Legal/Lawful and Your Rights!!!

Trojanwolf

Hello i find it interesting that such active discussions are being shut down. It is obvious that people want to discuss these topics and instead of abusing your athority by shutting down any thread that you don't agree with try offering some friendly, informed discussion from you side gabhain!?

If you want to put an end to these threads which i beleive at least 8 seperate users have talked of the law in a similar manner why not simply properly explain and discuss the points raised so that I, and others might gain an understanding of your perspective. Please answer the following in plain speaking english (not specifically directed at Gabhan)


What is the difference between lawful and legal? (short and simple please)
What is the difference between a Republic and a Democracy?
What is a person (legally speaking)?
What is the difference between a person and a man?
Do you know what Maritime Admiralty Law is?
Do you know how this applies to Ireland?

In the hope to give you some understanding of where im coming from - I direct you to notice article 41 of the Constitution - (the document that binds the government - but not the men of ireland)

Artilce 41 - The State acknowledges that the Family is the basic primary group-unit of/for society according to nature, and that it is a moral institution which has inalienable and invincible rights which are more ancient and higher thatn any human statute.

So how can the state acknowledge this FACT! the very same fact we are discussing and at the same time ignore and remove those rights?! It is you people who are not making sense!

If, in your opinion - a legal forum on boards.ie [a bloody website!] isn't the place to discuss law openly and freely with others where is? [without swearing an oath of course ;-)]???

Trojanwolf

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055648907

jmck87

I too was disappointed that the other thread was locked simply because a mod didnt agree. His point was that the legal system is taken as a given by the general population. That to you may well be a valid argument but it is no reason to lock a thread. But please bare in mind the general population can have information held back from them, and are not aware of the contractual nature of going to court etc.

The topic(s) Trojanwolf highlights are very important to some people in Ireland, and they like to hear people with knowledge of law/statutes give their view - the view that the system is the system so the thread is being locked is quite frankly insulting.

I also believe that many many more people in Ireland would become very interested in the topics if they had the information, even if it is to open their eyes and use their supressed intellect to question things.

dermot_sheehan

This has been discussed twice already.

Laws enacted with the constitution have normative affect. This is an objective fact. I know what admiralty law is and the legal definition of person is (hint check the interpretation act 2000), but I can't see any relevance to modern legal discussion.


Again locking this thread, this has been argued twice before. You can't claim statutes don't apply to you because you don't feel like it.

dermot_sheehan

I thought I'd put up better explanation about why this thread and the thread before it has been closed, other then the fact is rearguing something that has been discussed twice already. This is pretty much what I said to a previous user, eyeswideopen111 on this issue:

The problem other moderators have are that you are arguing over issues of fact rather then law in an internet forum and taking a point of view that is divergent from the vastly accepted point of view without any evidence to back up your point of view.

As an analogy, For example I could say that the sky is not blue (or make an assertion of fact that is incorrect on another issue). Most forum posters and the vast majority of the population would say that the sky is blue. If I continue to argue over this assertion of fact on an internet board saying that the sky is not blue because I say its not, it does not lead to useful argument and the discussion goes nowhere.

This is how the analogy applies to your argument. You argue that "law" only applies to you if you consent to it applying, and that brehon law is still in force in ireland, and basically the constitution and statutes enacted under it and courts created by it have no application to you since you never consented to it (this is a brief summary I believe of your argument, please correct me if its inaccurate).

The issue of whether law is something that you must consent to to be applicable is one of fact. The term "law", as its commonly understood means a system of norms that must be followed with sanction for disobedience. Laws are different from commands and are norms in that the population feels obligated to obey them even when the prospect of sanction is non-existent or remote. The legal system has to be commonly accepted, but does not have to be agreed to by every single member of society.

The irish constitution and laws made under it fit this criteria. To argue with you over it is to make an argument over easily perceivable fact and not logic. Similarly to someone is arguing on an internet board nothing is gained when someone asserts that a word in the english language has a meaning no one else ascribes to it. I can argue with you over this point, but if you strongly believe "law" to mean something else other then what it is commonly meant to mean, no amount of reason will disloge you from this point of view. The argument goes no where. Similarly I argue that it is an incontvertible fact that irish society follows the norms of the legal system established under the irish constitution, that sanctions can be imposed for disobedience of this system, and the vast majority of the population regard those sanctions as legitamitley imposed. If you dispute these facts, the argument can go nowhere. They are as objectively ascertainable as the fact the sky is blue. Unless you can prove to me that irish society does not generally follow the norms of the legal system established by its constitution, or that "law" means something other then norms, the violation of which result in sanction, your assertions that "law" means something else or the irish legal system is not valid go nowhere.

eyeswideopen111 responded that he wasn't going to discuss this further, that he was posting the posts up on other internet boards, and made some mildly derogatory comments about the moderators here in legal discussion.

It appears as a result of this we have an influx of new users to this board who hope to argue that the legal system is not valid, and such other type of unorthodox arguments.

This would be fine as a once off interesting debate, but multiple threads are tiresome and add no value. The users arguing this unorthodox view can seem to accept opposing argument and can't seem to be reasoned with.

Unless we set up some sort of "cranks" subforum, the noise to signal ratio here would become intolerable if we permitted views far from mainstream to hog the debate. In addition some persons with the same mindset have offered advice regarding repayments/contracts that is frankly wrong.

If people feel aggravated about me closing these two threads, you can interact with the administrators of boards.ie on the help desk forum and have them overrule this decision.