Question about standards for degree programs.

Don't know why it was excluded from the statute. Just one of those things.

 

How do you get this?

 

Ken,
I'm just probing. It is unlikely that I will ever come to Florida and have a need to use my NA degrees. It does "Burn" me, though, to have to read about the "bias" shown by the statute. I feel that I earned degrees just as good as the RA or Professionally Accredited degrees that are required by the Florida law.
I am not opposing your opinion, just a general discussion.

Bill

 

Ted,
That's the way I interpeted it!
Tell me if I am wrong.
bill

 

Ted,
I see you are in Ohio also. Great to meet up with another from "The buckeye State."
Bill

 

You're right. I misread your statement. I believe that you are interpreting it correctly (that Florida is excluding nationally accredited degrees by mentioning only regionally or professionally accredited degrees). I also hope there's a way to challenge it in court, but I don't think kcfile's interpretation will fly.

 

Ted,
Thanks. Phew, "wipe sweat from brow" , thought I'd have to defend that statement. Yes, that's the way I see it.

Bill

 

The court case that I was thinking of took place years ago. So I'm pleased to learn that the current statute is valid. Thanks.

 

Under common law system, if the content of a statute/act/legal document does not have detailed and specific definitions, court/law personnels will interpret its meaning by using customs, trade practices, past cases, reasonableness ...etc.

Therefore, everyone can interpret the statute under common law practice if there is no definition of a private institution that was found out by MrLazy as described below already in the Statute:

Private institutions are covered by Chapter 1005 NonPublic Postsecondary Education. Under section 1005.02, there is an interesting definition.

"Independent postsecondary educational institution" means any postsecondary educational institution that operates in this state or makes application to operate in this state, and is not provided, operated, and supported by the State of Florida, its political subdivisions, or the Federal Government.

Everyone can interpret the meaning of the statute by using law principles. You may find out the meaning of operations from law textbooks that explains such act or intention will create one's right and liability. Therefore, if you operate a business, the commencement date of the operation should be the day you get all legal required documents, i.e. including business license. As from this day, your company will bear legal liability (i.e. substance of business operation) whether OR not you actually operate real business or not (i.e. business activities in physical form). That is why I can interpret the meaning of operation differently from yours.

Furthermore, as explained before, the problems are still existed here, if such statute is contradicted to other statutes, e.g. discrimination laws as explained by Bill, e.g. freedom of speech, writing ...etc, or other federal educational laws.

It also seems to contradict against the basic idea of common law system, i.e. equity and reasonableness. Is the Florida State's educational system superior to other states so as to ban legal degrees of others in this state? Is this statute against freedom of speech/writing as explained by Bill? This statute expresses to void legalities of other states, is it implying the non-existence of Federal legal system?

One more terrible thing is that a legal degree of other states will become NOT ONLY void BUT ALSO treat as ILLEGAL ACT. It is very unreasonable. If a country, for instance, only allows to use its own country currency and a traveller visits the country with the use of USD, his/her act may be void, i.e. not accepted in such country, but cannot be treated as illegal unless he/she provides faked USD!

I think Florida State is not applying common law system, is it?

 

Nevertheless, "provided, operated, and supported by the state" does not mean private universities, regardless of how much you wish it to be so.

 

This is not true. A law degree from any institution that is accredited by the American Bar Association(ABA) meets the statute under (1) (a) since it is professionally accredited. Doesn't matter if the institution is in Georgia, California or any of the other states. There is only one non-ABA accredited law school in the U.S. of which I am aware and only California accepts it's degree as being satisfactory to sit for the bar exam.

Also, I believe I remember reading that IRAN had issued an edict that USD were not to be used and that holding them by private citizens was illegal.

South African Kruegerrands (sp?) were illegal to hold in the U.S. for awhile because of Apartheid.


2.01 Common law and certain statutes declared in force.--The common and statute laws of England which are of a general and not a local nature, with the exception hereinafter mentioned, down to the 4th day of July, 1776, are declared to be of force in this state; provided, the said statutes and common law be not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the acts of the Legislature of this state.

 

I don't insist your definition as it had already searched by MrLazy to provide the definition of private institution in somewhere of other educational statute of Florida.

However, if NO definition provided in the statute as searched by MrLazy, I'll still insist there are legal arguments about the term of 1(b). You may try to read some law texbooks to learn more about the implications of operation in law sense.

 

What I refer to is legal/state approved but unaccredited institution.


Also, I believe I remember reading that IRAN had issued an edict that USD were not to be used and that holding them by private citizens was illegal.

South African Kruegerrands (sp?) were illegal to hold in the U.S. for awhile because of Apartheid.[/QUOTE]

I know your above cases are possible due to political reasons, foreign exchange control in communist countries ...etc. However, my example is to suppose in a free trade country.


2.01 Common law and certain statutes declared in force.--The common and statute laws of England which are of a general and not a local nature, with the exception hereinafter mentioned, down to the 4th day of July, 1776, are declared to be of force in this state; provided, the said statutes and common law be not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the acts of the Legislature of this state. [/B][/QUOTE]

Thank you for your information. It seems common law is not, but constitutional law, the basic structure in USA. That is different from UK. Perhaps, it may be one of the main reasons lawyers of USA must sit examinations in commonwealth countries if they wish to take their practice. As I know, lawyers of USA are not recognized in HK/singapore and required to take local examinations and experience if they wish to take practice.

 

I think I can use one more simple but specific example to conclude my legal point here. Assuming without MrLazy search of the definition of private institution from other educational statute EXPRESSIVELY, below example is interesting for arguable:

An educational institution (i.e. the State government in this case) is employing two types of employees to provide and operate its educational programs. One type of employees are receiving salary directly from the institution (i.e. public or state funded institution in this case) and another type of employees are ONLY on commission basis for every student successfully enrolled. If no enrollment occurs, this type of employees will not have any income (i.e. self-financing or private institution in this case). So, can you say ONLY salary paid employees are provided, operated and supported by the institution BUT exclude the commission basis employees?

So, from above example, below sentence will be:

An employee (i.e. an institution in 1 without any specification) is provided, operated and supported by the educational institution (i.e. State government in 1(b)) The employee can be salary paid or commission paid or others of the institution, if it is not specified or defined!

If you wish ONLY including salary paid employee (i.e. public insititution), the sentence should be written as a salary paid employee is provided .... etc!

Therefore, without MrLazy's finding of black and white definition of private institution, legal arguments must be happened as similar to above example.

When drafting legal documents, try to make them as specific as enough to protect your interest for avoiding arguments.

 

And there is no way that provided, operated, and supported by the state can be construed to include private schools. You are simply full of shyte.

 

While I'm very appreciated MrLazy who is really to find out related statutes and examples to support his/her arguments (i.e. a correct direction in studying law), you only express your personal view without any supporting grounds, e.g. examples, reasoning behind, rationale ... etc.

Law is only concerning evidences, reasoning, examples, past cases ... etc for the arguments but not personal view without any supporting evidence or reasoning ground.

 

Private universities are not provided by the state. Private universities are not operated by the state. Private universities are not supported by the state. How can a private university be provided, operated, and supported by the state? If a university were provided, operated, and supported by the state, it would be a state university. That should be so self-obvious as not to need any special definition.

 

Education itself is a public good/service, i.e. providing by the government to the public, in economic and legal concepts. Qualified educational institutions are only the channel/mean/media of a government to offer such service. Without specification, educational institutions can be public or private in nature.

Therefore, education provided, operated and supported by the government is similar as educational institutions (i.e. including public, private or other qualified institutions WITHOUT specification further) provided, operated and supported by the government!

 

Education can be seen as either a public good or a private good. Seen as a public good, educating people does tend to raise the standard of living for all by allowing those who would have been too poor to pay for it themselves to become productive. Seen as a private good, education allows a specific individual the opportunity to increase his/her economic standing. But, still, the private universities are not provided or operated or supported by the state; public universities are provided and operated and supported by the state. You're wrong; get over it. Go find a new basis for your appeal, and this time respect the plain meaning of the language of the statute.

 

Thanks for the tip on ULC. I just had my dog ordained by the church (seriously, I did have my dog ordained by ULC…it was free so why not?). I now call her Reverend.

Now if I could just get her to do something with her ULC Credentials for Ministry. Does anyone know how to teach a dog a new trick such as conducting marriage or funeral services?