nearly every statute is challenged in court and ends up being judged against precedent.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2015-09-09 17:37:30

#12615

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,979|6871|949

Cybargs wrote:
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
forgot, you can't have laws without a constitution!
the purpose of a constitution is that it creates restrictions for what the gov can or can't do.

oh i get it now. Without a constitution, England CAN wontonly kill it's own citizens without putting them on trial. The only thing that will stop them from doing so is a CONSTITUTION!!! Something about RAF and serving against the enemies of Britain blah blah. Do you think about what you type before you type it, or are you just firing from the hip for the sake of replying?

2015-09-09 17:37:53

#12616

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6955

Jay wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
Jay wrote:
Do you understand how our English common law system works? It's built on case law and precedent.
You do realize statute trumps common law all the time right?
No, because nearly every statute is challenged in court and ends up being judged against precedent.

You can challenge it, but it will ultimately fail bar constitutional arguments.

There is a presumption that rights under common law continue unless the legislation clearly does away with them. "Legislation is written on the common law".

http://www.hobartlegal.org.au/tasmanian … common-law

A lot of times statutes work side by side with common law (tort law for one).

2015-09-09 17:38:08

#12617

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5597|London, England

Here's one example: we had the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act passed through Congress and then the electioneering portion was ripped out during the Citizens United case which was based on precedent from the 1800s which declared corporations to be people. Because people are protected by the first amendment, corporations are too and political donations are considered to be protected speech. Bye statute, hello case law.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2015-09-09 17:39:13

#12618

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6955

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
forgot, you can't have laws without a constitution!
the purpose of a constitution is that it creates restrictions for what the gov can or can't do.
oh i get it now. Without a constitution, England CAN wontonly kill it's own citizens without putting them on trial. The only thing that will stop them from doing so is a CONSTITUTION!!! Something about RAF and serving against the enemies of Britain blah blah. Do you think about what you type before you type it, or are you just firing from the hip for the sake of replying?

Yeah pretty much.

UK gov can pass any legislation whatever the fuck it wants. It can pass a law to kill all the jews tomorrow and it'd be legal. Ever heard of AV Dicey?

Lord Reid expressed in Pickin v British Railway Board :

“in earlier times many learned lawyers seem to have believed that an Act of parliament could be disregarded in so far as it was contrary to the law of God or the law of nature or natural justice, but since the supremacy of parliament was finally demonstrated by the revolution of 1688 any such idea has become obsolete.”

Because people are protected by the first amendment, corporations are too and political donations are considered to be protected speech. Bye statute, hello case law.

That's because its a constitutional issue, not a common law one.

Last edited by Cybargs (2015-09-09 17:41:41)

2015-09-09 17:42:03

#12619

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,979|6871|949

Cybargs wrote:
Jay wrote:
Do you understand how our English common law system works? It's built on case law and precedent.
You do realize statute trumps common law all the time right?

IT goes like this

Constitutions are the highest body of statute, legislation passed cannot override it, courts can interpret the constitution. Why do you think you can't ever have restrictions on protest or free speech in the USA compared to Aus/UK? Why do you think all anti-gay marriage laws are invalid now?

However, legislation ALWAYS trumps the common law. If common law says xyz, you can pass a legislation that removes it. It happens all the time.

Ever heard of the Lemon Test? Ever heard of the benchmark of "Clear and Present Danger" used to decide if someone is violating the restrictions on the 1st amendment? Thanks for the Intro to Law 101 summary though. I feel like I learned the same thing on an episode of School House Rocks!

2015-09-09 17:43:26

#12620

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5597|London, England

Cybargs wrote:
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Cybargs wrote:

the purpose of a constitution is that it creates restrictions for what the gov can or can't do.
oh i get it now. Without a constitution, England CAN wontonly kill it's own citizens without putting them on trial. The only thing that will stop them from doing so is a CONSTITUTION!!! Something about RAF and serving against the enemies of Britain blah blah. Do you think about what you type before you type it, or are you just firing from the hip for the sake of replying?
Yeah pretty much.

UK gov can pass any legislation whatever the fuck it wants. It can pass a law to kill all the jews tomorrow and it'd be legal. Ever heard of AV Dicey?

Lord Reid expressed in Pickin v British Railway Board :

“in earlier times many learned lawyers seem to have believed that an Act of parliament could be disregarded in so far as it was contrary to the law of God or the law of nature or natural justice, but since the supremacy of parliament was finally demonstrated by the revolution of 1688 any such idea has become obsolete.”
Because people are protected by the first amendment, corporations are too and political donations are considered to be protected speech. Bye statute, hello case law.
That's because its a constitutional issue, not a common law one.

The challenge was valid in the first place because case law declared corporations to be people with all the protected rights of people.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2015-09-09 17:44:55

#12621

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,979|6871|949

Cybargs wrote:
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Cybargs wrote:

the purpose of a constitution is that it creates restrictions for what the gov can or can't do.
oh i get it now. Without a constitution, England CAN wontonly kill it's own citizens without putting them on trial. The only thing that will stop them from doing so is a CONSTITUTION!!! Something about RAF and serving against the enemies of Britain blah blah. Do you think about what you type before you type it, or are you just firing from the hip for the sake of replying?
Yeah pretty much.

UK gov can pass any legislation whatever the fuck it wants. It can pass a law to kill all the jews tomorrow and it'd be legal. Ever heard of AV Dicey?

Lord Reid expressed in Pickin v British Railway Board :

“in earlier times many learned lawyers seem to have believed that an Act of parliament could be disregarded in so far as it was contrary to the law of God or the law of nature or natural justice, but since the supremacy of parliament was finally demonstrated by the revolution of 1688 any such idea has become obsolete.”
Because people are protected by the first amendment, corporations are too and political donations are considered to be protected speech. Bye statute, hello case law.
That's because its a constitutional issue, not a common law one.

I'm not going to pretend to understand the British Legal system in any way more than a cursory understanding. But I do understand logic. If a Constitution is the only thing stopping the UK government from acting in a certain way, then why would they need to pass a law before they kill all the jews? Couldn't they just do it?

2015-09-09 17:46:14

#12622

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5597|London, England

We have all sorts of restrictions on our "free speech" rights. I don't know what you're talking about.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2015-09-09 17:46:24

#12623

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6955

And all those precedents are through constitutional amendments, not common law. Those judgements in the US are not considered in other common law governments either.

It is different in the UK and Aus. We have laws restricting right to protest and public order offences which are legally valid due to a lack of bill of rights. It's entirely a huge debate here in aus. Singapore is a perfect example of a common law system where legislature has essentially nullified most common law rights.

2015-09-09 17:48:09

#12624

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5597|London, England

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

oh i get it now. Without a constitution, England CAN wontonly kill it's own citizens without putting them on trial. The only thing that will stop them from doing so is a CONSTITUTION!!! Something about RAF and serving against the enemies of Britain blah blah. Do you think about what you type before you type it, or are you just firing from the hip for the sake of replying?
Yeah pretty much.

UK gov can pass any legislation whatever the fuck it wants. It can pass a law to kill all the jews tomorrow and it'd be legal. Ever heard of AV Dicey?

Lord Reid expressed in Pickin v British Railway Board :

“in earlier times many learned lawyers seem to have believed that an Act of parliament could be disregarded in so far as it was contrary to the law of God or the law of nature or natural justice, but since the supremacy of parliament was finally demonstrated by the revolution of 1688 any such idea has become obsolete.”
Because people are protected by the first amendment, corporations are too and political donations are considered to be protected speech. Bye statute, hello case law.
That's because its a constitutional issue, not a common law one.
I'm not going to pretend to understand the British Legal system in any way more than a cursory understanding. But I do understand logic. If a Constitution is the only thing stopping the UK government from acting in a certain way, then why would they need to pass a law before they kill all the jews? Couldn't they just do it?

Our legal system is based completely on theirs circa 1775. We've diverged since then, of course, but it comes from the same place and has the same basis in precedent and case law.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2015-09-09 17:50:42

#12625

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6955

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I'm not going to pretend to understand the British Legal system in any way more than a cursory understanding. But I do understand logic. If a Constitution is the only thing stopping the UK government from acting in a certain way, then why would they need to pass a law before they kill all the jews? Couldn't they just do it?

Because parliament is the law making body? You would still need a law to pass before any action becomes legal. UK gov couldn't have taken citizenship whenever they wanted before the 2014 citizenship amendments. UK doesn't really have a separate branch of gov. The queen is the executive but it's essentially ran by PM and Gov, the judiciary are members of the house of lords (changed a bit now) who are part of parliament.

BF2S Forums DAST Chat

Cybargs wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Jay wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Jay wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Board footer