WJhonson(a)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(a)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provision that seems to make the legal point being applied no longer
applicable.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