Subject:
|
Re: Legal Education? (was: real conspiracies?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 1 Jul 2002 07:04:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
561 times
|
| |
|
|
First, let me just say: Holy Crap! What a lot of complicated questions!
Obviously, I have to make the usual I AM NOT A LAWYER warning here. But,
really -- I am not a lawyer and you shouldn't consider anything I say any
kind of legal advice. These are just my personal opinions and it is more
than likely that they are worthless.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> I'm wondering if you have any reasonable suggestions about how to obtain
> said education.
Not an easy task by any means, and I am not sure that I am the person to ask
-- I certainly don't see myself as any kind of expert here. As to reasonable
suggestions, I would put several items on my reading list but these would
just be places to start -- any real education is ongoing. Keep in mind that
I lean towards an interest in civil rights and oppose big govt. Anyway, here
is the proposed list (mainly going from memory here, please forgive any
errors in titles or dates, a few items I did check):
(Towards the Consitution)
"The Federalist Papers" by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay
"The Anti-Federalist Papers" by Various
James Madison's Notes on the Convention
(Liberty Documents)
Magna Carta
The Continental Association of 1774
Declaration of Independence
Articles of Confederation
Constitution of the United States
Bill of Rights, and subsequent amendments
your own state's constitution
(Common Law Jurisprudence)
"Commentaries on the Laws of England" by William Blackstone
(http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/blackstone/blacksto.htm)
"Commentaries on American Law" by James Kent
(U.S. Case Law)
Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. 1 (Dall.) (1794) - Jury has power to judge law
in bringing general verdict.
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137; 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803) - Courts must
not sustain unconstitutional acts.
Erie v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938) - an intriguing question is answered
(maybe?).
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) - interesting decision from which
we get the "Miranda Warning"
Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority 297 U.S. 288 (1936) - Ashwander Doctrine
(U.S. Codes)
Title 42 U.S.C. (esp. sections 1983, 1985, 1986)
(Political Philosophy)
John Locke's "Second Treatise of Government"
"The Prince" by Niccolò Machiavelli
Various works by Comte Donatien Alphonse François De Sade (NOT for children,
and a little hard going because of the way the material is often presented
-- keep in mind this guy is considered one of the main pamphleteers of the
French Revolution. Interesting bit here:
http://www.culturewars.com/CultureWars/Archives/Fidelity_archives/parricide.html)
"The Spirit of Laws" by Charles de Montesquieu
"Social Contract" and "A Discourse on Political Economy" by Jean Jacques
Rousseau
ANYTHING by Thomas Jefferson
"The Law" by Frederic Bastiat (http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html)
"A Vindication of the Rights of Women" by Mary Wollstonecraft
"An Essay on the Trial By Jury" by Lysander Spooner
(http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7394/lysander.html)
"Civil Disobedience" by Henry David Thoreau
"Self-Reliance" by Ralph Waldo Emerson
(http://ra.msstate.edu/~kerjsmit/self_rel.htm)
Somewhere there is an essay called something like "Jefferson on
Corporations" and I have this in my library in storage. All I could find
today was this: "I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of
our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a
trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
-Thomas Jefferson, 1816. The gist of the essay is that Jefferson feared the
power of corporations as deathless entities that could compete unfairly
against individuals (of ordinary lifespan) and whose political and financial
power could rival that of the republic.
> Even if I did read it I wouldn't remember it because it's legalese...
Do not be intimidated! That it is that last thing you want to do. It's
just words, after all -- and even if you have to look a few words up at
first you will get the hang of it. Plus, that's exactly what lawyers want
-- for you to think you can't do it for yourself. You can and you should --
actually, as a citizen your supposed to understand quite a bit of this
anyway. Admittedly, just acquiring the knowledge can be a lot of work.
> I recall you once suggesting (though I can't find it now) going entry by entry
> through some legal dictionary or encyclopedia.
I don't know if I ever said that, but if I did I would likely have been
recommending John Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary. I have it in hardback in
three HUGE volumes. (http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier.htm) Black's
is also good -- it's just that the 1914 Bouvier's edition was somehow
sanctioned by congress, I don't recall the details.
> Specifically about Title 12:
> The US Constitution says "the Congress shall have power to...coin money [and]
> regulate the value thereof" and "No state shall...coin money; emit bills of
> credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of
> debts." In other notes you have more explicitly stated your frustration with
> the Federal Reserve, including the claim that Congress has the responsibility
> to coin gold and silver only. I thought your argument was based on the
> constitution rather than some other federal law, but I don't see it. What am I
> misunderstanding?
> Are there particularly devious bits of Title 12, or is it just the whole
> Federal Reserve to which you are opposed?
I am opposed to NOT following the rules laid out in the Constitution. And
while many think that Federal Reserve Notes are made legal because the
federal govt. has the right to borrow money, I think that even given that
possibility it does not vitiate the federal govt's obligation to coin money
as per Art.I, Sect. 10. as you have noted. In theory, I would have opposed
the creation of the greenback during the Civil War, and it's continuance
under the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 -- anything that gives the true value
of any currency scheme built-in elasticity or any kind of susceptibility to
abuse is probably a bad thing. My annoyance with Title 12 has to do with
Banking in general, and the collection of extortionist rates of interest
that makes most people into de facto slaves. Basically, I am more than
suspicious of banks and every thing to do with them.
If you want to know more about money, you'll want to read up on stuff by and
about Roger Sherman. Of Sherman, Jefferson was said to have remarked "That
is Mr. Sherman of Connecticut, a man who never said a foolish thing in his
life." The big deal here is that the "make anything but gold and silver
coin a tender in payment of debts" bit in the constitution was supposedly
placed there at the prolonged insistence of Sherman (I think it was like a 4
day debate or some such thing).
If there is a villain to follow in U.S. history, I would suggest that the
villain is Alexander Hamilton. Follow the money trail. Follow his
activities in court. The bullet did not come soon enough. 'Nuff said.
Lastly, the thing a law professor said that changed my life: "Law is warfare
against the poor." I have no idea who the original source of the quote
might be.
I'm sure I can come up with more given time, but you should read what
interests you the most. While De Sade is not much read outside literary
circles, I think the rest of the list is pretty obvious in the sense that
anyone with familiarity with the material would have recommended the same
stuff. If there is a rule to be followed at all, read the original source
yourself and don't accept someone else's interpretation of something as a
replacement -- there are no Reader's Digest versions of this stuff, no
Cliff's Notes versions either. Read to your satisfaction. Read
contentiously, as if you disgreed with everything. Question everything --
follow your questions in the footnotes, obiter dictum, and research it
further elsewhere. Take notes (the ultimate mnemonic device -- write once,
know it forever). The only test is your political life.
I hope this helps. It was written as if you had no idea what to pursue,
sorry if it comes off as superior sounding -- it's not intended to be.
-- Hop-Frog
Resources (lots of stuff is actually on the web, try that if it suits you):
http://www.findlaw.com/
http://www.blackmask.com
http://www.agh-attorneys.com/3_american_federalism_table_of_contents.htm --
this is some kind of online book or study course on American Federalism. I
haven't read it, but how bad could it be? It was developed for use in
American Government and Public Policy courses taught at Purdue University
Calumet. One thing I don't like is the use of emphasized and bolded text in
the case law portions, plug the cites into Findlaw instead. Don't be lead by
another reader. Even, or especially, if that other reader is a trained
lawyer. =)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Legal Education? (was: real conspiracies?)
|
| (...) Richard, In the past you have made references to your legal education and the woeful lack of legal education in virtually all of The People. I'm wondering if you have any reasonable suggestions about how to obtain said education. I applied to (...) (22 years ago, 30-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
13 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
