View Single Post
Old 04-26-21, 05:23 PM
  #68  
Moe Zhoost
Half way there
 
Moe Zhoost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,955

Bikes: Many, and the list changes frequently

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 985 Post(s)
Liked 879 Times in 526 Posts
Originally Posted by wphamilton
There is no legitimate theory of jurisprudence to support this idea, that you have laws to control behaviors unrelated to the law. Any "authority" who makes a habit of applying "leverage" as "they feel" when the behavior is outside of the legal framework is engaging in textbook abuse of office. He needs to be stripped of office and, in egregious cases, prosecuted for abuse of power.
Well there are theories of law, and then there is reality. Do you really think that it is rare that the intent of the law is unrelated to its language? Right or wrong, it's human nature to employ ruses to achieve an outcome, and legislators are not so honorable to resist. For example, jaywalking laws were not written with the intent to protect pedestrians,. One only has to look at the many recent controversial laws in many states to see that this is the norm.

Originally Posted by wphamilton
And to the poster who opines that I made it up, here is an explicit example of someone who thinks repressive ordinances are fine as a pretext to give someone a comeuppance when the law doesn't or isn't applied.
You really ought not to make assumptions, especially when it borders on an ad hominem attack. You assume that I support the use of such laws; however I condemn them as strongly as you, mate. I think the use of such artifice in legislation is an outright cowardly way to govern. The fact that sometimes those strategies are effective may make them somewhat acceptable, but it does not make them less bogus.
Moe Zhoost is offline