Ah yes, that really old law. We have one in the UK like that, it says something like you can shoot a Scotsman in York on sight, but only with a bow and arrow or after midnight or something
But it’s not enforced because it’s an old law and, well, WE’RE NOT FUCKING STUPID 😂
Since it’s still on the books, could that be used as a legal defense? (Just curious, I’m neither in the UK nor wish to kill anyone with a bow and arrow after midnight)
Common law is based on precedent more than written law (code law), so the fact that no scottsman has been killed in over 100 years and used this law as a defence is proof enough that it isn’t valid legislation.
No, you couldn’t use it as a valid legal defense. There are a lot of old laws like this in the UK that, while technically on the books, have been replaced by more recent legislation.
One thing a lot of people are concerned about is the current state of politics, it’s incredibly difficult to get that process going and once we open that can of worms you better believe that billionaire assholes that have already been trying to influence politics will have their favorite atrocious shit put into the constitution.
It’s more like “let’s legislate our issues first.” If we have to change the constitution I’m pretty sure we’re going to end up with an amendment that requires all citizens to buy Koch products, abolish the EPA and make those kinds of departments unconstitutional, or some other absurd nonsense.
Ah yes, that really old law. We have one in the UK like that, it says something like you can shoot a Scotsman in York on sight, but only with a bow and arrow or after midnight or something
But it’s not enforced because it’s an old law and, well, WE’RE NOT FUCKING STUPID 😂
Well, brexit.
Just stupid in different ways.
We can all be morons together. separately if you don’t want to risk stray bullets from this side.
Since it’s still on the books, could that be used as a legal defense? (Just curious, I’m neither in the UK nor wish to kill anyone with a bow and arrow after midnight)
Common law is based on precedent more than written law (code law), so the fact that no scottsman has been killed in over 100 years and used this law as a defence is proof enough that it isn’t valid legislation.
No, you couldn’t use it as a valid legal defense. There are a lot of old laws like this in the UK that, while technically on the books, have been replaced by more recent legislation.
No, common law is set in precident and there’s no legal precident for it currently.
Isn’t it always “after midnight”?
You’re advocating to disregard any constitution that’s too old?
At least update the fucker every few years…we won’t even do that anymore.
One thing a lot of people are concerned about is the current state of politics, it’s incredibly difficult to get that process going and once we open that can of worms you better believe that billionaire assholes that have already been trying to influence politics will have their favorite atrocious shit put into the constitution.
It’s more like “let’s legislate our issues first.” If we have to change the constitution I’m pretty sure we’re going to end up with an amendment that requires all citizens to buy Koch products, abolish the EPA and make those kinds of departments unconstitutional, or some other absurd nonsense.
Maybe amend it
Yes.
YES
r u stupid?
feel free to say no but ur case isnt looking good
Then fails to type whole words 😂
didnt deny it lol