RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Old laws

["McNutt, Justin M." <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

> I would have been fine with it if the law was evoked within 
> the first year
> or two after they started to charge tuition.  Then I wouldn't 
> care how old
> the law was.  The thing that strikes me as preposterous is 
> that the law
> was ignored for *many* decades.  There ought to be some way 
> for states to
> protect themselves against this kind of mistake!
> 
> This is so crazy that I'm really surprised I haven't seen it in the
> national news.

This is an old thread, but there's something in it that drives me crazy, so I'm responding.

The idea that a rule, law, or decision must be used soon (i.e. before people forget about it) is silly.  It equates, essentially, to the idea that ignorance of the law is a defense.  Just because you forgot about a law doesn't make it any less valid.  To say otherwise would set an *extremely* dangerous legal precedent.  Just because no one has been kidnapped in the last five years doesn't mean that the law that makes it illegal and sets the penalties should all of a sudden become invalid because "that law was written decades ago and hasn't been used for years."

This idea that anything that isn't part of the current public consciousness is invalid is a common LANMAN weapon against IATS, and it's crap.  Just because you don't remember it or didn't READ the policy doesn't make the policy, law, rule, whatever invalid.

--J

--
To unsubscribe, go to http://mlug.missouri.edu/members/edit.php

Archives are available at http://mlug.missouri.edu/list-archives/