longweekend58 wrote on Jul 25
th, 2016 at 8:20am:
Based on your other confused, confusing and contradictory writing I acan only image what this 'dissertation' is like. You are seek to create this 'Rule of Law' notion as if it is something you define rather than it being itself the body of law as it exists and the notion of obiedence to same.
Like so many other conspiracy nutters, you create this 'law' that serves your purpose despite it either not existing or not being what you think it is. You should try reading the Flat Earthers understand of the Law of Perspective. I grant you are brighter than they are (who isnt!) but the concept is the same.
Ah, yes - the old 'body of law as it exists' - therefore there are NO unlawful or wrongful 'laws' around, the current set we have is perfection itself, and nothing needs to be changed...
Perhaps you could tell that to those currently intent on changing so many things..... but then, since your addiction to the 'body of law as it exists' is more closely akin to a religious fervour..... I doubt you can see the difference.
You are, as usual, incorrect - The Law Itself is based on what is essentially a constitution for law-making - which is Magna Carta - which stipulates that minimum standards cannot be breached (now where does that sound familiar here and now today?) in the designing and implementation of legislation and of law as used daily. For example, where a piece of legislation is inherently unfair, i.e fails the test of Natural Justice, then it is an illegal piece of legislation.
You need to be fully aware that the oath of office of police officers may be to 'uphold the law as written' - meaning that if any piece of inherently unfair legislation is not properly challenged - a process that is extremely expensive here in Oz - it will hold sway regardless of its legality and thus police are still obliged to uphold it. On the other hand, it is entirely within the province of judges and even that lowest of the low in the criminal classes here in Australia, the magistrates, to overturn or refuse the right of any illegal or unfair etc piece of legislation to hold sway, since their oath of office is to 'do right by all manner of persons equally according to Law" (not law or legislation).
You have countless times been given the clear example of at least two salient law-abiding national bodies who have acted outside the Rule of Law, yet have done so by the process of installing legislation and regulation to suit themselves, which sets of rules have been rejected by Humanity at large and then suppressed by Humanity at large. Please try to keep up in class.
That failure of the judiciary to strike down at first glance wrongful, inherently unfair or outright illegal legislation/regulation is one of the cornerstones of the current disaster that is Australia in waiting, with its loss of everything of value to suit some upstart twerps who imagine themselves better than the rest and thus ....... above the law.... and who use the process of making legislation/regulation as nothing more than a means of self-advancement and/or of oppression of any who may potentially oppose that self-advancement.
This is a huge area... I doubt you have the ability or the knowledge to understand it, since your addiction to the current 'body of law as it exists' is, as stated, of a religious nature not unlike that of IS and other rabid adherents to religious based ideologies.
If you are confused by the English language, dear Longie - perhaps you should consider another career apart from online discussion of complex and meaningful issues for modern and future society. These are very REAL issues pertaining to yesterday, today and tomorrow... not some unfounded 'conspiracy theory', and your inability to understand and follow them in no way diminishes their importance to us all.
Forum
Pages: 
