Political Crossfire Forums

[F'losrix]

Back to some basic questions:

What do you consider to be the elements of a 'good law'?

What are the mistakes that make for the creation of a 'bad law'?

Which do you favor - broadly written laws, or those very narrow and specific in scope?

How do we measure whether a law is good or bad? Would you consider the number of legal challenges to it an indicator? Is a good law one that settles more questions than it creates?

My apologies in advance if we've covered this before - I must have missed it.

[LostSoul3412]

F'losrix wrote: What do you consider to be the elements of a 'good law'?

What are the mistakes that make for the creation of a 'bad law'?

There are no "good laws" or "bad laws", there are simply laws.

F'losrix wrote: Which do you favor - broadly written laws, or those very narrow and specific in scope?

I would prefer many narrow specific laws that form together into a coherent system, much like specific ideals form into a coherent ideology.

F'losrix wrote: How do we measure whether a law is good or bad? Would you consider the number of legal challenges to it an indicator? Is a good law one that settles more questions than it creates?

As I stated above, there are no varying degrees of laws, there are merely laws. However, if you want to have some way of measuring them, I would credit their enforcement, purpose, and compliance as means of assessing the quality of a law.

[Medius]

F'losrix wrote: Back to some basic questions:

What do you consider to be the elements of a 'good law'?

What are the mistakes that make for the creation of a 'bad law'?

Which do you favor - broadly written laws, or those very narrow and specific in scope?

How do we measure whether a law is good or bad? Would you consider the number of legal challenges to it an indicator? Is a good law one that settles more questions than it creates?

My apologies in advance if we've covered this before - I must have missed it.

In my opinion a good law should be protective and not restrictive. That is to mean that all laws should be based only on preserving rights and not taking them away.

Additionally, I believe a good law should generally be reactive rather than proactive. Just because a situation may create a breach of law, does not mean that action should be illegal. Proactive solutions should be handled as suggestion and warning, but not fines and jail.

The one question I might ask is whether you were asking from a Federal, a State, or either/or perspective?

Federal Laws need to always fall within the scope of the Constitution and I believe that we need to force a much higher degree of responsibility on Federal Lawmakers. Federal Laws should include a few additional things in my opinion.

Quote: Under what constitutional authority is the law created?
What right is this law intended to protect?
What is the explicit jurisdictional scope of the law?
What people are encompassed by the law?

[LostSoul3412]

Medius wrote: In my opinion a good law should be protective and not restrictive. That is to mean that all laws should be based only on preserving rights and not taking them away.

All laws take away rights. The key is the find the balance between liberty and safety.

[Medius]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Medius wrote: In my opinion a good law should be protective and not restrictive. That is to mean that all laws should be based only on preserving rights and not taking them away.

All laws take away rights. The key is the find the balance between liberty and safety.

Agreed, but my argument is that the basis for the law should not be the taking away of rights, but rather the protection of rights.

For example: "Killing is bad because god says so, so don't kill" is not a good basis for a law. "Killing is bad because it infringes upon someone's right to personal security" is a good basis for a law.

Both restrict and both preserve, but the goal ofthe first is not to preserve a right, rather to ristrict. The goal of the second is to preserve a right by the necessary evil of restriction.

[F'losrix]

LostSoul3412 wrote: There are no "good laws" or "bad laws", there are simply laws.
I have to respectfully disagree, though I'll concede that my original question was vague. I think we can make judgments about whether a law is 'good' or 'bad', based on whether it's writing clearly portrays the intent behind its adoption or creates confusion by being too open to subjective interpretation. I think we can also make judgments about the quality of a law based on its outcomes - whether it achieves the desired effect or ends up having consequences that the writer(s) failed to consider.

My question is aimed at uncovering what the criteria for evaluation might be - not necessarily whether some specific law is good or bad (though examples might be helpful).

While in a very abstract sense law is possibly amoral, I don't think we should be so quick to dismiss the intentions of its writers to profer some benefit or too punish, and whether those intentions made for a sound enactment with some positive outcome. Don't confuse this with attempts to enforce some subjective moral code through the tool of law - that isn't my thrust at all.

LostSoul3412 wrote: F'losrix wrote: Which do you favor - broadly written laws, or those very narrow and specific in scope?

I would prefer many narrow specific laws that form together into a coherent system, much like specific ideals form into a coherent ideology.
With legislation being passed by separate federal and state legislatures, with memberships that change, I think it's not so hard to see that maintaining a coherent and cohesive system comprised of many narrow, specific laws might become unmanageable. But it's an interesting idea.

LostSoul3412 wrote: F'losrix wrote: How do we measure whether a law is good or bad? Would you consider the number of legal challenges to it an indicator? Is a good law one that settles more questions than it creates?

As I stated above, there are no varying degrees of laws, there are merely laws. However, if you want to have some way of measuring them, I would credit their enforcement, purpose, and compliance as means of assessing the quality of a law.
That's the sort of thing I was looking for. Care to expand on the idea in greater detail?

[F'losrix]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Medius wrote: In my opinion a good law should be protective and not restrictive. That is to mean that all laws should be based only on preserving rights and not taking them away.

All laws take away rights. The key is the find the balance between liberty and safety.
I would say that most if not all law takes away some liberty. I'm not entirely convinced that a liberty and a right are precisely the same thing, though.

[F'losrix]

Medius wrote: The one question I might ask is whether you were asking from a Federal, a State, or either/or perspective?
Either/or - I meant it to be broad, but I think there's room for specifics so long as the discussion stays focused on good law/bad law.

Medius wrote: Federal Laws need to always fall within the scope of the Constitution and I believe that we need to force a much higher degree of responsibility on Federal Lawmakers. Federal Laws should include a few additional things in my opinion.

Quote: Under what constitutional authority is the law created?
What right is this law intended to protect?
What is the explicit jurisdictional scope of the law?
What people are encompassed by the law?
:tu:

[LostSoul3412]

Medius wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: Medius wrote: In my opinion a good law should be protective and not restrictive. That is to mean that all laws should be based only on preserving rights and not taking them away.

All laws take away rights. The key is the find the balance between liberty and safety.

Agreed, but my argument is that the basis for the law should not be the taking away of rights, but rather the protection of rights.

For example: "Killing is bad because god says so, so don't kill" is not a good basis for a law. "Killing is bad because it infringes upon someone's right to personal security" is a good basis for a law.

Both restrict and both preserve, but the goal ofthe first is not to preserve a right, rather to ristrict. The goal of the second is to preserve a right by the necessary evil of restriction.

So it's not so much what the law says, but really a question of why is says it?

I would say that the purpose is irrelevant, and that if it is law, it is law regardless of reason, but I can respect that ideal.

[LostSoul3412]

F'losrix wrote: I have to respectfully disagree, though I'll concede that my original question was vague. I think we can make judgments about whether a law is 'good' or 'bad', based on whether it's writing clearly portrays the intent behind its adoption or creates confusion by being too open to subjective interpretation. I think we can also make judgments about the quality of a law based on its outcomes - whether it achieves the desired effect or ends up having consequences that the writer(s) failed to consider.

My question is aimed at uncovering what the criteria for evaluation might be - not necessarily whether some specific law is good or bad (though examples might be helpful).

While in a very abstract sense law is possibly amoral, I don't think we should be so quick to dismiss the intentions of its writers to profer some benefit or too punish, and whether those intentions made for a sound enactment with some positive outcome. Don't confuse this with attempts to enforce some subjective moral code through the tool of law - that isn't my thrust at all.

I would say the intention is irrelevant. So long as it is law, there is no need for reason. If it is law, it is law.

F'losrix wrote: With legislation being passed by separate federal and state legislatures, with memberships that change, I think it's not so hard to see that maintaining a coherent and cohesive system comprised of many narrow, specific laws might become unmanageable. But it's an interesting idea.

I suppose the best analogy I can come up with would be a jigsaw puzzle. Each law represents one individual piece, that all ultimately fit together in a coherent pattern, and form a desired picture.

F'losrix wrote: That's the sort of thing I was looking for. Care to expand on the idea in greater detail?

I suppose at this point it's not so much addressing the value of the law itself, but of the effectiveness of that law.

If you want to determine the effectiveness of the law, I suppose you would first have to determine the enforcement of that law. It is enforceable at all? Are the benefits worth the cost of enforcement? If so, then it is an enforceable law, which is important for its effectiveness.

Next, the purpose of the law. What is the purpose of the law, specifically? If it a protection of the individual, or of the general society? If that protection worth the sacrifice of the liberty? While this is ultimately going to end in a subjective answer, these are the things that must be considered when drafting laws. Regardless, if its passed as law, it is law, and the purpose is ultimately void once passed.

Finally, the compliance of the law. Are the people obeying it? If not, then why not? Is it because they are ignoring the law? Active disobedience of the law? Or, are the people simply unable to comply? These questions need to be continuously asked, and addressed when considering amending the law itself.

Granted, that all of these things could go either way on any law, but ultimately, the law still stands as law. Until changed, or removed, the law still holds legal standing, even if you don't agree with it.

[F'losrix]

LostSoul3412 wrote: I would say the intention is irrelevant. So long as it is law, there is no need for reason. If it is law, it is law.
That's law for the law's own sake, not the people it governs. I get what you mean, but I disagree with the notion of just shrugging and saying "it's the law, good/bad/indifferent by whatever standard you judge it, it's still the law and that's all that matters". I think it matters whether or not the law is beneficial, who benefits and at whose expense.

LostSoul3412 wrote: I suppose the best analogy I can come up with would be a jigsaw puzzle. Each law represents one individual piece, that all ultimately fit together in a coherent pattern, and form a desired picture.
That would be the ideal. If you'll indulge my extension of the analogy, I think the danger is that over time some of the pieces get lost or mishandled to the point that they dont' fit and the picture becomes incomplete or distorted. The more pieces and the tinier they are in size, the greater the chance of losing one or several.

Quote: I suppose at this point it's not so much addressing the value of the law itself, but of the effectiveness of that law.

If you want to determine the effectiveness of the law, I suppose you would first have to determine the enforcement of that law. It is enforceable at all? Are the benefits worth the cost of enforcement? If so, then it is an enforceable law, which is important for its effectiveness.

Next, the purpose of the law. What is the purpose of the law, specifically? If it a protection of the individual, or of the general society? If that protection worth the sacrifice of the liberty? While this is ultimately going to end in a subjective answer, these are the things that must be considered when drafting laws. Regardless, if its passed as law, it is law, and the purpose is ultimately void once passed.

Finally, the compliance of the law. Are the people obeying it? If not, then why not? Is it because they are ignoring the law? Active disobedience of the law? Or, are the people simply unable to comply? These questions need to be continuously asked, and addressed when considering amending the law itself.

Granted, that all of these things could go either way on any law, but ultimately, the law still stands as law. Until changed, or removed, the law still holds legal standing, even if you don't agree with it.

Good points - thanks.

[LostSoul3412]

F'losrix wrote: That would be the ideal. If you'll indulge my extension of the analogy, I think the danger is that over time some of the pieces get lost or mishandled to the point that they dont' fit and the picture becomes incomplete or distorted. The more pieces and the tinier they are in size, the greater the chance of losing one or several.

The Constitution is the boarder of the "law puzzle", and all other laws need to fit within that boarder. Unfortunately, sometimes we put pieces outside that boarder, and say that they're part of the puzzle, and sometimes we even take pieces that aren't even part of the puzzle! However, ultimately, the laws (pieces) should work within the boarder of the Constitution, and work together to form a solid picture... but, sometimes we have the right pieces in the wrong places... Also, we find more pieces of the boarder still in the box, and the puzzle constantly expands.

(I actually really like the puzzle analogy. :-D )

[JRM4833]

Laws that are too broad are unconstitutional. And I think that whether a law is good or bad is subjective for the most part.

[Apollo5]

According to the Constitution. We do NOT have "Constitutional Rights." But rather "God Given Rights." That have been, are, and will be. The Constitution was to declare this and to restrain the government from taking away those rights. The Constitution is for the National government, not the people.

I personally am in favor of local laws. Not National. And through the procces set by the Constitution. Not Democracy.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson

[JRM4833]

Apollo5 wrote: According to the Constitution. We do NOT have "Constitutional Rights." But rather "God Given Rights."

The Constitution doesn't mention "God" so I'm not sure why you're using quotation marks.

[LostSoul3412]

JRM4833 wrote: Apollo5 wrote: According to the Constitution. We do NOT have "Constitutional Rights." But rather "God Given Rights."

The Constitution doesn't mention "God" so I'm not sure why you're using quotation marks.

Agreed; the Constitution implies that all rights are inherent.

[Medius]

LostSoul3412 wrote: JRM4833 wrote: Apollo5 wrote: According to the Constitution. We do NOT have "Constitutional Rights." But rather "God Given Rights."

The Constitution doesn't mention "God" so I'm not sure why you're using quotation marks.

Agreed; the Constitution implies that all rights are inherent.

This confusion is generally taken from the Declaration of Independence which refers to God given rights.

I agree as well though, the Constitution does indeed imply that all rights are inherent. There would be no need for Amendment IX if our rights were enumerated and given by the state.

[LostSoul3412]

Medius wrote: There would be no need for Amendment IX if our rights were enumerated and given by the state.

Actually... because of the Ninth Amendment, the state does grant our rights:

The Ninth Amendment states that all rights are inherent, but the Ninth Amendment is a construct of the state, so the state has the power to determine the source of your rights.

If all our rights were automatically inherent, there would be no Ninth Amendment.