Florida doesn't need an immigration law.
Next, we will create a modern immigration law.
Congress makes immigration law. It's that simple. That is how our system works.
Arizona did not make illegal, illegal. It is a crime to enter or remain in the U.S. in violation of federal law. States have had inherent authority to enforce immigration laws when the federal government has failed or refused to do so.
Practicing in the trial work trenches of the law, I saw, too, that when we judges don our robes, it doesn't make us any smarter, but it does serve as a reminder of what's expected of us: Impartiality and independence, collegiality and courage.
You might think otherwise, but it doesn't naturally follow that because a law has been passed by Congress and signed by the president, said law actually has to be implemented.
The trick is: how do you talk about natural selection without implying the rigidity of law? We use it as almost an active participant, almost like a god. In fact, you could substitute the word 'god' for 'natural selection' in a lot of evolutionary writings and you'd think you were listening to a theologian.
Thru the auspices of the viewers who become - I think this is an import - in a democracy, become a working unit with law enforcement against the criminals.
That is, while we believe that cost-benefit analysis is an important tool to inform agency decision making, the results of the cost-benefit analysis do not trump existing law.
If there are people who act outside the law, then the state must use legal means to impose law in the interests of majority. That's the way it's done in the U.S., and that's the way it's done in Russia.
Listen with grace, with no judgment, without imposing the law.
It is psychological law that whatever we desire to accomplish we must impress upon the subjective or subconscious mind.
Simply put, violent criminals break the law - any law - every day with impunity.
Any law which violates the inalienable rights of man is essentially unjust and tyrannical; it is not a law at all.
When we violate the law ourselves, whatever short-term advantage may be gained, we are obviously encouraging others to violate the law; we thus encourage disorder and instability and thereby do incalculable damage to our own long-term interests.
Justice is merely incidental to law and order.
My law school class in the late 1950s numbered over 500. That class included less than 10 women.
We have legislated to protect the public from tax rises and guarantee incomes for pensioners, so enshrining in law more protections for consumers, commuters and investors is possible. Enshrining these rights into law would mean that any future government which wanted to reverse this would have to go through the primary legislative process.
While we are under the tyranny of Priests, it will ever be their interest, to invalidate the law of nature and reason, in order to establish systems incompatible therewith.
You have to accept the rule of law, even when it's inconvenient, if you're going to be a country that bides by the rule of law.
