Top Ten Things Not to Include in Your Bar Exam Essay:
1. God's law (hereinafter "GL") is clear on the following point...
2. 3 generations of imbeciles is enough
3. Whoever is in need of evidence, he shall go on every third day to shout before the witness' doorway.
4. If an overseer or a fisherman ordered to the service of the king does not come, but sends a hireling in his stead, that same overseer or fisherman shall be put to death, and his house shall go into the possession of the hireling.
5. If a woman in a quarrel injure the testicle of a man, one of her fingers they shall cut off. And if a physician bind it up and the other testicle which is beside it be infected thereby, or take harm; or in a quarrel she injure the other testicle, they shall destroy both of her eyes
6. If defendant shirks or takes to heels, plaintiff shall lay hands on him.
7. Evil is as evil does
8. If the wife of a man be walking on the highway, and a man seize her, say to her "I will surely have intercourse with you," if she be not willing and defend herself, and he seize her by force and rape her, whether they catch him upon the wife of a man, or whether at the word of the woman whom he has raped, the elders shall prosecute him, they shall put him to death. There is no punishment for the woman.
9. While the defendant may have escaped punishment on Earth, he will get his just deserts in the afterlife.
10. Since, then, the primacy of the Apostolic See is established by the merit of St. Peter (who is the chief among the bishops), by the majesty of the city of Rome, and finally by the authority of a holy council, no one, withot inexcusable presumption, may attempt anything against the authority of that see.
posted by JS @ 12:44 AM
11 Comments:
My personal fave:
One struggles in vain for any verbal formula that will supply a ready touchstone. The standard set up by the statute is not a rule of law; it is rather a way of life. Life in all its fullness must supply the answer to the riddle.
Cardozo could get away with it. Law students, not so much
Kill them all; God will know his own.
There are many lawyers, and especially jurists, who continue to reject the notion that the disciplines concerned with textual criticism can have anything to contribute, except perhaps peripherally, to their research. Still less are they receptive to the idea that the very foundations of their worldview must be revised or rebuilt in the light of such criticism. Rather, they cling to the dogma imposed by the long post-Enlightenment hegemony over the Western intellectual outlook, which can be summarized briefly as follows: that there exists an legal worldview, whose properties are independent of any individual human being and indeed of humanity as a whole; that these properties are encoded in determinable legal "rules"; and that human beings can obtain reliable, albeit imperfect and tentative, knowledge of these rules by hewing to the "objective'' procedures and epistemological strictures prescribed by various interpretative methodologies.
But deep conceptual shifts within twentieth-century jurisprudential thought have undermined this natural law metaphysic; revisionist studies in the history and philosophy of law have cast further doubt on its credibility; and, most recently, feminist and poststructuralist critiques have demystified the substantive content of mainstream Western juridical practice, revealing the ideology of domination concealed behind the façade of "objectivity''. It has thus become increasingly apparent that legal "meaning'' is at bottom a social and linguistic construct; that legal "knowledge", far from being an objective "science," reflects and encodes the dominant ideologies and power relations of the culture that produced it; that the truth claims of caselaw are inherently theory-laden and self-referential; and consequently, that the discourse of the legal community, for all its undeniable value, cannot assert a privileged epistemological status with respect to counter-hegemonic narratives emanating from dissident or marginalized communities.
In short, I decline to answer this question, not merely because any one "answer" would be oppressively exclusive of other, equally valid or invalid viewpoints, but because it is impossible objectively to answer any such question.
"It's situations like this that demonstrate the value of vigilante justice."
Gentlemen, I find the law very explicit on murdering your fellow man, but there's nothing here about killing a Chinaman. Case dismissed.
THE TEXAS DEFENSE:
"Your Honor, he needed a killing."
Well, on my Corporations final in law school, stuck for an answer to one question, I did write, "This question cannot be meaningfully answered until the internal contradictions of the capitalist system are successfully resolved." But I chickened out, crossed it out and wrote something else. I got a B+ in the class, too.
"No one ever got raped in an upper bunk." US Military Courts Martial (19th Century) or so the story goes.
Cool post you got here. I'd like to read something more concerning this topic.
BTW look at the design I've made myself London escorts
Cool story you place here.
It will be useful to read anything more concerning this article.
Thanks for tell that information.
With best regards Sara!
Ukrainian escort service
Hello, I do not agree with the previous commentator - not so simple
Post a Comment
<< Home