I take the opposite tack. Until we find some case law that "exercises" the statute law, we really have no clear way to interpret what that statute law really means. We can make interpretations of it, but we cannot rule out other interpretations that could be gleaned from it as well. And we all know how widely disparate various interpretations of the same law can be.
In a message dated 9/8/2008 3:01:39 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, geniice@gmail.com writes:
It could but until we find some case law that goes against statute law we accept state law.
**************Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog, plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com. (http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)
2008/9/8 WJhonson@aol.com:
I take the opposite tack. Until we find some case law that "exercises" the statute law, we really have no clear way to interpret what that statute law really means. We can make interpretations of it, but we cannot rule out other interpretations that could be gleaned from it as well. And we all know how widely disparate various interpretations of the same law can be.
The problem is that that creates a complete mess with things like Freedom of panorama and invalidates all but two free licenses neither of which we use to any great extent. It is likely that it also creates issues with the PD-US gov stuff and things like crown copyright expired.
Most life+whatever laws have not technically been tested so rejecting statute law until we have some case law isn't practical.
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
I take the opposite tack. Until we find some case law that "exercises" the statute law, we really have no clear way to interpret what that statute law really means. We can make interpretations of it, but we cannot rule out other interpretations that could be gleaned from it as well. And we all know how widely disparate various interpretations of the same law can be.
In a message dated 9/8/2008 3:01:39 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, geniice@gmail.com writes:
It could but until we find some case law that goes against statute law we accept state law.
I think that WJ's interpretation here is closer to reality. Case law only rarely completely invalidates (or "goes against") statute law. Often when it seems that way it has only brought in a previously ignored provision that seems to make the legal point being applied no longer applicable. This is interpretation, not invalidation. Indeed, most cases are not directed toward establishing that the statute is wrong, but that it does not apply in the given circumstances.
"Exercising" the statute law is an interesting choice of concepts. If a watch-dog is not regularly exercised, he may find that his ability to chase the burglars has atrophied when the real opportunity arises.
An obsessive practice for making legal definitions more precise is bound to fail, because each new definition introduces new terms which are themselves subject to interpretation.
Ec