Capt. Neal® wrote:
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ...

Frankly the rules a very terse and obviously written to give the courts
the widest latitude in interpretation. It was intended that the courts
would have an active roll in determining the law.


And, as a liberal I suppose you think that's a good thing?

I view this more as a "state's rights" type of issue. There are
numerous points that have to be interpreted considering the situations,
the vessels, the technology available, the local traditions, etc.

When the Democrats had power for 50 years, the Republicans claimed
everything was a matter of state's rights. Now that the tables are
turned, the Republicans want Federal Law and Amendments to prevent
states from exercising their rights!




You idiot, you.

Read the Constitution.

Which Consitution is that, Neal? The "Constitution of the Sea"? The
"World Constitution"?

Courts don't 'determine law' under the
constitution. When there is a dispute, courts are supposed to
apply the law as it exists - not change it.

International Maritime Law is not the lubberly law you want it to be.



If the language of the law is too vague it is the court's
responsibility to strike down the law - not to write a
new one.

Perhaps lubber's law works that way, not Maritime Law. When I have more
time, I'll torture you with some quotes from the text books.


Law means nothing if it can be changed at will by courts.

In the USA it is ONLY legislatures (citizens) who are allowed
to write law - not judges.

What about the IRS?