<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: What the Law is vs. What the Law Ought to Be</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/06/12/what-the-law-is-vs-what-the-law-ought-to-be/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/06/12/what-the-law-is-vs-what-the-law-ought-to-be/</link>
	<description>Men&#039;s Rights Activism, MRA Politics, Analysis, Commentary and Global News</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 14:23:52 -1000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: mruffolo</title>
		<link>http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/06/12/what-the-law-is-vs-what-the-law-ought-to-be/comment-page-1/#comment-43971</link>
		<dc:creator>mruffolo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jun 2007 20:10:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/06/12/what-the-law-is-vs-what-the-law-ought-to-be/#comment-43971</guid>
		<description>Woman Mayor passes clothing law aimed at men. Men will be penelized of up to six months in jail and a $500 fine for being caught in pants that show undergarments or, in the mayor&#039;s phrase, &quot;private parts.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,281932,00.html

Mayor&#039;s law excludes women who show private parts and or undergarments.

http://perezhilton.com/topics/britney_spears/britney_this_has_to_stop_20061129.php

http://perezhilton.com/topics/lindsay_lohan/lindsay_unveils_her_firecrotch_20060905.php

http://www.victoriassecret.com</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Woman Mayor passes clothing law aimed at men. Men will be penelized of up to six months in jail and a $500 fine for being caught in pants that show undergarments or, in the mayor&#8217;s phrase, &#8220;private parts.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,281932,00.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,281932,00.html</a></p>
<p>Mayor&#8217;s law excludes women who show private parts and or undergarments.</p>
<p><a href="http://perezhilton.com/topics/britney_spears/britney_this_has_to_stop_20061129.php" rel="nofollow">http://perezhilton.com/topics/britney_spears/britney_this_has_to_stop_20061129.php</a></p>
<p><a href="http://perezhilton.com/topics/lindsay_lohan/lindsay_unveils_her_firecrotch_20060905.php" rel="nofollow">http://perezhilton.com/topics/lindsay_lohan/lindsay_unveils_her_firecrotch_20060905.php</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.victoriassecret.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.victoriassecret.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Roger Knight</title>
		<link>http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/06/12/what-the-law-is-vs-what-the-law-ought-to-be/comment-page-1/#comment-43968</link>
		<dc:creator>Roger Knight</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jun 2007 19:10:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/06/12/what-the-law-is-vs-what-the-law-ought-to-be/#comment-43968</guid>
		<description>An interesting concept.  Go by what the law actually says, and if you don&#039;t like what the law actually says, then lobby for a change.

Imagine if the courts were to apply that rule to the Antipeonage Act?

How about provisions of the Constitution and the state constitutions?

If child support is not a punishment for a crime whereof the party has been duly convicted, then it is not an exception to the ban on slavery and involuntary servitude.  Unlike abortion, freedom from slavery and involuntary servitude is not a made up right, but a right specifically enumerated in the Constiuttion.

And as Tank Johnson is suspended for 8 games after having served two months in jail for, get this, possessing firearms, not for pointing such firearms at anybody or for pulling the trigger and being responsible for where the bullet goes and what happens when it gets there, no, just possessing such firearms without registering them with some government agency, and God forbid, transporting such firearms in a car, we can all ask the Illinois authorities and the NFL:

What part of &quot;the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed&quot; do you not understand?

Had Tank been a Seahawk and the incidents happened in the State of Washington, no gun charge could have been filed and no justification for NFL suspension would have arisen.

In our state, if you are not disqualified from owning firearms by reason of felony or domestic violence misdemeanor conviction, the number of guns you can lawfully own runs from  zero to infinity and there is no requirement to register any of them.  You can own any number of shotguns as long as the barrel of each is 18 inches or longer.  And there is no requirement to register any of them.

Washington is a liberal state, but there are certain parts of the liberal agenda that just do not pass and are not tolerated.

Too bad feminazi family law and child support peonage are not parts of the liberal agenda that do not pass and are not tolerated.

But then again, that is because judges refuse  to go by what the Antipeonage Act, a duly and lawfully passed Act of Congress, and the Constitution actually SAY.

When a law passed by Congress or a state legislature violates a provision of the Constitution, it should be struck down.  Just go by what the statute SAYS, and then go by what the Constitution SAYS.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>An interesting concept.  Go by what the law actually says, and if you don&#8217;t like what the law actually says, then lobby for a change.</p>
<p>Imagine if the courts were to apply that rule to the Antipeonage Act?</p>
<p>How about provisions of the Constitution and the state constitutions?</p>
<p>If child support is not a punishment for a crime whereof the party has been duly convicted, then it is not an exception to the ban on slavery and involuntary servitude.  Unlike abortion, freedom from slavery and involuntary servitude is not a made up right, but a right specifically enumerated in the Constiuttion.</p>
<p>And as Tank Johnson is suspended for 8 games after having served two months in jail for, get this, possessing firearms, not for pointing such firearms at anybody or for pulling the trigger and being responsible for where the bullet goes and what happens when it gets there, no, just possessing such firearms without registering them with some government agency, and God forbid, transporting such firearms in a car, we can all ask the Illinois authorities and the NFL:</p>
<p>What part of &#8220;the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed&#8221; do you not understand?</p>
<p>Had Tank been a Seahawk and the incidents happened in the State of Washington, no gun charge could have been filed and no justification for NFL suspension would have arisen.</p>
<p>In our state, if you are not disqualified from owning firearms by reason of felony or domestic violence misdemeanor conviction, the number of guns you can lawfully own runs from  zero to infinity and there is no requirement to register any of them.  You can own any number of shotguns as long as the barrel of each is 18 inches or longer.  And there is no requirement to register any of them.</p>
<p>Washington is a liberal state, but there are certain parts of the liberal agenda that just do not pass and are not tolerated.</p>
<p>Too bad feminazi family law and child support peonage are not parts of the liberal agenda that do not pass and are not tolerated.</p>
<p>But then again, that is because judges refuse  to go by what the Antipeonage Act, a duly and lawfully passed Act of Congress, and the Constitution actually SAY.</p>
<p>When a law passed by Congress or a state legislature violates a provision of the Constitution, it should be struck down.  Just go by what the statute SAYS, and then go by what the Constitution SAYS.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: scottkirk</title>
		<link>http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/06/12/what-the-law-is-vs-what-the-law-ought-to-be/comment-page-1/#comment-43939</link>
		<dc:creator>scottkirk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:40:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/06/12/what-the-law-is-vs-what-the-law-ought-to-be/#comment-43939</guid>
		<description>john, excelent piece...
 You seem to be knowledeable in this particular area  (that definatelly needs some attention).

Judicial assumption of un-bridled, un-checked power is a slipperry slope..Are you aware of any groups that are discussing this situation??</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>john, excelent piece&#8230;<br />
 You seem to be knowledeable in this particular area  (that definatelly needs some attention).</p>
<p>Judicial assumption of un-bridled, un-checked power is a slipperry slope..Are you aware of any groups that are discussing this situation??</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mruffolo</title>
		<link>http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/06/12/what-the-law-is-vs-what-the-law-ought-to-be/comment-page-1/#comment-43918</link>
		<dc:creator>mruffolo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jun 2007 06:14:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/06/12/what-the-law-is-vs-what-the-law-ought-to-be/#comment-43918</guid>
		<description>When a father murders, it is illegal.

When a mother murders it is dismissed.

2nd Judge upholds ruling that mother cannot be charged with murdering her newborn son.

http://media.www.dailytrojan.com/media/storage/paper679/news/2007/06/13/News/L.a-Judge.Dismisses.Charge.In.Ashcraft.Case-2914520.shtml</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When a father murders, it is illegal.</p>
<p>When a mother murders it is dismissed.</p>
<p>2nd Judge upholds ruling that mother cannot be charged with murdering her newborn son.</p>
<p><a href="http://media.www.dailytrojan.com/media/storage/paper679/news/2007/06/13/News/L.a-Judge.Dismisses.Charge.In.Ashcraft.Case-2914520.shtml" rel="nofollow">http://media.www.dailytrojan.com/media/storage/paper679/news/2007/06/13/News/L.a-Judge.Dismisses.Charge.In.Ashcraft.Case-2914520.shtml</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lloyd Selberg</title>
		<link>http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/06/12/what-the-law-is-vs-what-the-law-ought-to-be/comment-page-1/#comment-43916</link>
		<dc:creator>Lloyd Selberg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jun 2007 05:22:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/06/12/what-the-law-is-vs-what-the-law-ought-to-be/#comment-43916</guid>
		<description>John:

Your point is worth of serious discussion.  Little question that much of modern law is right out of Wonderland.  Words mean nothing and my favorite Louis Carroll quote comes to mind:  

&quot;When I use a word,&quot; Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, &quot;it means just what I chose it to mean - neither more nor less.&quot; &quot;The question is,&quot; said Alice, &quot;whether you can make words mean so many different things.&quot; &quot;The question is,&quot; said Humpty Dumpty, &quot;which is to be master - that&#039;s all.&quot; (Lewis Carroll)

Far too often judges at all levels simply ignore the most fundament legal principles in favor of political correctness or equally often promoting further litigation.  Scientist and engineers must follow immutable natural laws, but with man’s laws judges and prosecutors with only politically limited discretion are completely out of control.   

“There is no proposition so absurd but that some judge, sitting on some bench, has at some time solemnly proclaimed it to be the law.” - Harvard Law School’s Edmund Morgan

The public is all but bared from practice of law and thus at the mercy of self serving legal professionals that have the morality of prostitutes.  

“Lawyers lounge under the lampposts of jurisprudence, in the moral equivalent of plastic miniskirts and fishnet stockings, breathing, &quot;Oh, ba-a-a-aybee, I&#039;ll do anything for $250 an hour.&quot; – Fred Reed</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>John:</p>
<p>Your point is worth of serious discussion.  Little question that much of modern law is right out of Wonderland.  Words mean nothing and my favorite Louis Carroll quote comes to mind:  </p>
<p>&#8220;When I use a word,&#8221; Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, &#8220;it means just what I chose it to mean &#8211; neither more nor less.&#8221; &#8220;The question is,&#8221; said Alice, &#8220;whether you can make words mean so many different things.&#8221; &#8220;The question is,&#8221; said Humpty Dumpty, &#8220;which is to be master &#8211; that&#8217;s all.&#8221; (Lewis Carroll)</p>
<p>Far too often judges at all levels simply ignore the most fundament legal principles in favor of political correctness or equally often promoting further litigation.  Scientist and engineers must follow immutable natural laws, but with man’s laws judges and prosecutors with only politically limited discretion are completely out of control.   </p>
<p>“There is no proposition so absurd but that some judge, sitting on some bench, has at some time solemnly proclaimed it to be the law.” &#8211; Harvard Law School’s Edmund Morgan</p>
<p>The public is all but bared from practice of law and thus at the mercy of self serving legal professionals that have the morality of prostitutes.  </p>
<p>“Lawyers lounge under the lampposts of jurisprudence, in the moral equivalent of plastic miniskirts and fishnet stockings, breathing, &#8220;Oh, ba-a-a-aybee, I&#8217;ll do anything for $250 an hour.&#8221; – Fred Reed</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jjtaup</title>
		<link>http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/06/12/what-the-law-is-vs-what-the-law-ought-to-be/comment-page-1/#comment-43915</link>
		<dc:creator>jjtaup</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jun 2007 05:06:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/06/12/what-the-law-is-vs-what-the-law-ought-to-be/#comment-43915</guid>
		<description>Yes, of course. The good loyas have been very busy thumbing their noses at the principles of our government. Let the people write their laws via the legislature, and then tell them what it means. 

Aren&#039;t judges gods? Don&#039;t they know what&#039;s best? Sounds like a just system to me, letting the country club members decide what laws get edited, amended, or ignored on an &quot;as need be&quot; basis.

Now where was that bumper sticker...? Oh yeah, &quot;Kill all lawyers.&quot; We can compassionately lower that percentage on an &quot;as need be&quot; basis.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, of course. The good loyas have been very busy thumbing their noses at the principles of our government. Let the people write their laws via the legislature, and then tell them what it means. </p>
<p>Aren&#8217;t judges gods? Don&#8217;t they know what&#8217;s best? Sounds like a just system to me, letting the country club members decide what laws get edited, amended, or ignored on an &#8220;as need be&#8221; basis.</p>
<p>Now where was that bumper sticker&#8230;? Oh yeah, &#8220;Kill all lawyers.&#8221; We can compassionately lower that percentage on an &#8220;as need be&#8221; basis.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
