Quote:
Originally Posted by BeautifulBurnout
From what I can gather, the state ethics laws are, rather, codes of practice for state employees rather than "law" as such - and when you think about it, in many respects this is what they have to be, because you could feasibly be violating an ethics law by being the boss of a company who also does business with the state, yet you couldn't be cited or arrested for something like that.
I liken it to the Bar Code of Conduct - there are things I can do which would result in me being fined, suspended or even disbarred, but for which I would not committing a criminal act or tort of any kind. I think it calling it a "law" (and the sections of it "statutes") is a bit of a misnomer really.
|
Don't mean to be smartassing, just a question of understanding:
Are those Alaskan "state ethics laws" laws in the "material" sense of this notion (i. e., any abstract and general provision, such as decrees, directives, ordinances etc.), as opposed to the "formal" notion (i. e., provisions adopted by a parliament, such as criminal laws, data protection acts etc.)? Is there any such differentiation between "formal" and "material" law in the case law system?
Now playing on dirty.radio: Loading...
10-12-2008, 02:54 AM
Hybrid Mode
