I suspect where we really disagree Arthur, is whether ‘reality’ can be changed or escaped by simply “re-framing” the issues.
I suspect where we really disagree Arthur, is whether ‘reality’ can be changed or escaped by simply…
Mateo D
1

Ahhh, I see. If I am, in fact, re-framing reality, it is not without precedence. We today, living in a world of modernity or post-modernity, simply do not leave any space for limbo. The interstices between the boundaries of the law and the right to liberty cannot be abridged thru judicial edict nor executive order. This why the Constitution is written so simply and broadly. To allow for the latitude of discretion, subject to the circumstance and situation to which each application of the boundaries inherently possessed, of how a particular law might be enforced.

This, in turn, forces the legislature to be less precise in the wording of law to afford greater latitude and freedom to extend the boundaries of personal liberty without curtailing the freedoms of others and allowing for the just application of law as the situation demands. In other words, rather than tailoring laws to meet specific outcomes in every case, laws should be formed to allow for diverse outcomes to differing circumstance. This in turn leaves a lot of things in a state of limbo. So that each circumstance is decided on a purely “case by case” basis.

Unfortunately this leads us far afield from the topic first raised by Rick Fischer, so I will simply leave it there, as now we’ve gone from the legal minutiae of where does life begin to a full blown critique of the legal foundation underpinning all our laws. An argument I simply don’t have time to devote to, so…

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.