Talk:Acquiescence

Voodoo jurisprudence ahoy!
Although executive nonacquiescence has been heavily criticized by the courts, the U.S. Congress has not yet been able to pass a bill formally prohibiting such behavior.

To be an an officer in the US federal government, one is "bound by Oath or Affirmation to support" the constitution. The right to nonacquiescence is not enumerated in the constitution anywhere, and thus it is denied to any officer in the federal government. To refuse to acquiesce to the lawful operations of another branch is both to contradict the constitution and to violate one's oath of office or station, which is generally interpreted as treason.

My point is that this behavior is already formally prohibited. --76.224.86.73 00:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I was about to comment on that particular line aswell; "Although executive nonacquiescence has been heavily criticized by the courts, the U.S. Congress has not yet been able to pass a bill formally punishing such behavior.", I cant beleive how that can happen, seriously worries me. And im not even American! Liked that other guys comment though, thanks or clearing it up a bit. :) --user:Terrasidius 15 December 2007 11:05am (GMT)

Please clarify
I'm guessing that the first paragraph is a good illustration of a crappy definition that makes good sense to those who already know that definition:
 * "Acquiescence is a legal term used to describe an act of a person in knowingly standing by without raising any objection to infringement of his rights, when someone else is unknowingly and honestly putting in his resources under the impression that the said rights actually belong to him. Consequently, the person whose rights are infringed cannot anymore make a claim against the infringer or succeed in an injunction suit due to his conduct. The term is most generally, "permission" given by silence or passiveness. Acceptance or agreement by keeping quiet or by not making objections."

Each of the two clauses of the first sentence has two usages of; his, or him. And while the punctuation may (or may not) lend to specifics, the wording (with lay common sense,) seems to disavow those. And how does one unknowingly and honestly put in his resources?...what is that?...jargon or garbage? Also "his conduct?"...who's? No doubt these are clear if one already knows the definition.

Please consider Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LEAD and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MOSINTRO#Introductory_text and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MOSINTRO#First_sentence

--68.127.87.73 (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Doug Bashford

The definition is not a bad one, but probably copied from a legal dictionary or written by someone with experience with a legal background. The definition assumes that Party A has the exclusive right to do something. Party B wants to do that something. Party A is the person who has rights that are being infringed and Party B is the infringer. Party B would "unknowingly and honestly" do something if 1) Party B did not know that Part A had the exclusive right to do something and 2) Party B ignorance of Party A's exclusive right was honest. In other words Party B must really not have know that Party B was suppose to ask for Party A's permission before doing it (that is the unknowing part,) and Party B couldn't have intentionally avoid information that would make Party B realize that Party B should be asking for Party A's permission (that is the honest part.)

The person in "his conduct" refers to the "person whose rights are infringed." The general rule in English is that a pronoun refers to the last noun used in the text that the pronoun can refer to. It is common in legal writing (unfortunately) to use pronouns freely, so it requires careful reading to determine who "he" or "his" refers to. In this case, the person who holds the exclusive right to do something (Party A) is said to have acquiescence to the actions of the party infringing on that right (Party B) "due to [Party A's] conduct", because Party A didn't complain about Party B's actions in a timely fashion. Really all this comes down to common sense. Bob built a fence on what he thought was his property. Alice watched him build the fence but didnt tell Bob that the fence was on Alice's land. After Bob finished the fence, Alice told Bob, "you just built that fence on my land and I want you to take it down." A court would find that Bob had no right to build the fence, but since Alice watched Bob build the fence and Alice didn't say anything until Bob was finished, Alice acquiescenced to Bob building the fence there. Therefore Bob doesn't have to take the fence down.

But you are right, mediocre legal writing does not qualify as good writing for a non-legal audience.