A Supreme Court Hamdan Guide

**Pindar** · 07-14-2006, 01:06

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

There still seems to be a misunderstanding concerning the word "balance". When standing on one foot you need balance in order not to fall down, but that does not mean stability and balance are always connected. Balance requires equalness because of conceptual aspects. If two entities are unequal in power, there is no balance between them. Even if they form a stable system.
Now this may seem entirely semantical, because balance - such defined - is not necessarily something to be desired (as I said, some systems need imbalance to function). But I think there is reason to believe - without having rigorous proof - that balance between the powers that govern a nation is a desirable thing.

This doesn't answer my question. I take it you hold this statement: "Balance and control between the branches requires that one is not more powerful than others." is then the correct. Why 'requires'?

Possibly, however, one should contemplate the option that the person in question is you. This is assumption of course, but I think that when Pape confronted you with a fictional scenario and asked you whether you find it okay, he was not investigating a jurisdical question. It was an ethical question. Should your answer be devoid of an ethical statement, then it was in fact not an answer. I tried to follow the Principle of Charity by not taking this interpretation.

Actually I thought/think Pape was asking a jurisprudential question given law is the larger focus. Even so, I don't think my response was devoid of ethical content either. The last sentence was: "one should avoid lands whose legality they question." I don't know how that leads to your initial impression as it sounds fairly categorical.

**Papewaio** · 07-14-2006, 02:29

I was looking to see if the principle of reciprocity was being applied.

**Pindar** · 07-14-2006, 02:31

Originally Posted by Papewaio

I was looking to see if the principle of reciprocity was being applied.

There ya go.

**Papewaio** · 07-14-2006, 02:55

Both the jurisprudential version and the ethical one.

ie treaties/law/justice and golden rule/karma/equality.

**Pindar** · 07-14-2006, 04:09

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Both the jurisprudential version and the ethical one.

ie treaties/law/justice and golden rule/karma/equality.

There ya go.

**A.Saturnus** · 07-15-2006, 20:54

Originally Posted by Pindar

This doesn't answer my question. I take it you hold this statement: "Balance and control between the branches requires that one is not more powerful than others." is then the correct. Why 'requires'?

Hmm, I thought I explained that. Here:

Balance requires equalness because of conceptual aspects. If two entities are unequal in power, there is no balance between them. Even if they form a stable system.

I say "requires" because according to the definition I'm using balance cannot be there if powers are unequal.

Actually I thought/think Pape was asking a jurisprudential question given law is the larger focus. Even so, I don't think my response was devoid of ethical content either. The last sentence was: "one should avoid lands whose legality they question." I don't know how that leads to your initial impression as it sounds fairly categorical.

Ok, then. But that sounds like blaming the victim. Do you not have any moral critique on those countries in the hypothetical situation?