JB/042/405/001: Difference between revisions

Transcribe Bentham: A Collaborative Initiative

From Transcribe Bentham: Transcription Desk

Find a new page to transcribe in our list of Untranscribed Manuscripts

JB/042/405/001: Difference between revisions

Kalasiris (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
BenthamBot (talk | contribs)
Auto approved
 
(6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->


''This Page Has Not Been Transcribed Yet''


<head><p>1824. April 21</p>
<head>1824. April 21<lb/>
<p>Constitutional Code.</p>
Constitutional Code.</head>
<p>Ch. 5. Judiciary Collectively.</p></head>
<p><note>Art. 5</note> In <unclear>some</unclear> <!-- may be 'most' --> cases it may be matter of more or less difficulty for a man to satisfy himself whether it is in <gap/> <unclear>design</unclear> is in the ordinance made in <gap/> of it, used the <unclear>impugned</unclear> imperfection has in <gap/>: but so long as in any case, any person <unclear>also pleases</unclear> <add>so to understand</add> is at liberty to indicate the <unclear>impugned</unclear> imperfection, and perhaps that on <gap/> <unclear>law</unclear> view of the matter as the <unclear>most</unclear><!-- not sure whether this is 'more' or 'most' --> apt remedy, <gap/> on this <gap/> the uncertainty no practical inconvenience seems capable of <add>unable to</add> resulting from it. </p>


<p><note>Art. 6</note> <unclear>The definition</unclear> and the only material differences <gap/> to be <gap/> indicate regard <unclear>for the</unclear> <unclear>two</unclear> following cases. 1. This person by whom the suggestion is made, as the one individual other than <unclear>the</unclear> Judge is as has <del><gap/></del> <add>a</add> <del><gap/></del> Judge. If a Judge <unclear>has been</unclear> a Judge having <add>actual</add> experience of the matter, as a Judge at <unclear>Georgia</unclear>: in ultimate <gap/> no finding has <gap/> in the respect is said very materially different from Kant of the individual <add><gap/></add> at large. 2. If a Judge having experience of the matter, it must be, <del>for the reason</del> <add><gap/></add> of <gap/> to be confirmed to act <unclear>generously</unclear>, to the collect consequences of an <gap/> already <unclear>demonstrated</unclear> <!-- could also be 'mentioned' -->, <add>in relation to the <gap/> matter</add> as antecedently to essay much not already instituted. <!-- constituents? --></p>
<note>IV<lb/>
Ch. 5. Judiciary Collectively<lb/>
&sect;. <gap/> indicate<lb/>
function</note>


<p>In either of these cases the exercise of the practice by <add>on the part of</add> the Judge <del><gap/></del> is in the <unclear>nature</unclear><!-- could also be "ratio" or "nation" --> of the case dependent upon the act of an individual at <unclear>large</unclear> namely the applicant unless in the state of things as the others, calls upon the Judge to <del><gap/></del> to give exercise to his authority &#x2014; </p>
<p>2</p>


<p>In this case, and in this alone, it is be preferred to <gap/> issue, <add>to the <gap/></add> in form as well as in effect, a list of <unclear>substantially</unclear> valid <unclear>power</unclear> of legislation: the imitation <!-- 'mistaken'? --> at any rate, as so so far as <gap/> conscionably <gap/> what is made requested to be <gap/> by an individual. It can be termed an imitation: to which it is <gap/> required to add, in default of an imitation content as <gap/> as the first of the legislation, this ensures <gap/>. </p>
<note>5<lb/>
Art. 5. Difficult <add>sometimes</add> it may<lb/>
be to determine whether<lb/>
the imperfection is in the<lb/>
design or the expression.<lb/>
But so long as any<lb/>
person is at liberty<lb/>
to give indication of it<lb/>
in either case, no practical<lb/>
inconvenience can follow</note>
 
<p>Art. 5 In some cases it may be matter of more or less<lb/>
difficulty for a man to satisfy himself whether it is in<lb/>
the design or in the ordinance made in prosecution of it,<lb/>
that <del><gap/></del> the supposed imperfection has its seat: but so long<lb/>
as in any case, any person who pleases <add>is so inclined</add> is at liberty to<lb/>
indicate the supposed imperfection, and propose what in his<lb/>
view of the matter is the most apt remedy, whatsoever be<lb/>
on this occasion the uncertainty, no practical inconvenience<lb/>
seems capable of <add>liable to</add> <del><gap/></del> resulting from it. </p>
 
<note>6<lb/>
Art. 6. Sole cases attended<lb/>
with material difference<lb/>
1. Suggester, a Judge, d<hi rend="superscript">o</hi><lb/>
not a Judge.<lb/>
2. If a Judge, a Judge<lb/>
acting as such on the occasion<lb/>
in question; or not<lb/>
so acting: in which case<lb/>
he is on the footing of a<lb/>
non-Judge.<lb/>
<lb/>
Acting as such, unless<lb/>
he is empowered to act<lb/>
spontaneously it must<lb/>
be either in consequence<lb/>
of a suit or without<lb/>
suit: <del>but in both cases</del><lb/>
<lb/>
But in both cases,<lb/>
unless be acts <del>spontaneously</del> <add>of his<lb/>
own motive</add> it must be at<lb/>
the motive of another<lb/>
person: naturally if there<lb/>
<add>be a suit, of a</add> person party to the suit.</note>
 
<p>Art. 6 The differences and the only material differences seem<lb/>
to be those which regard the two following cases. 1. The person by<lb/>
whom the suggestion is made is he an individual other than the <add>a</add><lb/>
Judge or is he <del>the</del> <add>a</add> Judge. <del><gap/></del> If a Judge is he a Judge<lb/>
having <add>actual</add> experience of the matter, or a Judge at large: in<lb/>
which <add>latter</add> case the footing he stands upon in this respect is not very<lb/>
materially different from that of the <add>an</add> individual at large. 2. <del><gap/></del> If<lb/>
a Judge having <unclear>experience</unclear> of the matter, it must be, <del>as the consequence <add>except where he</add><lb/>
of</del> unless he be empowered to act spontaneously, be either<lb/>
in consequence of a suit <del><gap/></del> already instituted, <add>in relation to the subject matter <note>in question</note></add> or antecedently<lb/>
to any such suit already instituted.</p>
 
<p>In either of these cases the <del><gap/> exercise</del> <add>faculty of exercising</add> of the function <add><del><gap/></del> in question</add> by <lb/>
<add>on the part of</add> the Judge <del><gap/></del> is in the nature of the case dependent upon<lb/>
the act of an individual at large namely the applicant<lb/>
unless in the one state of things or the other, calls upon the<lb/>
Judge to <del><gap/></del> give exercise to his authority.</p>
 
<note>7<lb/>
Art. 7. Sole case in which<lb/>
it is here proposed to vest<lb/>
in the Judge an eventually<lb/>
valid power of legislation<lb/>
a party calling for <add>judicial</add> decision<lb/>
at his hands, either<lb/>
by a suit, or without suit<lb/>
In this case on <add><gap/></add> <gap/><lb/>
so far as <gap/> <gap/> <gap/> <gap/><lb/>
the part of b<gap/> by a party<lb/>
is proposed to be given to <add>[+]</add></note>
 
<note><add>[+]</add> to the Judge: one initiative to which <gap/> in the Legislation will add the <unclear>consumation</unclear> &#x2014; giving to an amendment proposed by the Judge the force of law.</note>
 
<p>In this case, and in this alone, it is here proposed to annex,<lb/>
<add>to the situation of Judge Immediate</add> in form as well as in effect, a sort of eventually valid<lb/>
power of legislation: the initiation at any rate, in so far as<lb/>
the <unclear>consectuality</unclear> within what is made requested to be previously done<lb/>
by an individual, it can be <unclear>stiled</unclear> an initiative: to which it is<lb/>
moreover proposed to add, in default of an initiative actual<lb/>
or virtual on the part of the Legislation, the <unclear>consummation</unclear>.</p>


<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{In_Progress}}
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Completed}}

Latest revision as of 17:42, 20 October 2023

Click Here To Edit


1824. April 21
Constitutional Code.

IV
Ch. 5. Judiciary Collectively
§. indicate
function

2

5
Art. 5. Difficult sometimes it may
be to determine whether
the imperfection is in the
design or the expression.
But so long as any
person is at liberty
to give indication of it
in either case, no practical
inconvenience can follow

Art. 5 In some cases it may be matter of more or less
difficulty for a man to satisfy himself whether it is in
the design or in the ordinance made in prosecution of it,
that the supposed imperfection has its seat: but so long
as in any case, any person who pleases is so inclined is at liberty to
indicate the supposed imperfection, and propose what in his
view of the matter is the most apt remedy, whatsoever be
on this occasion the uncertainty, no practical inconvenience
seems capable of liable to resulting from it.

6
Art. 6. Sole cases attended
with material difference
1. Suggester, a Judge, do
not a Judge.
2. If a Judge, a Judge
acting as such on the occasion
in question; or not
so acting: in which case
he is on the footing of a
non-Judge.

Acting as such, unless
he is empowered to act
spontaneously it must
be either in consequence
of a suit or without
suit: but in both cases

But in both cases,
unless be acts spontaneously of his
own motive
it must be at
the motive of another
person: naturally if there
be a suit, of a person party to the suit.

Art. 6 The differences and the only material differences seem
to be those which regard the two following cases. 1. The person by
whom the suggestion is made is he an individual other than the a
Judge or is he the a Judge. If a Judge is he a Judge
having actual experience of the matter, or a Judge at large: in
which latter case the footing he stands upon in this respect is not very
materially different from that of the an individual at large. 2. If
a Judge having experience of the matter, it must be, as the consequence except where he
of
unless he be empowered to act spontaneously, be either
in consequence of a suit already instituted, in relation to the subject matter in question or antecedently
to any such suit already instituted.

In either of these cases the exercise faculty of exercising of the function in question by
on the part of the Judge is in the nature of the case dependent upon
the act of an individual at large namely the applicant
unless in the one state of things or the other, calls upon the
Judge to give exercise to his authority.

7
Art. 7. Sole case in which
it is here proposed to vest
in the Judge an eventually
valid power of legislation
a party calling for judicial decision
at his hands, either
by a suit, or without suit
In this case on
so far as
the part of b by a party
is proposed to be given to [+]

[+] to the Judge: one initiative to which in the Legislation will add the consumation — giving to an amendment proposed by the Judge the force of law.

In this case, and in this alone, it is here proposed to annex,
to the situation of Judge Immediate in form as well as in effect, a sort of eventually valid
power of legislation: the initiation at any rate, in so far as
the consectuality within what is made requested to be previously done
by an individual, it can be stiled an initiative: to which it is
moreover proposed to add, in default of an initiative actual
or virtual on the part of the Legislation, the consummation.



Identifier: | JB/042/405/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 42.

Date_1

1824-04-02

Marginal Summary Numbering

5-7

Box

042

Main Headings

constitutional code

Folio number

405

Info in main headings field

constitutional code

Image

001

Titles

Category

text sheet

Number of Pages

1

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

e2

Penner

jeremy bentham

Watermarks

Marginals

jeremy bentham

Paper Producer

Corrections

Paper Produced in Year

Notes public

ID Number

13328

Box Contents

UCL Home » Transcribe Bentham » Transcription Desk
  • Create account
  • Log in