We're OT here now. On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 10:41:20PM -0700, Edward Cherlin wrote: > On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 4:58 PM, Martin Dengler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 04:06:03PM -0700, Edward Cherlin wrote: > >> [. . .] > >> It is sufficient if we clearly obey the law, and don't seek > >> to go beyond it. > > > > Any lawyers around? "go beyond" implies "interpret" -- the only > > safe course is to comply exactly and minimally, IMHO. > > No, "go beyond" means "do more than is required". Going the extra mile > or turning the other cheek, for example.
I was talking about the meaning of "going beyond" vis-a-vis a law, and you're talking about the first dictionary meaning of "go beyond". I don't disagree with your rendering of "go beyond" in general, but I do in practice. The current debate about DC gun laws seems to make it clear that "going beyond" the US Constitution's second amendment does indeed require "intepretation" of the law. > . . . a judge doing genuine > legal interpretation [is] determining what the words in the law > mean . . . So without "determining what the words in the law mean", it's possible to believe one is "going beyond" it? Martin
pgpBPObL1DIUd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
