Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Question for the attorneys and everyone else about a legal maxim that I heard about.

  1. #1
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690

    Question for the attorneys and everyone else about a legal maxim that I heard about.

    I heard a legal maxim that went something like this, "You cannot have another do for you what you cannot first legally do yourself."

    Is that the maxim or did I miss quote it?

    Would this not be something that we can use to defend our rights with?

    I see it the following way. I cannot ask you to defend my life unless I can legally do it myself. So if I don't have the right to defend myself then how can I expect a cop to do it for me?
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  2. #2
    Regular Member Brimstone Baritone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Leeds, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    786
    I know it's true with government entities. The state legislature, for instance, cannot create an agency and authorize it to do something that the state itself has no authority to do.

    Of course, that doesn't stop them from trying. And as long as we suffer under this silly idea that government actions are presumed to be constitutional until proven otherwise...
    There was a time that the pieces fit, but I watched them fall away, mildewed and smoldering, strangled by our coveting. I've done the math enough to know the dangers of our second guessing. Doomed to crumble, unless we grow and strengthen our communication. -Tool, "Schism"

  3. #3
    Regular Member Keylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    OKC
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    I heard a legal maxim that went something like this, "You cannot have another do for you what you cannot first legally do yourself."

    Is that the maxim or did I miss quote it?

    Would this not be something that we can use to defend our rights with?

    I see it the following way. I cannot ask you to defend my life unless I can legally do it myself. So if I don't have the right to defend myself then how can I expect a cop to do it for me?
    Natural law does allow you to defend yourself... or not, the choice is yours. However, you need to ascertain the rightful purpose of government. Is it to physically defend you? Or as stated in the Declaration, to "secure these rights..." to Life, Liberty and Happiness (Property). It's imperative for people the world over to understand the only purpose of government. It will keep it under control and less likely to infringe on those natural rights. Too bad the populace of this nation are ignoranant of natural law and philosophical thought.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Keylock View Post
    Natural law does allow you to defend yourself... or not, the choice is yours. However, you need to ascertain the rightful purpose of government. Is it to physically defend you? Or as stated in the Declaration, to "secure these rights..." to Life, Liberty and Happiness (Property). It's imperative for people the world over to understand the only purpose of government. It will keep it under control and less likely to infringe on those natural rights. Too bad the populace of this nation are ignorant of natural law and philosophical thought.
    I was thinking a bigger picture than self-defense.

    I was also thinking more areas of liberty, such as travel, building a home, building an automobile, building your own guns, etc.

    How can 'we' hire cops to kill criminals/people if we don't have the legal power to do it ourselves?

    I believe that you are correct that the people in this country are too ignorant to enjoy the liberties that were secured for us by the lives and blood of those who started this country.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  5. #5
    Regular Member Brimstone Baritone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Leeds, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    786
    Cops weren't hired to kill people, they were hired to gather evidence and present it at court. Most of the things they do come from natural or legal rights that already exist for citizens. Police powers of arrest aren't very much more broad than that of a natural citizen. The police "authority" to bear arms comes not from their badge, but from the fact that they are citizens themselves. Just as judges are meant to be impartial arbiters of the law, so to are cops meant to be impartial investigators of breaches of the law. They were meant to assist the citizens of an area in policing themselves.

    They were never meant to be, and according to the SCOTUS still aren't, responsible for any individual's safety.
    There was a time that the pieces fit, but I watched them fall away, mildewed and smoldering, strangled by our coveting. I've done the math enough to know the dangers of our second guessing. Doomed to crumble, unless we grow and strengthen our communication. -Tool, "Schism"

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    I cannot legally take a store's gunbuster sign down, but I can ask the owner to do it for me. If he chooses to do so, it is perfectly legal. The maxim is overbroad and, therefore, not always true. There are some things I can legally ask another to do for me and that they can legally do that I cannot legally do for myself.

    I think that the idea that the maxim is trying to communicate is that simply having someone else perform an illegal act for you does not leave you blameless under the law if they are doing it for you. However, some acts may be legal for them, but not for you.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •