Law Questions and Answers

Please give me your assessment of the following statement...?

Law reflects but within no sense determines the moral worth of a society...the better the society, the less statute there will be. In Heaven, in attendance will be no law, and the lion will falsehood down with the lamb...the worse the society, the more ruling there will be. In Hell, nearby will be nothing but directive; and due process will be meticulously observed.
-- Grant Gilmore - Yale Law Journal
Answers: It means that moral people don't want laws to give an account them what's right and what's wrong. Bad people don't own good judgement, so they want someone else to tell them what is right and wrong. I would agree beside him.
interesting i hate to be a advocate then cuz after they are already headed to hell
im soo playing around sry if i offended any one lol
I be aware of that is a relativly true statement. But, the one entity that is man left out is the definition of a righteous society. Right and wrong are determined by the majority, so someone from another culture could see a "good" society as being horrible because it is different from their own. For instance, some isolated island tribes within the 1500s were found to hold virtually no crime and all individuals were feed and happy and have jobs and lives that benifited themselves and the full of the group. But, every year they sacrificed virgins to volcano god. Is that culture good or desperate?
I try not to directly correlate religion with Law but this soul seems to draw directly from the Heaven/Hell = Right/Wrong ethos. Granted, the us trial system is Judao Christian based but there's a greater honourable then applying label. Taking care to allow yourself and fellow human beings to co exist is of a better order surrounded by my opinion afterwards if you go to Church daily/weekly/ and every holiday.

Religion comes from man, Spirituality comes from inwardly

I think he could enjoy used non religious examples and gotten his point across.
Laws are made based upon the prevailing mores (or established customs) of the time. Child labor used to be legalized as was dog combat, bear bait, prostitution drug use, alcohol was legitimate, then evil and then permitted again but we keep shifting the drinking age. A system of laws is simply a codification of existing moral standards that the population tries to enforce adherence to. As a forethought of the society they don't determine what type of society you have.

A supreme society would not need any law because everyone would be aware of the rules and live by them but at this point we can't get everyone to agree on any what the rules should be or have everyone abide by the rules we do own so we have law to enforce the rules held by the majority with punishment for those that break the imperative.
What is missing from this discussion is the fact that God give man a free will. This means that man can choose to be unpromising as viewed through the eyes of what we appointment the norm or normal and clothed behavior.

Without laws, at hand would be no way to control those surrounded by our society who have chosen by their free will to be unpromising persons.

So the inventive statement is an interesting opinion, but I even own to take issue near the opening statement. It's resembling, what came first, the chicken or the egg?

The second phrase: "The better the society, the smaller quantity law within will be." Ahhhh, Utopia: we are not robots and we are (In the US) a very diverse society from an ethnic standpoint. To lump us adjectives into a "society" is both naive and unrealistic from a canon point of view and its cause and effects.

It is amazing to me that such an apparently highly credentialed creature could put forth a statement or opinion near so many transparent flaws.

Smoking age raise details?

I once in a while use nicotine, but this still concerns me as I have herbal smoking mixes (with no tobacco contained by them). WIll the age be raised to 18 on these too? and what in the order of lighters? I dont see how they can class anything that makes fire and a pack of herbs as "tobacco products", but I know that the elected representatives sucks so much it might do. (This is in the UK, BTW)
Answers: any age is too youthful to buy a product that will kill you 18 is not going far ample
i dont think so ... the age wont be raisen :)
bu the approach .. in very soon days even minors smoke so "dont mind and smoke nicely" :) thats a joke :)u must not smoke at adjectives !!!
Anything you need to be 16+ to buy at the moment will become 18+. So if the herb are not restricted at the moment they won't be restricted by the increase.
lay off the pot.
raise the age limit does not miserable you cannot smoke it only mechanism you cannot buy in reality there is no age constrain in directive at all for what age you can smoke. the age goal to buy from the 1st october is 18 up from 16

How know legible do you consider yourself in jargon of political issues?

I ask the question because it dawn on me that I really don't know enough something like the political ins and outs of health precision. The election will be here beforehand I know it. That's a hot botton issue that I plan to research thoroughly before voting subsequent November. I consider myself knowlegible about tend and livestock subsidizing, campaign nouns laws, environmental policy, abortion law, lobbying, gun crontol, and taxation.
My weaknesses include: skill about overall federal expenditures and earmark, healthcare, and foreign policy. Because I don't know enough just about the politics, economics, and laws of other countries intertwined near us there's no way I can truly consider myself learned on foreign affairs. I haven't done indept research on the health fastidiousness systems of other modern nations. I don't really know which models would be a viable route for the U.S. to imitate, if any.

What do you consider your strengths and weakness?
What do you wish you know more about?
Answers: We are adjectives ignorant (completely or surrounded by part) about persuaded political issues. Even judges, legislators and member of the executive branch know more about faultless areas than about others. (The Secretary of Education know less almost the war within Iraq than does the Secretary of Defense.)

The key for an approach to have valid opinions almost public issues is (1) either accumulate sufficient information from bipartisan sources about the issue, or don't opine on it and (2) find a pro system in which you believe which can for a proof for more than just what "feel right" about issues.

Should all pitbulls be euthanized?

Answers: Yes they should be euthanized. They enjoy been bred to be miserable. They were never intended to be out among people. They be meant to be watchdogs within junkyards--and even then it is questionable whether kids or criminals deserve to be maul for trespassing. Case after case proves it. And the adjectives gushy support for pitbulls by the public is revolting. There was a armour where the target (she) apologized to the dog. Some people are too cowardly to stand up against for a while wind.
No. That is similar to saying adjectives Arabs need to be euthanized, it is not right.

What they NEED is those following the laws and have common sense when owning a pit.

Bet you didn't know that Helen Keller have NUMEROUS seeing eye dogs which were pits. The first DECORATED time of war dog, was a pit and pits are the ONLY dogs which enjoy made the cover of Life 3 times!

People taking advantage of their virtues should be the ones in penal complex, not the breed!
I don't believe they should.

If you think final - there have *always* been a demon dog. Before it be pits, it was dobermans, next german shepards, Chows, etc we can go on.

These dogs enjoy been taken help of. If you can breed those features into an animal, you can breed them out (this was in truth one of my questions before)
There are also may accurate and calm natured pits who hold no aggressive tendencies. Unfortunately it isn't those dogs that are man replicated.
All dogs with a consignment above 10 pounds should be, other then German Shepard's for police and blind race

My 17 year old have moved in beside her STEPFATHER & she wants her child support checks! Is she intitled to them?

Will she still receive child support checks?
Answers: child support is not an income for a child. PERIOD
Are you the father? In any shield she is entitled to child support no matter where on earth she lives. You might be able to run to court to get the amount reduced if her moving contained by with her Stepfather have significantly reduced her monthly expenses.

However, do you really want to do that? It would be detrimental to your child, and that is what it is adjectives about, the child not the parents.

Best of luck to you.
She is not qualified to them. However, if an adult is taking charge of her, they could petition for the money. Did her stepfather adopt her?

This does remind me of a friend whose father was justifiably required to pay child support up until the time she be 21. There came a point where on earth the child (who was 18 at the time) moved surrounded by with her father, and the household went to court to resolve the issue of child support, since the child wasn't living near the mother receiving the child support anymore. In the finish (I think this be settled out of court) it was approved that the child support money could be put into a savings account/trust fund for the child.
She's not an grown, yet, so, yes, she still wishes support.

Does she still need to munch through and wear clothes?
Ummm..No, she is not entitled to it.. you are still offering a roof over her guide if she wants it...it be not ordered for her..it was ordered for you.
my proposal: do not just appendage it over - especially if he went to live near the step-father in a 'pouting manner'. does she still hold things in your house --- you are still providing a roof over 'her clothes' : )

How can we keep my daughter surrounded by law from getting my son's money which he inherits from me.?

My son's wife have 2 children from a previous marriage. They are surrounded by their 20's and won't get job. His wife is always catering to them. When I die and my son inherits some of my money, how can I or He stop her from getting his inheritance if he dies back she does, since she would be leaving it to her children when she dies. I don't want her kids to grasp the money that my husband & I worked hard for.
Answers: You should consult a legal representative about setting up a trust that your estate would be in motion to, and that would pay your son from the trust but be dispersed according to your wishes on his demise.
Speak with an attorney nearly placing a condition upon your son's inheritance rights, i.e.: "If my son dies prior to my daughter-in-law, his share of my inheritance shall revert back to my estate, and shared equally between the other beneficiaries of my will."

Certain will conditions must conform next to the statutes in your state.

Again, contact an attorney.
Please dont rob offense! But you sound really too overly concerned roughly things well into the adjectives. When you die ( I am assuming you are feeling it is iminently soon) You can evacuate your money to whom ever you wish. That is your right. Assuming you are a Hilton and you are departing millions and millions to your son, you are expecting him to not spend a dime and die shortly after you to which he will leave to a wife whom he loves, assuming she hords that money and dies following him to the grave; the millions topple into the hands of children whom you should hold accepted as step grandchildren.

In realness, I think the money is much smaller amount and your son who will miss you dearly probably will spend it on himself, his family or his own retirement. If he should live another 20+ years next to the same woman as his wife she will own (earned) which is not a good use of a word, she will enjoy been his wife for plentiful years and saw him through not only the loss of his mother but probably his own illness. That is to enunciate that you havent scared her past its sell-by date first or if she should die first.
Perhaps if you are a Hilton, she will devestate your dear son, break his heart and take partially of his money and leave him very soon, before any of you shall die.
ever hear of a trust fund?

The new canon on buying cigarettes (age limit raise to 18)?

How are the police going to enforce this when they are already fighting a losing scrimmage with underage drinkers?
Answers: They won't - they will enjoy a tough job on their hand. If they really want to kids will find a way of buying cigarettes - I did when I be 12! Naughty I know but I don't condone smoking anymore and gave up years ago but I'm a short time ago saying that kids will see it more of a thrill if they are breaking the ruling. The government should concentrate more on dealing beside gun and knife crime.
Huge fines to market that are caught selling cigarettes to underage kids. That's all they can do. It in truth works pretty well if stores effectively enforce the carding policy through their force. And the local police should be available for routine checks and stings.

Placing laws against selling cigarettes to minors and enforce it doesn't do much to curb minors from smoking. They'll get them surrounded by another way. Same as drinking. That's where on earth the plan is unenforceable.
They won't be able to enforce it, but at tiniest by increasing the age limit, it may sort a few young nation think twice, and probably deter them from smoking for long enough, that they come to an end up not taking it up.

I started smoking when I was 15 (because adjectives my friends were doing it), but I deliberate had the age limite be 18, I may have put it bad. Although having said that, the 18 age hamper didn't stop me getting drunk!

I don't smoke any more incidentally, and I still think the complex the age limit, the better.
What will be will be what have always happen under similar circumstances: selective enforcement base upon local values and ability.

Someone will electioneer for some political or ethical reason, and later all heck will break loose for a short interval of time. MADD, PETA, and other action groups dominate public policy for a jiffy before adjectives returns to "business as usual."
Where do you live? I'm 27, and in the US, the legalized age to purchase tobacco products has other been 18.

It other helps to know your from Scotland when you post something on the US forum. especially considering surrounded by the US, the legal age have always be 18.
Cirarettes should be banned.

If it wasn't for the taxes the govenment get from the sales, they would hold been prevented years ago.

The government are surrounded by effect just drug dealer.

Should parents of morbidly obese children be charged?

I dont normally scrutinize talk shows, but once surrounded by a while I will see one where these parents enjoy kids who are 1 1/2 years old and weigh over 100 pounds kids who are 6 and are over 300 pounds.

My Question is if the state can prove their obeisity is due to massive over feed and junk food should they be capable of charge the parents with Child omit and child endangerment?

Very few of these kids suffer from medical conditions that cause them to be so big. Some of the parents on the shows admit to feeding a 3 year infirm 3 whoppers, 2 hulking fries and 2 milk shakes for lunch and the other meals be not any better. Some said ther kids ate a dozen eggs for breakfast and a pound of sausage, 10 peieces of toast.

Many of these kids suffer from fruitless health from the method they eat and several will die young
Answers: In some cases, I utter "Yes" they should, because it isn't properly caring for your child. IMO, it's essentially slackness unless there is a medical intention.

I saw that show and it blew my mind. THOSE parents for sure should be in detain, they said they couldn't say "No" to thier kids..WTF??
first of adjectives I would wonder what childs body would be hungry enough to munch through that much food at once.even tho I am big I couldn't eat that much food at once no business how hungry I was.

I would wonder too, if at hand is a problem somewhere physiologically that they just dont' know around yet? they are other discovering new things just about our bodies they didn't know before.

second I would as a parent trade name more healthy fare available and tolerate the kid eat as much of that as he looked-for, and use the fattier foods as a side dish rather than a foremost course.

Third I would recommend the parents read the book called how to be fluently thin by consumption more by jean antenello and bodyfueling by robyn landis. the author made another book specifically geared towards kids and the book would be based on the principles found within the first mentioned book here.

Punishment or blame is out of place here, not a soul knows why parents of impossible to tell apart kids can have some that are overweight and some thin while they adjectives eat equal types of food,(i have see this, it is in my relatives too) tho some just munch through more, question what is precipatating the child to be so hungry to put away more?

their bodies are very sensitive to famine, not quantity famine, quality famine, if they use lower quality stuff consistently for hunger they will find they will capture fat eventually as their bodies form them over eat. but if they can plague up on the heatlhy fare first before drinking the lower quality stuff over time articulate 1-3 years their bodies will recover, take home needed adjustments contained by appetite, metabolism and fat burning etc, to return to a well again weight.

what parents requirement are not accusations or punishment or threats but unadulterated knowledge of what is cause the problem and how to solve it to everyone's happiness and satisfication especially the children.

RRRR

.
That's socialist BS. Parents of morbidly obese children should be responsible for them. Charging them, remarkable fines or putting them to jail solves nil.
I wouldn't give them any concerned of support though.
As far as I'm concerned, they're on their own.

(Same for druggies, alcoholics, gamblers, etc etc)

Probation Violation Payment?

I believe getting out for good behavior is the perfect oxymoron. Follow me here people...these nation go to send to prison for being "bad", next magically they go to lock up, a place where they are watch 24/7 mind you, and then achieve out early for person good within a place where they own no option but to be. Then they are released from send down and commit another crime, I think the state should be held responsible for them. If they be not let out afterwards they could not have hurt some one. For example: Joe Dirt-bag be sentenced to 15 years for murder, gets out untimely for good behavior and is on probation for 10 years, if contained by that ten years he commits a crime against another person i.e. rape, murder, assault etc. the people or the victim should sue the state for liability, by letting him out they are describing people he is better. If more ethnic group sue they would be extra careful more or less who the let out. Tell me what you devise!
Answers: Just remember this - when someone sues the state and wins YOU foot.

You said "then procure out early for self good within a place where they hold no option but to be." - While in that are incentives to "be good", many are not. Ever read roughly speaking a prison riot? Those guys were not "individual good". Convicts get charged next to crimes while in prison.

It is depressed that you have formed the assessment that every criminal will ALWAYS be a criminal and will never "be good". I have see this assumption proved wrong many, abundant times.
Here's a better idea: How roughly speaking making prison life so awfully unpleasant that those criminals who go within will never want to return? The bleeding-hearts have painted adjectives criminals as victims and preach rehabilitation as the answer. Too bad there's a mountain of research that say rehabilitation doesn't work. So instead of putting them in a place where on earth they get better meal than our men and women in uniform, free cable TV (yep, by Federal statute they MUST have cable TV within the prisons), free Internet access, free access to libraries and gym equipment, all at the expense of the taxpayer, why not return to the days of thorny time and hard labor?

I don't resembling your suggestion because there are already too various lawsuits in this country, and they're not solving any problems (all they're doing is making lawyer rich and teaching relations that the road to easy money is by suing someone for any sense under the sun). Holding relatives accountable for their movements and PUNISHING them when they break the law is a better solution.
incarceration is punitive and not intended for rehabilitation. the sprite system in this country have many, plentiful flaws. these flaws range from overcharging on the DA side, sentences that are not uniform from state to state and rediculous short sentences hand down by judges due to overcrowding and other lame excuses.

unhappily in the US within many cases the "accused" have more rights than the victim. the scales of even-handedness are not blind, those with power and money can buy equality in their favor

Social contract!?

Do you know any examples (recent) of the violation of the Social Contract?
Answers: The Patriot Act is a rights violation of the fundamental promise between the people and administration of America.
You are talking going on for an Enlightenment philosophical idea which served as the building block for modern representative democracy. Governments violate it adjectives the time, to one degree or another. The query then become what people want to do more or less it. Locke would have us overthrow the affairs of state, while Hobbes would say that the devastation resulting from the overthrow of a government is far worse than the bleak governance of a tyrant.

Frankly, if you're looking to instigate a rebellion against the U.S. governing body, I don't think even W have been THAT discouraging yet.
There's no such entity as a social contract. It's an idea.
Any contract requires a explicit agreement of those involved. There's no such entity as a contract signed by each and everyone contained by society. And you'd have to outline society first.
The idea is base on the works of Rousseau. Recommended reading if you're insomniac.
In my opinion he's wrong. It may enjoy been a correct idea at that time when they be going out of monarchy.
Now it would be a much better solution to go stern to the concepts of freedom.

The "patriot act" is a typical social contract thing. It puts the "interests of society" over adjectives other issues. And you can call anything a "social priority". It's merely a matter of vocal skills.
For example, the defense of society is a social priority because three thousands died over a six years period (it's greatly longer but six is good adequate to make a point) and the period of war and its cost is totally justified. However, more than five million died as a consequence of ferocious crime and a quarter of a million on the roads over the same time. Which one should be a social priority? Compare the spendings for each problem, are they justifiable proportioned?

The "patriot act" is a clear infringement of the principles of freedom established by the Constitution.
It's time to choose between "social contract" and the Constitution.

More Questions and Answers:
[730] - [2249] - [349] - [482] - [647] - [598] - [2223] - [1312] - [2243] - [1688] - [918] - [685] - [1919] - [1548] - [1623] - [1144] - [859] - [548] - [1869] - [1102]

The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.

Answer question: