pld:
So then, I take it, this OH law has been taken to, or at least not been reviewed by, the US Supreme Court. Don’t you think that, if it were reviewed there, the climate is such that it would be found unconstitutional in respect to that exception, as written – in deference to the conflicting right of children to life? I guess states can always put laws onto the books that claim exceptions to the federal Constitution, but I assume they weigh their chances, before doing so, of not getting shot down too many times by the federal courts.
Well, every year on Law Day, the lawyers try to convince us that lawyers = law. Judges are legally nothing but non-entrepreneurial lawyers, except possibly in VT or somewhere from time to time, so I’m quite convinced that our system has become nothing but a racket for lawyers, making all justice available in proportion only to one’s net worth in $$$. (Of course, children don’t have many dollars.)
Esq:
Read: ‘I wouldn’t get paid for it.’
The “actual [constitutional] law” has not been “developed”; it has just seesawed and ended up in ways that serve mostly the legal community.
I haven’t followed Scalia well, but have thought of him as mostly too far right, but you may be right as to his being too idiosyncratic.
Well, if you’re referring to my claiming freedom of speech in the Constitution refers literally only to “speech” (oral and verbal), the best wording of my position on it (as a citizen of this country trying to live in it without an income based on law or a membership in the legal club) is that there is no reason to believe that the original intent of the amenders of this constitution did not mean the term literally, but that, yes, lawyers ever since have jacked around with this term in their characteristic way of obliterating the meanings of words in the English language, in order to win their cases. Thus the meaning of speech here has seesawed all over and doesn’t mean much of anything at present, other than a means of income to lawyers in taking things to the US Supreme Court on the basis of the First Amendment. As you say, “speech” here means whatever the temporarily-non-lawyer judges want to momentarily read it as, often in only the interest of what’s best for the legal community. As one outside that community, I don’t look at it that way. Language is supposed to serve communication among all who know the conventions of its code, not just among those who seek to gain from distortion of its terms away from their communal meanings. Jargon is only supposed to make specialized social institutions function more efficiently within their societal roles, not twist those roles into socially exploitive consortiums. Insofar as common English terms used in the law do not represent what they mean elsewhere, they are afoul of justice.
If you have precise examples supporting the claim that “speech” in the First Amendment means ‘expression’, verbal or non-verbal, post them.
More lawyers’ arrogant I-am-the-law attitude. Are you also claiming that lawyers shirk the difficult? Your grammar is not English; and my comments were dependent on acceptance of the structure of the English language. The punctuation above is punk. “‘law’. Which” should be . . .‘law’, which. . .. You are not manipulating a case in court here on this channel; you are doused here in the reality of the general populace. And as to lawyers (fairies or not), I both ask and tell. I also recall, in a non-client context, a discussion with an NLG attorney in which his explanations/justifications of the way law works or should work were based on movies he had seen – which supports my position, of the impact on society of those who wallow in fiction, which I outlined in the “Fee Fi Fo Fum” thread in this forum.
Ray (Government of lawyers, by lawyers and for lawyers must perish from this earth. If Shakespeare is good for something, let him order his men to remove these creatures from this earth.)
)