Polish court's ruling: A sikh vs. airport security checks

[Ideologue]

I think you're confusing "law" with "statute."  Law can come from several sources aside from legislation--in the U.S., the constitution (which I guess is somewhat legislative, but whatever), acts of legislature, the executive employing its rulemaking power, and judicial decisions/common law.

Regs have exactly the force of law.  That they arise from the borrowed power of legislation, and that they are subordinate to statutory law, such that they may be held ultra vires in regards to their authorizing statute and stricken or limited, does not make them not law.  It just makes them not statutes.

[Razgovory]

Three non-lawyers argue about what is a law.  Who wins?

[DGuller]

Three non-lawyers argue about what is a law.  Who wins?

[fhdz]

Three non-lawyers argue about what is a law.  Who wins?

You throw a lot of stones from that glass house, Raz. Not making a judgment on it. Just saying.

[Razgovory]

Three non-lawyers argue about what is a law.  Who wins?

You throw a lot of stones from that glass house, Raz. Not making a judgment on it. Just saying.

I never try to portray myself as anything but a uneducated lunatic.

[Ideologue]

Whereas I'm educated.  So fuck you!

(I thought your joke was funny, though. )

[fhdz]

I never try to portray myself as anything but a uneducated lunatic.

What I mean is that you seem to have no trouble arguing endlessly about topics you - by your own standards - shouldn't get to weigh in on.

[Razgovory]

You missed the point of my crack.

[fhdz]

You missed the point of my crack.

That's just like me, forever missing crack.

[grumbler]

I think you're confusing "law" with "statute."  Law can come from several sources aside from legislation--in the U.S., the constitution (which I guess is somewhat legislative, but whatever), acts of legislature, the executive employing its rulemaking power, and judicial decisions/common law.

Common ("case") law is not statute law.  The executive does not have lawmaking power, only the power to make regulations to enforce laws.  I don't think you quite grasp the concept of law, Mr. Law-degree-holder.

Regs have exactly the force of law.  That they arise from the borrowed power of legislation, and that they are subordinate to statutory law, such that they may be held ultra vires in regards to their authorizing statute and stricken or limited, does not make them not law.  It just makes them not statutes.

Regulations only have the force of the law which authorizes them.  If the law fails in some challenge, all regulations based on it fail, as well.  Not so for regulations.  Further, some regulations aren't based in law at all; if CdM, back when he was with the Balmer PoPo, showed up in summer uniform after whatever date the uniform regulations said he should have switched to the winter uniform, he would not be in violation of "the law," just the regulation.  Regs don't have the force of law in and of themselves.

[dps]

Secularism doesn't equal hostility to religion. Just don't think it should be dictating politics and laws.

It's not about religion dictating politics and laws--from an American perspective, it's that laws shouldn't force people to behave in a manner that goes against their religious beliefs, unless the state has an compelling state interest to restrict such action--and the bar is set pretty high as to what the courts will accept as a compelling interest. That's why we allowed people to be conscientious objectors when we had a military draft--even the nation's defense isn't viewed as a compelling enough interest in that case.    (Note that this extends to not forcing people who don't have any religious beliefs to act in a manner that goes against their lack of belief as well--that's why an athiest who object to the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance can't be compelled to recite the pledge in school--or elsewhere--nor can members of certain faiths that object to swearing allegiance to any earthly government.  [Whether or not it's appropriate for the phrase to be in the Pledge in the first place is a separate issue.])

In short, to many Americans, saying that freedom of religion is OK, but should be limited to what one does in private is akin to saying that freedom of speech is OK, but it should be limited to private conversations.

[Ideologue]

Common law is not statute law.  The executive does not have lawmaking power, only the power to make regulations to enforce laws.  I don't think you quite grasp the concept of law, Mr. Law-degree-holder.

The legislature may delegate non-essential lawmaking powers to the executive, what is termed quasi-legislative powers, to make regulations that fill the gaps often left by statutes, or almost as often make concrete their vague directives.

Regulatory law is subordinate to statutory law, yes.  Statutory law is just as subordinate to constitutional law.  I see no reason to not to call it law simply because of this, and most people (which is to say, all minus you) agree that the CFR and state codes of regulations are "sources of law."  They establish citizens' legal rights and duties, can involve substantial penalties and authorize remedies, and acts adjudicating cases involving regulations can be appealed into courts.

Why don't you tell me what your idiosyncratic definition of "law" is.  Maybe regulations don't meet that definition, even if regs do in fact meet the definition of every other observer.

In the CdM example, Money would be subject to whatever penalty a properly promulgated and established reg named.  His redress, if any, would involve the legal process (quasi-judicial process) set up by the BPD or the City of Baltimore or whatever to adjudicate disputes involving agency action.

In another example, if the FDA establishes a limit of 1 part mercury per million in fish, and some fishmonger sells fish with 10 parts per million, they have "violated the law" even if the authorizing statute says something along the lines of "no excessive amounts of heavy metals in food."  That reg couldn't exist without the statute, but the reg need not have taken that particular form once the statute authorized the FDA to regulate heavy metals.  It has life in its own right.

If you think federal regs have no force of law, why not go violate an agency order and explain your position clearly to intra-agency appeals personnel and eventually the district court judge, and see what happens.

[Razgovory]

You missed the point of my crack.

That's just like me, forever missing crack.

See it's funny because Marty claims to be a lawyer but many of us question it, Ide has a law degree but won't take the bar, and Grumbler is just Grumbler.

Incidentally, I do respect Ide's intelligence.  I think that he would make a better fit as an engineer then a lawyer though.  I think he wants to be the next John Edwards.

[Ideologue]

Eh, I'm taking the bar in July.

I think my original plan gets unfairly criticized simply because it failed.

And there can only be one John Edwards.

[Martinus]

I think you're confusing "law" with "statute."  Law can come from several sources aside from legislation--in the U.S., the constitution (which I guess is somewhat legislative, but whatever), acts of legislature, the executive employing its rulemaking power, and judicial decisions/common law.

Regs have exactly the force of law.  That they arise from the borrowed power of legislation, and that they are subordinate to statutory law, such that they may be held ultra vires in regards to their authorizing statute and stricken or limited, does not make them not law.  It just makes them not statutes.

Yeah, exactly. A lot of law is made by executive orders - it is always made on the basis of an authorization included in the primary legislation (such as an act of the parliament), though. It does not mean this is not law.

grumbler, read this discussion of sources of law for example: http://jurisonline.in/2010/03/sources-of-law/

The relevant discussion of both primary and subordinate (or delegated) legislation is under the heading "Legislation".