Stephen: This may be deeper in your sources, but can you post how Hayek’s LLL fits in this?

That is a huge error in this article.”

What article are you talking about? This is a blog post. But in the article I linked, my Legislation article, p. 176, I specify: “Other provisions that could help to limit the dangerous effects of having a legislature include a line-item veto by the executive branch, and sunset provisions that automatically repeal legislation unless reenacted
after a given number of years. Another useful prophylactic measure would be an absolute right to jury trials in all cases, civil or criminal (so that government could not escape the jury requirement by calling truly criminal sanctions “civil”), in which the application of a statute is involved. This should be combined with a requirement that the jury be made aware of their right to judge the law’s validity as well as the defendant’s liability or guilt.129″

“Modern codified law has lots of problems, but granting even more autonomous power to government legal bureaucrats {“judges”} just makes thing much worse for justice and the citizenry.”

This is just an assertion; but in any event my writing is clear that I prefer a totally decentralized, non-state system. The judges I am talking about are not government employees.

“If judges/juries have any reasonable doubt at all about the meaning of a specific codified law — the proper & just action is to completely dismiss any and all indictments initiated under that “law”.”

This is incoherent thinking.

“Any law, statute, or regulation that a court judge cannot readily understand and apply… is, by legal definition, grounds for immediate dismissal. Vague laws automatically trigger “reasonable doubt” on their meaning, and bar any convictions.”

I think you have no idea what you are talking about.

whittaker: “A statute drafted by a group of so-called experts was bound to be an inferior product, compared to what centuries of evolution, of self-correcting growth, could achieve

BTW, this is exactly what I was saying back in the thread about corporations. I was arguing against statutory corporation laws, and you kept trying to drag me into a discussion about the common law of vicarious liability, which I didn’t care about.”

None of us corporate-defenders are in favor of state statutes protecting it. We in fact argue that corproations could arise by operation of private contract law on a free market.

BTW, this is exactly what I was saying back in the thread about corporations. I was arguing against statutory corporation laws, and you kept trying to drag me into a discussion about the common law of vicarious liability, which I didn’t care about.

Please see:

http://blog.mises.org/archives/009070.asp

and scroll down to my comment at December 9, 2008 12:37 PM.

That is a huge error in this article.

Modern codified law has lots of problems, but granting even more autonomous power to government legal bureaucrats {“judges”} just makes thing much worse for justice and the citizenry.

If judges/juries have any reasonable doubt at all about the meaning of a specific codified law — the proper & just action is to completely dismiss any and all indictments initiated under that “law”.

Any law, statute, or regulation that a court judge cannot readily understand and apply… is, by legal definition, grounds for immediate dismissal. Vague laws automatically trigger “reasonable doubt” on their meaning, and bar any convictions.

If legislators cannot clearly state their requirements in specific legal codes, then such codes are instantly void… and the judicial branch is obligated to reject them in practice. Judges absolutely do NOT have the authority to interpret, re-write, repair, band-aid, create or guess at the meaning of vague laws.

Sloppy work by legislators is unacceptable in a fair & just “Justice” system.

Furthermore, any bill passed by the legislature should be merely a recommendation, and should not have the force of law until ratified by a citizen referendum. And there should be an automatic 10-year sunset provision in every law to allow it to be reconsidered periodically.