“Useless laws weaken necessary laws.”

Useless politicians weaken laws.

An observation of legal positivism NOT, of the natural law that the limiting Constitution was to be based. Law enforcement is an oxymoron. Can gravity be weakened by man's laws? NO. Can Keynesian adaptation weaken fiscal law? NO. Keynesian economics violates natural law. The entire premiss of the statement is steeped in tyranny. Useless laws only promote tyranny. Is murder a necessary law? NO, murder will be committed with or without man's laws. Or, will a useless law weaken murder's effect. NO. Man is to discover law and then implement such tools as codes, ordinances, regulations, rules, statutes, etc. to harmonize therewith. Murder is a breech of natural law, with or without man's laws. The closer man's tools accurately define murder, the greater the freedom, liberty and, the less tyranny, useless laws, and necessary laws there will be.

This statement reminds me of a county legislator that wanted to put up a sign next to the road. The sign was to be of a deer with a circle around it and a line through it. The stated problem was - to many deer were getting hit on the road so it was "NECESSARY" to prohibit the deer from crossing at that specific point. Of course we all know that deer are law abiding so they read the signs and went somewhere else. Was there a useless law somewhere that weakened this necessary law ? umm, dunno ;-)

Sir Winston Churchill: "If you have 10,000 regulations, you destroy all respect for the law."....and he was right.

Mike, I think taking the word 'law' and stretching it to only 'natural law' will make the use of the word moot. Semantically, yes, there are no man-made 'laws' only statutes or rules. But since people do not use the words 'rules' instead of 'laws' (which would be more accurate) I believe the meaning being expressed here is correct: useless rules weaken necessary rules. In a republican form of government, rules are created by elected representatives and must remain within the proper jurisdiction authorized by the people -- the 'law makers' do not have carte blanche -- something they need to be reminded about every now and again. Most of the rules being enacted by Congress in fact can only apply to government employees and those that are accepting government benefits -- that is the jurisdiction of the government and also why they want ALL of us to contract the government for our needs -- those that are independent and have not signed government contracts are NOT within the jurisdiction of most government statutes (that they call 'law'). It is simply assumed today that all are wards of the state and thus subject to the reams and reams of 'laws' on the books.

this is boring