Print

Print


with all due respect, counselor Daboll, Ed is correct.
   
  Sorry, but Rule of Law is just about the most black and white of all 
> rules of law.

  Sorry, but there is no black and white in the law. Depending upon the nature of the cause, we require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, clear and convincing evidence, a fair preponderance of the evidence, or substantial evidence; all terms of art which are subject to court interpretations and guidelines.
   
  Miguel

Ed Malczyk <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
  On Oct 16, 2006, at 7:28 PM, Leigh Daboll wrote:

> This is because the success of Rule of Law ultimately depends upon it 
> being a social contract that binds EVERYONE to ALL the rules in force 
> at any given time.      
>  
> Sorry, but Rule of Law is just about the most black and white of all 
> rules of law.
>  
> Leigh
>

In a society that absolute, what would be the role of a barrister? The 
Leviathan's excesses in enforcement would be excused as necessary in 
maintaining social order in a society that is populated by nasty and 
brutish individuals.

Hobbesian interpretations of an absolutist social contract were long 
ago rejected by enlightened Americans and British alike. The notion 
that man is inherently nasty and brutish has also been generally 
rejected by modern society. Instead, man is unpredictable, usually 
good, but certainly not always. The Rule of Law, not the rule of (a) 
man is necessary in that society to maintain order. However, order 
must be defined, not only by the actions of the governed, but also by 
the behavior of the governors. Locke, speaking through Jefferson noted 
that human events could necessitate dissolving the social contract if 
the government violates the Rule of Law. When governments violate 
moral standards and manipulate the Rule of Law to maintain their power, 
they invite the legitimate dissolution of the social contract. 
Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Washington et. al. were rational men who 
risked the consequences of dissolving that contract. In doing so, they 
also legitimized the application of moral standards to the measurement 
of the social contract. To be sure the framers had to edit Jefferson's 
words so as not to disturb their own moral transgressions (slavery), 
but their words and subsequent actions destroyed Hobbes' defense of 
absolutism.

If any Lister was sent to Gitmo for ducking a rope, (assuming he is 
informed of what he is accused), I would hope that all, including 
Canadian barristers would rise up in their defense.

Ed

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SkiVt-L is brought to you by the University of Vermont.

To unsubscribe, visit http://list.uvm.edu/archives/skivt-l.html


 		
---------------------------------
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls.  Great rates starting at 1/min.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SkiVt-L is brought to you by the University of Vermont.

To unsubscribe, visit http://list.uvm.edu/archives/skivt-l.html