Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!genrad!decvax!harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!houti!trc
From: trc@houti.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: lawful and just government
Message-ID: <301@houti.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 14-Jun-83 11:05:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: houti.301
Posted: Tue Jun 14 11:05:00 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 15-Jun-83 18:37:17 EDT
Lines: 33


   Response to Guy Harris, on the nature of government:

   How many times is it necessary to re-write a law declaring the
   intent  of  a  government  to  forbid and punish murder?  Once
   should be enough.  There is little need for further  political
   consideration  of  the question.  All the laws that I consider
   to be proper for  government  CAN  be  done  once  and  mostly
   correctly.   There  may be some need for adjustments, but such
   should not be left to a small body of men,  nor  to  a  simple
   majority.  Only  unanimous  agreement  of  the governed people
   should cause the creation  of  laws.

   It is true that judges are men, but there is a vast difference
   between a judge that serves his own whims and one that follows
   the law to the letter, no matter what his  personal  feelings.
   You write of interpretation as if you thought it was some sort
   of "trick" by which judges are able to get  around  a  clearly
   written  law.   Do  you  also see interpretation of BASIC by a
   computer in this light?   And  yet,  that  is  a  fairly  good
   analogy  -  a  small,  fixed set of rules for interpreting all
   circumstances and determining the appropriate action.   It  is
   not  always as simple to do with the law, but people are a lot
   smarter than computers.  It is true  that  a  judge  might  be
   crooked  and so deliberately render a misinterpretation of the
   law.  That can be true no matter what system of laws one  has.
   Is such a crook more likely to get away with it in a system of
   a few clearly stated principles, understood by all;  or  in  a
   system   with   a   tangle   of   vague,   contradictory,  and
   incomprehensible laws?

           Tom Craver
           houti!trc