Y'know, it's real bad when the newsmedia (Not Fox News, I mean the seemingly unbiased news media) starts inadvertently drinking the kool-aid
( Read more... )
IANAL, but boyfriend is, and boyfriend said there's something with Miranda warnings that when the person may have knowledge of something that's a threat to public safety, he doesn't have to be mirandized for a while, and his miranda rights don't apply til some later point. Now, in fairness to Boyfriend, he said this after 11 hours at work, (and it's not in his field of law), so he may be wrong. But this is what I was told, by someone who at least took classes about law a while ago. :)
See, that's my point: The problem is yes, that people use the word illegal as a synonym for unconstitutional. And I see why they do, but a news organization should not.
The word that should have been used is "unconstitutional". Calling it illegal is precisely the wrong word and when broadcast on the news gives a further sense of legitimacy to an incorrect perception already out there.
An act that runs counter to the law is illegal. A law that runs counter to the Constitution is unconstitutional. It's not possible for a law to be illegal any more than a amendment to the Constitution can be unconstitutional. This is right up there with calling things "very unique" and "exceptionally historic". People do it, and that's fine, but the people who know better and have influence over those who dont absolutely shouldn't.
It is amazing to me that a news editor saw that statement knowing it would be read aloud on the air in so many words and did not facepalm before he fixed it.
Trapped? Geez dude. Read the replies before you post.
I'm saying we all do it, but the news media should choose their words more carefully. Since one of the definitions of legal is "having to do with the law", the news media ought not to make people facepalm.
And thats why we use the word "Unconsitutional" to describe a law that runs counter to the Supreme Law of the Land. To make it clear what we are talking about...which is ironic because youre the one saying I'm playing with semantics.
Just because something has been passed in a po-dunk state doesn't mean it passes muster against the Constitutionality test - which is, is it not, the ultimate test of legality?
Legality? Well it doesn't get removed from the state's law books upon a court finding it unconstitutional The state legislature needs to do that. The state still has the "illegal law".
I am trying to make a simple point and I keep doing it wrong or so it seems.
It's not the laws that are illegal. It's acts that are.
The only way a law can be illegal is if it was passed improperly. Say if the Governor signed a bill the legislature did not pass.
If a law was passed in accordance with the laws that govern how it must be passed, it was done so legally and calling it illegal is a misuse of the term at best.
Enforcing the unconstitutional law....THAT's illegal. The law itself isn't. It's why we use the term unconstitutional to describe it. To draw that very distinction.
And maybe I'm alone but I think it's an important one.
Until it's constitutionaility is decided. And technically what they are staying its it's enforceability. Enforcing a law that has been overturned is illegal Like I said, it's the acts that are legal and not. The laws determine which are which.
I know it probbaly sounds ridiculous to many people that I'm so militant about it, but I'll be happy to concede this the moment I see a court hold that a law is in fact illegal for any reason like those that make my skin crawl.
Like I said, I see why it's done, and yes you get the intent if you phrase it right.
But no radio announcer should use it that way. Heck, nobody even uses the phrase "illegal law" because that drives home how nonsensical it is. It even scans funny.
Comments 11
Reply
He was a reported on WRC in the late 80's. I knew something was weird about him when they mentioned he had a cat named, "G. Gordon Kitty".
Reply
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
The word that should have been used is "unconstitutional". Calling it illegal is precisely the wrong word and when broadcast on the news gives a further sense of legitimacy to an incorrect perception already out there.
An act that runs counter to the law is illegal. A law that runs counter to the Constitution is unconstitutional. It's not possible for a law to be illegal any more than a amendment to the Constitution can be unconstitutional. This is right up there with calling things "very unique" and "exceptionally historic". People do it, and that's fine, but the people who know better and have influence over those who dont absolutely shouldn't.
It is amazing to me that a news editor saw that statement knowing it would be read aloud on the air in so many words and did not facepalm before he fixed it.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
I'm saying we all do it, but the news media should choose their words more carefully. Since one of the definitions of legal is "having to do with the law", the news media ought not to make people facepalm.
And thats why we use the word "Unconsitutional" to describe a law that runs counter to the Supreme Law of the Land. To make it clear what we are talking about...which is ironic because youre the one saying I'm playing with semantics.
Sheesh I say, Sheesh.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Validity? Yes
Legality? Well it doesn't get removed from the state's law books upon a court finding it unconstitutional The state legislature needs to do that. The state still has the "illegal law".
I am trying to make a simple point and I keep doing it wrong or so it seems.
It's not the laws that are illegal. It's acts that are.
The only way a law can be illegal is if it was passed improperly. Say if the Governor signed a bill the legislature did not pass.
If a law was passed in accordance with the laws that govern how it must be passed, it was done so legally and calling it illegal is a misuse of the term at best.
Enforcing the unconstitutional law....THAT's illegal. The law itself isn't. It's why we use the term unconstitutional to describe it. To draw that very distinction.
And maybe I'm alone but I think it's an important one.
Reply
Reply
I know it probbaly sounds ridiculous to many people that I'm so militant about it, but I'll be happy to concede this the moment I see a court hold that a law is in fact illegal for any reason like those that make my skin crawl.
Like I said, I see why it's done, and yes you get the intent if you phrase it right.
But no radio announcer should use it that way. Heck, nobody even uses the phrase "illegal law" because that drives home how nonsensical it is. It even scans funny.
Reply
Leave a comment