Friday, June 5, 2009 2:00:16 PM
judicial = judge = court... the very same folks that gave the command to the officers to arrest the guy, who then began to resist, resulting in the sitting and eletrocuting
Friday, June 5, 2009 1:35:47 PM
Also the magic trick is done with two contortionsts. One on top with legs pressed to chest (you can see his legs if you look carefully) and the other with torso inside the suspiciously large table. The second person climbs inside the table leaving the leg casts empty for the top half chap.
Friday, June 5, 2009 1:24:57 PM
The concept is a principle of the constitution. The legal effect is the interpretation of that principle. In the same was as a contract exist as an abstract 'meeting of minds` (the document itself is merely a record of some of that agreement) this principle includes a `natural right` not to (for the sake of argument) be sat on or electrocuted. How each country chooses to enact this will vary but the underlying principle is considered enshrined in the constitution. Perhaps a more accurate term would be calling it a `Hobbsian` natural right, but I thought that Habeas Corpus would be more readily understood. My point is that you shouldn`t sit on people and electrocute them because even if the law at first sight seems to condone it the constitution doesn`t. I don`t think that the law enforcement chap commenting below realises that.
Friday, June 5, 2009 12:03:40 PM
thomas, what does Habeas Corpus have to do with this case? By definition, taken from the link that you posted... "It protects the individual from harming him or herself, or from being harmed by the judicial system." The key part of the quote is... "the judicial system", meaning the court. Your take on the definition does not apply because Habeas Corpus is for prisoners who feel that are being incarcerated unlawfully.
T-Shirts
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
