Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A friend of mine is involved in a federal court action where his request to the judge to order the government to "produce" documents that had to have existed, by statutory requirement, at the time of my friend's transactions with the government, was that the judge ordered the government to produce the documents.
The government responded that since the government violated their own statutes by having not created the documents necessary for the transactions with my friend, that they couldn't "produce" them because they do not exist.
My friend ordered the government to CONSTRUCT the documents.
The judge said that he couldn't order the government to construct the documents, because their was no precedent for ordering the government to construct documents that the statutes required them to have constructed earlier. Then was then, now is now.
The judge claims that he has no power to order the government to comply with the statutes now because there is no precedent for a judge to correct a government fraud after the fact.
Many judges and other government officials apparently believe that a statute has no existence until there is precedent to explain the statute.
Maybe Obamacare doesn't really exist until there is precedent for its existence.
Must be a warped version of a - "nothing new under the sun rule".
Ummm... Just because courts operate under a silly construct where they pretend that "precedent" means something, it doesn't. It's just a fiction that makes it easier to do what you want to do and ignore the law.
Ummm... Just because courts operate under a silly construct where they pretend that "precedent" means something, it doesn't. It's just a fiction that makes it easier to do what you want to do and ignore the law.
Only an "originalist" believes that a statute, without confirming precedent, has any force and effect of law.
I once presented a novel idea for a new product to a large corporation, and they told me that "ideas" are a dime a dozen, and, "get back to us when you have a patent".
So I got the patent, but when I got back to them, they said a patent doesn't mean ANYTHING until it has been tested in the courts. I guess I was supposed to go out and get sued so I could come back to them with a "Decision".
Gotta have court approval for anything to exist, man.
Sounds like you just can't wait. Sweaty palms, increased heart rate, itchy trigger finger and a tumescence in your nether regions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Expert Testifies to Congress that Obama’s ‘Ignoring Laws’ Could Lead to Overthrow of Government
