Law For Lawyers
- Thread starter confed sailor
- Start date
- Status
RevDisk
Member
Which ruling was that out of curiousity?
Wildalaska
member
Actually Kirk what I mean to say again and again and again it that by playing the "well its in plain english" game ignores 600 plus years of Anglo-American jurisprudence that must be consulted and intepreted before one can say exactly what "plain english" is...
Contrary to popular thinking, establishing the meaning of a statute involves more than just reading a dictionary...
PS..as an aside, I can remember getting involved in an Estate case years ago where my research entailed me reading cases for the 1700s with the books falling apart as I read them...
WildimpleaderdemurrerAlaska
confed sailor
Member
since when has a court ruling ever made a dent in these people, these masters of doublethink, we could bury them in paper rulings, and still the duckspeak would ramble on.
El Tejon
Member
Rev, that was Perpich. Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990) (unanimous decision) (Supreme Court recognizes that National Guard is not a militia, but part of the United States military. Important to individual rights analysis as Court failed to mention Second Amendment at all).
*Edit, I was in the coffee shoppe earlier this morning and could not remember cite.
*Edit, I was in the coffee shoppe earlier this morning and could not remember cite.
Last edited:
carpettbaggerr
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2003
- Messages
- 1,676
As a lawyer, I will state that if anyone (lawyer or not) claims to know, in absolute terms, what the Second Amendment REALLY means, you should just nod politely and move on. Over the years, I've read a dozen or more well-researched, scholarly articles on the subject, and there simply is no concensus. Unless and until the US Supreme Court tackles the issue head on, the reality is that we can only make educated guesses.
Plus, as a 48-year old, I'm really struggling with the idea that I somehow "lost" a fundamental constitutional right three years ago. Can't quite buy into that concept.
Plus, as a 48-year old, I'm really struggling with the idea that I somehow "lost" a fundamental constitutional right three years ago. Can't quite buy into that concept.
Wildalaska
member
Using that as your sole understanding of the legal system is the same as figuring out the tides by watching the water run down the drain in your bathtub...
But hey, everyone is entitled to be ininformed in their life
WildpsifshakspeareisrightimwaitingAlaska
chas_martel
Member
RE: Lawyers that insist and or imply that non-lawyers are incapable
of the "nuances" involved in interpreting law.
My attorney wife, of 15 years, insist those type of "lawyers" are
plauged with the same sort of problems as Freud spoke of.
Namely they are sexually immature, of low self esteem and pin-headed.
of the "nuances" involved in interpreting law.
My attorney wife, of 15 years, insist those type of "lawyers" are
plauged with the same sort of problems as Freud spoke of.
Namely they are sexually immature, of low self esteem and pin-headed.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
I find it rather peculiar, and a bit telling, that no one adressed my original message.
Justin-
Step 1. Found a nation on simple, fair, just principles written in plain English.
Step 2. Allow a legal establishment with a vested interest (pardon the legal jargon) to corner the market on "interpreting" said principles.
Step 3. "600 plus years of Anglo-American jurisprudence that must be consulted and intepreted before one can say exactly what "plain english" is" stands between you, me, and a "fair and just nation".
316
Step 1. Found a nation on simple, fair, just principles written in plain English.
Step 2. Allow a legal establishment with a vested interest (pardon the legal jargon) to corner the market on "interpreting" said principles.
Step 3. "600 plus years of Anglo-American jurisprudence that must be consulted and intepreted before one can say exactly what "plain english" is" stands between you, me, and a "fair and just nation".
316
Wildalaska
member
isnt that nice....what a cute way to flame....
Maybe your wife needs to find a better profession. I could alternatively analyze her, but this is the High Road...
Golly I forget, perhaps you should join Alec Baldwin and Johhnyy Depp and all the others who fled this land of horror...
WildthebattleofwitsAlaska
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Ahem.
Calm. Down.
, Art
Calm. Down.
, ArtThe language of law is very precise. The purpose is to say exactly what you mean, and exclude any other meanings. This takes some education and experience. Problems as to the intent of the language arise, and this is why there are courts, to interpret the legal language. Unfortunately, the role of interpretation has been all too often hijacked into torturous meanings by activist judges in order to further some political agenda.
Brett Bellmore
Member
And given the prevailance of "legal realism" in the law schools, there never will be such a consensus, until there's a consensus as to what it OUGHT to mean... since way to many legal scholars are committed to denying that laws have any objective meaning apart from what lawyers want them to mean.
This type of behavior is not confined to law schools (or lawyers). I doubt you would be able to find any large group of people that would agree on the meaning of what a particular law OUGHT to mean (unless it is a very basis law). If oyu start throwing in words like "reasonable" and "due process" you leave things open to different interpretations.
- Status