Subject:
|
Re: An armed society...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 23 Jan 2002 19:01:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1269 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> Why, if the US Supreme Court has declared such a guarantee to exist, is
> the precise text of that guarantee not included? Why, in effect, must the
> author couch his erroneous assertion in a smokescreen of misrepresentation?
> And why, finally, must the author point to a non-gun-related case for
> support, when numerous cases have gone before the Supreme Court specifically
> addressing the alleged right of the private citizen to bear arms?
You are noting the difference between the "holding" in a decision, and what
is termed "obiter dictum."
ob·i·ter dic·tum, pl. ob·i·ter dic·ta.
1. an incidental or passing remark, opinion, etc.
2. Law. an incidental or supplementary opinion by a judge in deciding a
case, upon a matter not essential to the decision, and therefore not binding
as precedent
Both the rulings and the obiter dictum of case law are used to mount legal
arguments. I think it's interesting to note the phrase "therefore not
binding as precedent" in the definition -- anyone who studies law knows that
precedent doesn't mean much anymore. That precedent law matters is a
fantasy of law, not a truth about the legal system.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) Ah, the dangers of abridged source material. I found a more extensive discussion of that case at: (URL) appears that the case involved due process and the right to use one's property (in this case, residence) as one sees fit, as is spelled out (...) (22 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
179 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
