LEGAL ISSUE

Sunday, November 13. 2011

Trouble often arises when one least expects it, and this week it came just after Dad switched lawyers. As I mentioned last week, he needed to find a new law firm after the old one raised its rates. An alternative presented itself in the form of the parents of Coney’s friend Lin, the Lees.
They’re tigers, unlike most lawyers who are of the aquatic persuasion. They both showed tremendous fortitude in gaining their degrees in an underwater habitat. The wife, Mei Li, will do most the Hare Link work.
Almost immediately, Dad was sued by a bear that he rebuffed in a hostile takeover attempt. Traditionally, any prey species is entitled to use whatever means necessary to defend themselves, but this bear felt that Dad shouldn’t have used his fists. (I think what Dad mainly wounded was his pride.)
His rather novel argument was that Dad’s use of fists violated the “original intent” of the Founding Fathers in the Constitution. What many people today use the original intent argument for is to justify their current positions, whatever that may be. However, what we're absolutely sure of is that the Founding Fathers wanted to create a living document that could adapt to changing realities. To this end, they brilliantly succeeded.
Mei Li came up with a clever way of getting the case dismissed, saying that the bear shouldn’t have used the judicial system to attack Dad. He skulked off to hibernate.

Posted by Lindesfarne at 12:10 | Comments (10) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

And when the press gets wind of this court case, his humiliation will be laid "bear" before the public.

Politicians sometimes debate the original intent of the Founding Fathers over here. A few decades ago "Gun control" was an issue, with some pols arguing private ownership of firearms should be heavily restricted and others saying there only needed to be a few.

How else has "original intent" been debated on your side of the portal, Lindesfarne?

#1 Bixyl Shuftan (Link) on 2011-11-13 12:50 (Reply)

In the town that I'm from originally, "original intent" is nearly always used to explain why there should be prayer in schools and why people who are not protestant Christians should not be allowed to use public systems or public works, including schools, voting, and for some, even streets. Most people are some form of protestant Christian, and would be fine there, but a few families-like mine-are of no religion at all, and the reason for excluding the Catholics is not their religion, but the skin color of many Catholics. Many Catholics are believed to be illegal immigrants. Of course, this means that those who are of Latin origin but who are here legally have trouble. It also means that Catholics who are here legally and are of European origin are in trouble. Basically, they use "original intent" to press their racist and religionist agenda.

#2 Selina Grace on 2011-11-13 13:13 (Reply)

I find this line of reasoning offensive--if you believe in original intent, you're racist and religionist? Try again. I live in the south, and I've never remotely heard these arguments put forward.

To believe in original intent is to believe in such quaint notions as limited government, checks and balances, and that things like the bill of rights say exactly what they say (which seems to never apply to the 2nd amendment, among other things?)

News flash--people use the idea of 'living document' to justify their own interpretations of the constitution quite liberally. That way, it can mean whatever you want it to mean, and things like the commerce clause become ridiculously expansive and well beyond the bounds of what the founding fathers intended. The constitution is NOT a living document, it is the law of the land and is supposed to be followed. You can't just change, 'reinterpret' or discard its stating meaning because you don't like something about it.

#2.1 Kip on 2011-11-14 15:19 (Reply)

I've debated nearly a week before commenting. I suspect the views of our hostess, while not as extreme as Ms. Grace, lean toward that direction. Usually the term "living document" indicates a view that the meaning of the constitution can change without undergoing an amendment process, and usually this indicates a certain political leaning.

The sad thing is that on a great many issues we need not speculate on original intent. Our founders left us records in the forms of letters, diaries, essays, and editorials that clearly state their opinions. The Federalist Papers and a great many other documents should be required reading.

My challenge to anyone who truly wishes to learn the original intent of our founders is to read what they had to say. Not cherry picked excerpts, but the entire documents. A bit of history and cultural knowledge is also handy. Once armed with this basic knowledge, then form an educated opinion.

You will also come away knowing our founders were divided on some issues of interpretation. However, on one they would have agreed to a man: The instrument of change for the constitution is the amendment process or constitutional convention, both sufficiently difficult to avoid changes on the whims of the moment.

#2.1.1 Rather Notsay on 2011-11-19 12:45 (Reply)

Please note something about original intent: Which is better? To have a "living" document which any judge can manipulate to their own ends? Or to have a document, changeable through the appropriate legal processes, which was voted upon and ratified?

#2.2 Anonymous on 2011-11-16 00:50 (Reply)

I find Selina's comments to be even more offensive than Bill Holbrook's periodic transparent attempts to inject his personal leftist politics into the strip.

I will second the comments made by "Rather Notsay" as they are dead on regarding "original intent" versus the "living document" argument favored by the Left.

I would think that if one were to take the time to graph which movement held sway throughout the 20th century, I would think that it would show the Left's growing influence could be held to coincide with the growing decline of America.

#2.3 Dave on 2011-11-20 23:15 (Reply)

Hopefully Mei Li will not have to be called upon often---although she has proven to be an effective litigator.

#3 MLD on 2011-11-13 19:24 (Reply)

I think the bear has to understand something about Kell. Even thou he tried to kill her she is a fair person. Had Kell not cared she would have let him die. But she wanted to change the system & she could not do that unless she showed some compation for others. It also was good for moral because it showed that challanging the Kell & losing would not mean ending up DEAD.

#4 STEVEN BRAMS on 2011-11-13 21:06 (Reply)

HA! Epic win, Mei Li!

#5 Wilren on 2011-11-19 03:09 (Reply)

Why have the rabbits started celebrating THANKSGIVING. I think its because they are no longer being hunted by Herd Thinners as food.

#6 STEVEN BRAMS on 2011-11-19 17:23 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. Standard emoticons like :-) and ;-) are converted to images. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above:
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry
Submitted comments will be subject to moderation before being displayed.