In the spirit of the law, land that is above mean low water has a property that it can be walked upon by a person (an animal, a human, or an organization). That property can be valued by inhabitants and those connected to it. If the land is washed away in a terrible storm, and loses that property, it is not land thereafter. Spirit is the truth and reality that we relate to.

In the letter of the law, a sandbar which forms above mean low water is unclaimed land until it is claimed by a citizen, responsible for for the property by ownership, unless of course if the person breaks the law in which case they are not a proper citizen. Law is a language.

How do you get the letter of the law to be responsive to the spirit?

No such thing as a spirit of the law...all laws a written in the books and has no middle ground...if a law gets changed, that goes in the books too... The courts interpret the laws, nobody else... So as common citizens, we follow the laws, it's not for us to interpret or figure it's intent...

Well that makes it easy.

I like things simple

The spirit of a law is what that law is intended to accomplish.
The law itself sets the limits of that law but the intent is open to perception.

A definition of murder is to willfully deprive someone of their life.
People are killed by unwillful acts and those acts still result in death but are not considered murder.
The act of the law fits but the intent changes based on perception.

The reason a select few determine the intent is due to 'lynch mob' mentality of groups. Perception of intent is relative to the observer.

If someone takes aim and shoots your loved one in the head it is different from someone losing control on an icy road and plowing into your loved one.
While some may feel it is murder because that person shouldn't have been driving on that icy road like that there was no intention to kill your loved one. To the victim's survivor it may be considered murder but to the intent of the law it is not.

the laws define all that... manslaughter and murder are two separate things...the courts decide the letter, not anyone else...if you run a red light and kill a car load full if old ladies on their way to church, it's not a murder chrage, but a manslaughter charge, regardless of what anyone thinks...the courts don't make the laws, they interpret them...we don't make or interpret, but only follow them...that's why we stop at red lights...

I wasn't arguing with you?

The "law", as any attorney will tell you, is like a living thing. Like a living language, it changes over time. The "letter of the law" is what is written in law books. The "spirit of the law" is what was intended by it's writers.
That's why we have courts, judges, and lawyers to interpret, argue over, and sometimes change the letter of the law to conform with the spirit.

I see that...now

If you are serenading your heart's desire from the street, outside her bedroom window in the early evening and not entirely unwelcomed by her, yet a conservative religious neighbour, primarily offended by courtship in a manner unsanctioned by their church phones police and complains, the officer in attendance may, once you have explained the full situation to him and absence of malice is established, ask you to move along under threat of a misdemeanor vagrancy charge called "unduly blocking a causeway" (standing on a public sidewalk causing a minor nuisance, basically), with, even if you gave vehement resistance would incur a maximum penalty of a $30 fine and a stern glare, but you couldn't really be arrested unless you turned aggressive. You could keep singing and cop the fine, with a stern glare.


Let's say you were doing exactly the same thing, at exactly the same volume, in exactly the same way but the girl is a complete stranger you stalked from the local mall after she rejected your advances and the tune you were singing was from Nick Cave's album, Murder Ballads. The girl doesn't want you there but it's a public street, you're not on her property. Nevertheless she's the one whom phones police attendance in fear of her life and explains this to them when they arrive. Now, under the letter of physical descript you're doing precisely the same thing as the previous example, serenading on a sidewalk in the early evening.
Well, the attending officer explains, placing a hand on his firearm and directing you with the other, you're under arrest for loitering with intent and causing public nuisance, put your hands on your head with fingers interlocking and drop to your knees and please, by all means go ahead and resist. After he has a nice chat with the prosecutor you might be looking at 30 days.


This is because first tier in application of law is the responsibility of judicial officers in attendance and that requires interpretation of the situation as given by evidence, to be used in court.

The law doesn't need to be interpreted. The situation does.

the courts decide if the law has been broken, not necessarily the police...the polices job is to get people to the courts, not much else..

I’ve seen judges interpretations vary to such extremes that “ignorance of the law being no excuse” seemed like throwing you into a game without a handbook. Especially in corporate law, and especially regarding insurance matters.

The spirit of the law is interpreted, and/or ignored usually.

'Good god fearing christians' may read in their bible 'obey the laws of the land', and most of the lands they had a hand in the genocidal land theft of, had people with their own cultures and with developed long standing existing laws of the land, which the christians (and most religions for that matter) chose to ignore; thus breaking their own 'laws' written in their own sacred books of laws.

Also there usually is lawful law, and legal law, two different things.

Illegal and legal pertains to the 'government's' corporation laws coming under acts, statutes, regulations, by-laws, etc. applied to its 'persons' who are under its control due to them having a government issued birth certificate or license of some sort. Not being free men.

Lawful pertains to actual laws of the wider world outside of corporation based governments, eg. tort law, commercial law, common law.

Listen to 'government' spokespeople speaking of lawful and unlawful on the world stage; but domestically they say legal or illegal, for the slaves of the corporation-government.

Illegal is just a sick bird !!

yea, well...I agree, and the best defense for that is know the laws before you break them... corporate law is a different book altogether, mostly lawyer jibberish and hard for common people to understand...

This example is relative to the observer. Interpretation is required by the police officer to determine the application of the law according to the situation. To effectively accomplish this, the police officer must know the letter of the law and understand it.


Actually, laws are written by the people. The people decide if a law has been broken. The people elect a representative (judge/jury) to make those decisions for them. The people also elect, appoint and hire a force (police) to determine if a law has been broken so the violator can be held accountable (court) for their actions.
The citizens (people) are supposed to know the laws they create.
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse"
Different societies (communities) have different laws (ordinances) that have direct impact on shaping the behavior of that society.
Laws are a construct for establishing social order.
They are established with the intent to unify a society.
Breaking a law is anti-social behavior.
It results in a penalty that often includes banishment from society (jail) for a period of time.

You violate a law/ordinance. Knowingly or unknowingly.
A police officer witnesses this deed and pulls you from society to account for your anti-social actions to the people.
You appear before a representation of the people who's job is to look at the evidence gathered and conditions/sequence of events of your violation to determine if it is indeed a violation of that society's laws.
If this is determined as a violation, a penalty in placed upon you for the actions you performed.
Any citizen that witnesses you breaking a law has the right to detain you (citizen's arrest). Your fellow citizens (witnesses) can be called to the court to attest to your innocence or guilt. Those tesimonies are considered by the people in assiting how they determin your fate.

The system is broken.
The law is intended to be a social control created by the citizens in the society to establish unity. It's compliance hinges on the idea that citizens participate in the workings of the society and are active in the creation and endurance of the laws which govern them.
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is valid because every citizen in a given society has the right to vote on whether or not a law is created and whether or not a law is maintained over time.
It is your right as a citizen to participate in government that invalidates the ignorance. You are expected to be a participant in society so any law exists by concensus. Whether you participated or not, others do and majority enables. Technically, you being a citizen, created the laws that govern you.
The system is broken because the citizens in a given society are not participating in the governing of that society. People are letting others make the decisions.