My fund raising for consrvatives is not important

[Good Luck]

as i said earlier....i'm assuming the commentary section has the same force of law....

often in ethic treatises or other legal treatises, the commentary section is not necessarily the cited section in terms of direct authority, however, it has authority and if a lawyer were to use the commentary section, it would be persuasive and a court would likely uphold the commentary section....then if a court were to cite or use the commentary section, it would become precedence if the court were a precedent setting court and the decision published

So where does the commentary section originate? If it has legal authority, why is it not included in the main section? By what process is commentary of this type added to legal documents like these canons?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

So where does the commentary section originate? If it has legal authority, why is it not included in the main section? By what process is commentary of this type added to legal documents like these canons?

good question...i will attempt to answer it for you, though others may have a different view

commentary type sections are added in order to avoid the amendment process...so, while it is not direct law, it is citable law and persuasive, it adds to the limited wording of the law and is essentially an applicable opinion of how the law is to be applied

 

[Good Luck]

good question...i will attempt to answer it for you, though others may have a different view

commentary type sections are added in order to avoid the amendment process...so, while it is not direct law, it is citable law and persuasive, it adds to the limited wording of the law and is essentially an applicable opinion of how the law is to be applied

And what is the process for adding commentary? How is it appropriate to "avoid the amendment process"? Is this along the line of signing statements? WHO adds these commentary sections?

Sorry for all the questions, but sometimes when something stinky is noticed, it ends up unearthing a completely different stink. A law modified by a process other than due process stinks a lot more than a judge speaking at a magazine's anniversary dinner. Or perhaps I am misunderstanding it, hence the questions.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

And what is the process for adding commentary? How is it appropriate to "avoid the amendment process"? Is this along the line of signing statements? WHO adds these commentary sections?

Sorry for all the questions, but sometimes when something stinky is noticed, it ends up unearthing a completely different stink. A law modified by a process other than due process stinks a lot more than a judge speaking at a magazine's anniversary dinner. Or perhaps I am misunderstanding it, hence the questions.

it is not like signing statements, imo....it is just explaining how the law is to be applied. if the legislators did not intend to have the commentary say "no speaking" it would never be allowed to be added...this process happens all the time, in both state and federal statutes, i'm pretty sure due process is met and if its not, i have no doubt some lawyer somewhere would argue against the commentary section and seek to have it struck as it was not the legislatures intent...and since this is specifically for judges, i'm sure they would be all over this if they didn't believe that comment should be there