Talk:Legal code (municipal)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale. | |
What's the difference ( remeber Aristotle ? Herodotus?) between law and code ( particularly municiple ), etc ? Quasi judicial and quaSI criminal? These are dark areas of law and should be explained. ` Wblakesxwblakesx
Text removed (in italics):
includes measures of formal distrust and other ways
Distrust is an article written by banned user EntmootsOfTrolls and recreated by his suspected reincarnation, JRR Trollkien. Because it is doubtful whether that article should exist, given our policy for handling such text, I object to having links added to it, especially when that same user is adding the links. If another user wants to vouch for it, I can live with that. Kim Bruning restored a link on checks and balances (there was no text besides the link). Since he restored it there, but not here, I read that as a conscious choice about where the link belongs, so I do not believe JRR Trollkien is justified in restoring it here. Furthermore, here it involves additional text, which I think disrupts the flow and the thought communicated by the sentence it is in. Checks and balances is already linked in the sentence; distrust is now linked as part of that article; the distrust article, as written, relates more directly to that topic than to legal codes generally; in this context, it seems out of place. If another person wants to restore the link, they are welcome to try addressing my concerns. --Michael Snow 16:21, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Inaccurate
This article, to me, seems quite messy and inaccurate. Why should codes of laws be restricted to private law, for once? David.Monniaux 09:16, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] What a mess
It looks like as if people working on this article have really jumbled up the definitions of law and code. Law is a system of rules enforced by the state that governs the relationship of people to each other and to the state; a code is a more formal manifestation of those rules. No sensible American attorney would argue that judge-made law (with all its chaos and incoherence) amounts to a legal code (the article currently implies this). It needs to be fixed, but I don't have the time right now. --Coolcaesar 18:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Article move
This article seems to be about municipal regulations (building codes, fire codes etc) and not about the concept of "legal code" in general, as referenced at codification and other articles. For example, it talks about "codes being administered by municipalities", which is patently untrue as regard civil and criminal codes, arguably the most important examples of code law. I don't know if this is the North American understanding of "code law" and thus a result of systematic bias, or it is simply due to contributors confusing between different meanings of "code". I have therefore moved it to its new title and redirected legal code to Code (law), which is intended to be an article about code law in general, i.e. codifications, such as civil codes in civil law countries, or the criminal/peanl codes of both civil and common law jurisdictions. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
