• About
  • Books
  • Contact
  • Education Resources

PERRIN LOVETT

~ Deo Vindice

PERRIN LOVETT

Tag Archives: legal education

Law Schools go Full SJW

10 Monday Jul 2017

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

culture, law, law school, legal education, SJW

This isn’t good for the legal profession. Actually, the law itself is all but dead. The active practice is in shambles both ideologically and in terms of operation. But the following represents a blow to the underpinnings of basic legal education that will be hard to recover from.

Howard University Professor of Law Reginald Robinson has been found “guilty” of sexual harassment. His offense was asking a question on an exam.

A college law professor has been found guilty of sexual harassment because he gave students a test question about a bikini wax.

Reginald Robinson included the question in a test for students at Howard University in Washington D.C. in September 2015.

It described a hypothetical situation in which a person sued a beauty salon claiming to have been touched inappropriately by a therapist after falling asleep while undergoing a bikini wax.

The question asked whether a court would support the person’s claim against the salon owner as opposed to the therapist and if it would even be upheld given that the person had consented to the somewhat invasive wax on their genitals.

Two students complained to the university. claiming that the question made them feel as though they had to reveal if they had ever undergone bikini waxes themselves.

They said they did not like the use of the word ‘genitals’, according to The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE).

A lengthy investigation was launched and on Thursday, it concluded that Robinson was guilty of sexual harassment.

As a result, he has to undergo sensitivity training, have all of his test questions screened by another member of staff and his classes will be supervised.

The university also warned that he could face termination if other students complain about him.

The university in Washington D.C. found Robinson guilty of sexual harassment after a lengthy investigation.

Robinson is outraged by the university’s decision which he said stops him from being able to properly educate students.

‘My case should worry every faculty member at Howard University, and perhaps elsewhere, who teaches in substantive areas like law, medicine, history, and literature.

Why? None of these academic areas can be taught without evaluating and discussing contextual facts, especially unsavory and emotionally charged ones.

‘I also can’t prepare my students adequately for legal practice if I can’t teach them new developments and require them to read unedited, unfiltered cases,’ he said in a statement.

The university did not respond to DailyMail.com’s request on Sunday morning. A spokesman for FIRE slammed its findings.

‘Robinson’s test question clearly does not constitute sexual harassment.

‘Howard’s overreaction to a simple hypothetical question is a threat to academic freedom and a professor’s ability to effectively teach students,’ they said.

Here’s the “offensive” question:

422B920D00000578-4679476-image-a-34_1499610567513

Daily Mail / Reginald Robinson.

The subject matter may sound a little silly and even “skanky.” Please rest assured that at least half of all real life civil cases may accurately be described as such. This case, this exact question, is bound to happen somewhere in America if it hasn’t happened already. The real plaintiff will probably be (is) another SJW.

These are the pathetic, demented souls that complain of everything. Then they complain about their complaints. They’re everywhere now, including law schools. That’s the funny part (or another funny part).

Robinson is a full professor; he’s been teaching since 1991 and at Howard since 1994. He has tenure. He’s also a black man. He researches, writes, and teaches extensively about “race theory” and the law. This would seem to be the ideal liberal combination for any law professor in 2017. Then again, he also teaches Business Law and actually has the insane idea that he’s supposed to equip his students for the real world.

Any shrieking, blue-haired, malcontent that can’t handle the word “genitals” won’t fare so well when it comes time to examine in court, in-depth and with a medical examiner’s testimony, the internal autopsy photographs which document exactly how the five-year-old murder victim died. I’ve been there and done that. That sort of thing turns cast iron kettles to say nothing of stomachs. The SJWs will have to be revived by paramedics and rushed to the safe room (surely coming to a courthouse near you).

But coloring books and play mats won’t be able to save what little is left of the legal profession if this kind of bullsh!t is allowed to stand. F.I.R.E. (a likely hate group by SPLC standards) is on the case.

With or without F.I.R.E., Robinson should sue the school. And every other normal law student should implead himself as a third-party plaintiff. This utter nonsense threatens the integrity of every JD granted by Howard. It screams that the graduates are not prepared to leave kindergarten, let alone enter the demanding arena of the juridical combat.

And if a tenured black professor, who actively advances “race theory” can become an SJW target, anyone can be a target. Except, maybe, those who bait the crybabies. By the way, this harassment story reminded me: I didn’t know “harass” was one word until the Clarence Thomas debacle. Ha! Get it? Harass. Her-a…? ??? Eh well.

Seriously, it’s time to drive these pitiful nuts out of the schools, the HR department, out of everywhere of importance, and back into the play pens of make-believe.

For a better understanding of how these losers operate and how to deal with them, please buy and read SWJs Always Lie by Vox Day.

And please Join and Support Perrin over at Patreon!

Advice for Would-Be Law Students

13 Saturday Aug 2016

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns, Other Columns

≈ Comments Off on Advice for Would-Be Law Students

Tags

America, freedom, law, law school, legal education, legal profession, The People

Late this spring, at a school ceremony, I was surprised to learn that my Daughter wants to be an attorney when she grows up. I had thought she wanted to be a marine biologist or a veterinarian or an artist. Maybe like me, she’s a contrarian; after hearing me grumble for years about the law business, maybe she just has to try it. Maybe she’ll grow out of it. Perhaps she’ll become a marine biology attorney. I just want her to be happy.

The law isn’t for everyone and not all areas of the legal profession are the same. The law itself isn’t what it used to be. At Nuremberg the traditions of Western legal philosophy were effectively jettisoned through the window. They clung to the ledge for a while and then fell. Currently, the law lies, dying, on the street below. If one listens, one can still hear it murmur things like “due process” and “no ex post facto…”. Sad, really.

Still, many will want to at least attend law school; several will go on to become practicing attorneys. For these prospective students, I thought I would offer some advice, some ideas about the profession and its formal education process. Here goes:

The practice of law is horrible. Tucker Max wrote the best essay on the subject I have ever read: Why You Shouldn’t Go to Law School: For the overwhelming majority of people (>99.9%), law school is the wrong choice. Here’s why. Read that. Neither he nor I practice now. I fell under his fourth reason not to go to law school – I wanted to do something noble. I didn’t, I couldn’t. It is impossible. My ideal was to bring freedom to as many people as possible. They don’t want it. Most of what I write here is still a vain attempt to bring people around. That, or preaching to the choir. Read that essay – Tucker’s a funny man, but he’s dead serious on all counts. And right too.

 

Even worse than the theory of jurisprudence and the active practice is state of legal education itself, especially in America. Read my essay on that.

American legal education is so bad that the esteemed Alan Watson wrote a book about it: The Shame of American Legal Education. Read that book before you apply to law school.

Alan Watson, Esq. Amazon.

If an American, despite these warnings, must go to law school, they should consider Watson’s alternative. Consider going to law school in Scotland. There, legal theory is still revered and taught. The Scottish schools teach people the law itself. American schools teach being a boring cog in a broken wheel (and most aren’t very good at even that). One might decide to stay in Scotland. Should one return to the U.S. one will have to obtain some auxiliary BS “training” before joining the bar. But, at least that person would be fortified in the truth and the science as American law students are not.

One American law school is about as bad as the rest. Rankings really do not matter. Still, for prestige alone and to help with seeking employment, try a top-rated school if possible. The experience will still disappoint.

These schools, for as little as they are worth, are expensive. A legal education can easily cost $250,000 or more. And low-tier schools can be just as expensive as Harvard or Yale. If one must go, try for a top-ranked state school and try to get a scholarship.

Take a break between undergraduate studies and law school and explore something – anything. This might kill the desire to study law. That would be a good thing.

Consider alternatives. Put some thought into it. In retrospect, I should have pursued an advanced degree in political philosophy or history. Maybe chemistry or forestry. Yes, the law can open many doors of opportunity but it also makes you walk through other doors not so appealing.

Do not study pre-law or business law or any related BS in college thinking it will help with law school. It won’t. English, philosophy, and political theory are better majors. The best course of study is the one that interests you the most. Above all else, remember to learn something.

Before you fully commit to legal education (here or abroad) do two internships or volunteer stints. The first should be in the area you think you are most interested in. The second should be in the field that is most remote from what you think you like. This will provide a real-world perspective and a little balance. Bounce your ideas off of everyone.

Consider the rise of the AI attorney. Robots are not just stealing factory jobs. By the time my daughter graduates from college (or even high school) computers will be doing most legal work. This will be good and bad. It will save many students from horrendous careers though leaving them burdened with debt and regrets.

Consider that people will constantly bother you for advice – even if you can’t give it. “You’re a contracts attorney? Great! Let me ask you about my friend’s DUI charges…” These types love to waste time and they don’t pay for it. They also don’t follow advice anyway. Upon not following it, they will still blame you for the problems they created. As there are a few too many attorneys, so there are WAY too many idiots.

Don’t be afraid of change. Becoming a lawyer doesn’t mean being one for life. One can switch areas of practice or leave the law altogether. Fifty percent or more of American lawyers do not practice law.

In fact, don’t be afraid. That’s the best advice I could give my daughter or anyone else. I just want her to be happy. I want everyone to be happy. And free. See, I’m still at it…

 

*Ads below this line are not Perrin Lovett’s. He hopes they are harmless.

 

Reading The Law: The Ancient Alternative to Law School

07 Monday Dec 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Reading The Law: The Ancient Alternative to Law School

Tags

"reading the law", ABA, Abraham Lincoln, Alan Watson, America, attorneys, Blackstone, cartel, Cato, Cicero, English common law, government, Greeks, history, law, law school, legal education, legal profession, Lysander Spooner, Rome, Scotland, Solon, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas More

A few days ago I wrote a column about the trials and tribulations of a beautiful, talented young woman enrolled and embattled at the Moritz College of Law at THE Ohio State University. I’ve also written about my legal education.

Law schools have become a collection of expensive but houses where, if one can tolerate the boredom and foolishness, one is allowed the honor of applying for a state license to practice law. The courses studied in these schools bear little resemblance to the actual law. Graduation does not guarantee admittance to the Bar. Bar test preparation is left to the student once he graduates.

Many determined and intelligent students will succeed on their own merits. A few law schools do a fair job readying students for the profession; most are dismal in their attempts. Alan Watson, of whom I have sung praise before, is the preeminent expert on legal philosophy. He wrote a book, The Shame of American Legal Education, which should be required reading for any American giving serious thought to attending law school.

Watson decries the lack of intellectual rigor and dependence of the case method (religious study of court interpretation of the law) which plague American law colleges. He praises the system of his native Scotland where students attend school for a shorter period of time and actually learn both the letter of and the ideas behind the law. Following graduation the Scots apprentice under established barristers to round out their education and transition into the field.

It’s a far better approach than we Americans use. It is similar to our old system which we adopted from the British. They had adopted it from the Romans and the Greeks.

For ages attorneys were educated men who studied the law under the tutelage of a practicing attorney. A few had a short period of standardized class time at a college. This formal lecturing range from a few weeks to a year. Upon completion of the apprenticeship the budding lawyers were either certified by a local court or eligible to sit for Bar examination (if any) or they just started working on their own.

The institution was known as “reading the law.” Most of the greatest attorneys of history were produced this way. Their ranks include: Solon, Cato, Cicero, St. Thomas More, William Blackstone, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, John Jay, Lysander Spooner, Abraham Lincoln, James Byrnes, and Robert Jackson. All of these men were accomplished attorneys. Some were titans of the field.

Marco_Porcio_Caton_Major

Cato the Elder.

In America this was the standard of legal instruction from colonial times until the early 20th Century. The College of William and Mary was the first American school with formal law lectures. These were designed to enhance the student’s apprenticeship. Jefferson attended lectures at William and Mary.

Young men were encouraged to read the law, to understand theory and application:

If you are absolutely determined to make a lawyer of yourself the thing is more than half done already. It is a small matter whether you read with any one or not. I did not read with any one. Get the books and read and study them in their every feature, and that is the main thing. It is no consequence to be in a large town while you are reading. I read at New Salem, which never had three hundred people in it. The books and your capacity for understanding them are just the same in all places.

Always bear in mind that your own resolution to succeed is more important than any other one thing.

Abraham Lincoln, 1855

Things began to change in the late 1800s. It was then the newly formed American Bar Association began to lobby states to restrict licensing to those who had attended law schools. Later the ABA commenced its practice of certifying the schools. This cartel approach of command and control protected the monopoly of the existing bar members. The results, from a quality viewpoint, were mixed. Blackstones and Jeffersons are hard to come by these days.

The radical expansion of law school power coincided with the massive growth of government. Both resulted in the growth and increased complexity of the laws. As Cicero noted, more laws means less justice. Of course, justice had nothing to do with these trends. They were premised entirely on control and money.

Nonetheless a few states still adhere to the reading tradition although it is frowned upon. Those who stand to lose prestige and tuition frown a lot.

California, Maine, New York, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington still allow reading in place of law schooling. Each has its own standards and in some a period of law school attendance is required. Out of over 80,000 new lawyers minted in 2013, less than 100 read the law.

The surviving process of reading has been lauded of late by Business Insider and the New York Times. Both note the difficulties faced by a reader.

“The A.B.A. takes the position that the most appropriate process for becoming a lawyer should include obtaining a J.D. degree from a law school approved by the A.B.A. and passing a bar examination,” said Barry A. Currier, managing director of accreditation and legal education for the group.

Robert E. Glenn, president of the Virginia Board of Bar Examiners, was less circumspect. “It’s a cruel hoax,” he said of apprenticeships. “It’s such a waste of time for someone to spend three years in this program but not have anything at the end.”

NY Times.

Of course, anything but the cartel’s way is a hoax. The frowners frown. Never mind the vast number of students who drop out of law school or graduate but cannot pass the bar. At least they paid tuition.

A few organizations exist to perpetuate the old tradition. Sterling Education Services is one. “What if, instead of a traditional law school degree and six-figure debt, you could take the bar exam and achieve your goal through hands-on legal experience?” – Sterling. These groups offer study aids and seminars. They’re looking to cash in on the alternative. Then again, these are the exact same bar prep services law school graduates turn to immediately after law school.

Though frowned upon this ancient alternative is viable. If a lawyer reads the law in a reading state and passes that state’s bar, he can then apply in other states. It would certainly warrant examination by those considering the legal profession. Those who follow this path follow in the footsteps of giants.

Constitutional Law

13 Wednesday Mar 2013

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

16th Amendment, abortion, activists, America, anarchy, Anti-Federalists, Articles of Confederation, attorneys, Bill of Rights, case-law, Coca-Cola, commerce clause, Congress, Constitution, Constitutional Law, Courts, dissent, Dred Scott v. Sandford, drones, due process, equal protection, Federal Reserve, First Amendment, freedom, General Welfare Clause, Germany, government, Jacobson v. Mass., Japan, John Marshall, judges, law, law school, legal education, Liberty, liberty interests, Max Tucker, McCulloch v. Maryland, Michael Bloomberg, murder, National Security, Natural Law, Necessary and Proper Clause, New York, Ninth Amendment, ObamaCare, patriotism, philosophy, professors, Rand Paul, republic, rights, Roe v. Wade, science, scrutiny, Second Amendment, slavery, States, stict construction, students, Supreme Court, tariffs, taxation, taxes, Tenth Amendment, The People, United States, voting, War Between the States, Washington, wheat, Wickard v. Filburn, World War II

This article is an extension of my recent columns on The Constitution, https://perrinlovett.wordpress.com/2013/03/08/the-united-states-constitution/, and Legal “Education,” https://perrinlovett.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/legal-education/.  One would think that the matter of Constitutional law would have been covered in my article on the Constitution itself – unless one also read my treatise on law schooling.

Oddly, in my experience, the Constitution itself is not required reading for Constitutional law classes. Rather, some imported parts of the document are set forth in the text-book used by the professor. This strikes me as intellectually dishonest and unwise, akin to using a dangerous power tool without first reading the directions. Herein, I briefly cover the usual course material from such as class. The professors, many of whom have never been in a court, let alone argued for or against the Constitution, regurgitate the rulings of different courts regarding a limited number of subjects. While there is an occasional discussion of the reasoning behind the opinions, they are generally viewed as sacred, unswerving law. Rare instances where history has determined the rulings to be invalid (i.e. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)– slavery is okay pre war between the States) are swept under the proverbial rug, written off as mistakes made due to the prevailing thoughts of the cases’ times.

tribe conlaw

(Prof. Laurence Tribe’s ConLaw Book.  Google Images.)

As I have written elsewhere, no reference to Natural Law is made and no critical thought is given to the “why” behind the laws. As Max Tucker wrote recently, any student who dares to pose dissenting views or arguments is detested noticeably by the other students and the faculty. Rarely, student are given the opportunity to delve into the deeper meanings of the cases they study. I was fortunate to be able to write a short essay on the effects of Scott, in which I decried its universal sadness and the role it played in the schism in our nation circa 1861. Part of my essay was read aloud to the class by our professor – another rarity, a former practicing attorney. My points were well accepted. Of course, I had the benefit of over a century of progress on my side. Other topics, which require hypothetical deconstruction, are roundly ignored.

As with all other areas of the law, Constitutional law has degenerated into a study of the constantly shifting case-law which arises under the Constitution.  By the way, I always capitalize the “C” in Constitution out of reverence for the document and its place in our Republic (I do the same for “Republic” too).  I have explained my philosophical troubles and doubts about the Constitution but, due to my sworn allegiance to it, I am honor-bound to defend its ideals.

Case-law study is important and has a valid place in the legal practice.  After all, most attorneys make a living pushing various issues in courts through individual cases.  Each provision of any law is subject to some interpretation as part of its application to the circumstances of the real world.  The trick of “strict construction” application of the Constitution is to adhere as closely as possible to the text and plain meaning of the old parchment.  I follow strict construction as my approach to most laws, in and under the Constitution.  The first fork of any analysis is to determine if the issue scrutinized is compatible with the underlying law.  If the two are compatible, then the analysis shifts to application of your set of facts to the law.  If there is an incongruity, then it is necessary to decide whether the law is improper or if the facts are insufficient for action.

Here’s a brief, over-generalized example, ripped from the recent headlines!:  Mary lives in New York City; she is an avid consumer of Coca-Cola beverages, particularly in large volumes.  Mary went to the corner store in Hell’s Kitchen and ordered a 40-ounce frozen Coke treat.  She was informed by the clerk that a drink of such heft was just outlawed by the wise and magnanimous mayor of NYC, Michael “Soda Jerk” Bloomberg.  Mary, offended and hurt, contacts an attorney in order to take action against the mayor and the city.  Her attorney files a lawsuit seeking an injunction or some other remedy to force the city to curb its policing of soft drink size.  Upon reviewing the case, a judge decides that NYC’s ordinance is too vague to be enforceable and strikes it down accordingly.  Mary happily continues on her guest for obesity.  This represents proper application and analysis of the law and the facts – in this case Mary’s freedom to drink liquid sugar in peace.

Had Mary had a more pressing cause – say a desire to legally and permanently rid herself of a troublesome in-law and she requested her attorney file a similar action to invalidate New York’s statute against murder, her attorney would have likely declined the case.  If he was a fool, and filed an action anyway, the attorney would lose as any court would side with the law irregardless of Mary’s malicious desires.  While it is proper to allow peaceful people to purchase and consume products of their desire, it would be improper and an affront to Natural Law, to allow someone to kill another person without good cause (i.e. self-defence). 

These examples are extremely simple, but they demonstrate my core points.  The problem in the law has arisen from the over deference to certain laws as applied to the real world.  Today, the Constitution is not interpreted as strictly dictated by its own terms or by my previous explanation of the powers it grants.  As I noted before, a few select clauses have been given immortal omnipresence to the extent the entire document has been rendered a nearly lost cause.  All of these clauses give extra, unintended authority to the government to regulate and control everything.  Through various cases over the years, the courts have essentially made up the law or, at least by their interpretation of the laws, have allowed over-reaching actions of the government to stand as legitimate.

Popular of late is the criticism of “activist judges” who take on the role of a legislator in their quests to rewrite the laws of Congress.  Some courts have gone so far as to divine new rights and powers mentioned nowhere in the Constitution.  Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) is a poster case for such activism.  In Roe, the Supreme Court opined that abortion of unborn children is a right of pregnant women.  This right stems, allegedly, from the women’s “liberty interest” in their own bodies.  While not found in the text of the Bill of Rights (or elsewhere), this right does exist and should be protected.  However, the right, like all rights, has limits.  The high Court did not adequately consider the rights of the unborn children to be secure in the integrity of their own bodies during its decision.  Instead, the Court issued an incomprehensible psuedo-scienticifc approach to determined when a life becomes a life.  Medical science has definitely answered any related questions in favor of the unborn.  However, as is, about 1 Million children are murdered every year thanks to the Roe decision.  This was a case of improper balancing of competing interests under the umbrella of the law.

I do not roundly condemn “activists.”  Sometimes it is advantageous for a jurist to heavily scrutinize the law if the law actually impinges on protected rights.  The New York soda decision is a good, if oddly worded, example.  Problems happen when judges do not universally review the impact of a law, standing or undone.  It is also impermissible in a Republic for a court to institute new law – the domain of the legislature only. 

I will herein briefly explain a few of those key clauses and ideas of the Constitution which have given the federal government unlimited power over your lives.  These are the basis for Constitutional study in law schools.  In summary it suffices to say that they can and do anything they please, without hinderance.

The General Welfare Clause

This clause purportedly allowed Congress to use its defined powers for the betterment of all people.  It has been held it “has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments.”  Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905).  However, in conjunction with other provisions, the clause has been used to justify countless spending sprees directed towards the profit of a select few, often at the expense of the People.

The Commerce Clause

Congress has the power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to Congress.” Constitution, Art. I, Section 8, Clause 3.  Rather than regulating commerce between the listed entities, this clause has been egregiously abused to empower Congress to regulate anything which can conceivably occur wishing any of the stated territories.  The poster case of the clause is Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) in which the Supreme Court declared that wheat grown by a farmer may not necessarily be used privately by the farmer because such use (bread baking) might negatively affect interstate commerce, the ability of bread companies to sell the farmer bread.  While defying belief, this case and its ilk are recited as if dictated by Jesus by law professors coast to coast.  The Commerce Clause saw minor setbacks in the 1990s but it remains as the basis for most criminal and civil statutes enacted by Congress.  Arguing against commerce connections in court is as successful as herding alley cats.  I know this from personal experience.

The Necessary and Proper Clause

This clause, known also as the “elastic clause,” appears in Article I, Section 8, Clasue 18.  It provides that Congress can authorize the steps required to implement their other enumerated powers.  The Anti-Federlists argued against this provision, fearing it would allow the central government to assume endless power in the name of affecting those valid programs instituted under the named authorities.  Turns out they were right.  In conjunction with the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper clause has been used to justify federal intrusion into everything.  It was necessary and proper to prohibit farmers from utilizing their own crops to preserve commerce, and so forth.

National Security

“Patriotism” is regarded as the last refuge of a scoundrel.  Frequently, it is the first.  There exists an idea that an allegation that a legal measure is warranted in order to preserve security or defeat some enemy regardless of any other factors.  Frequently, the government will assert this as a defense in a court case in order to avoid any discussion of the underlying subject matter (torture, internment of citizens, etc.).  This tactic usually stops the case dead in its tracks.  In a true emergency such a policy might serve a valid purpose.  However, as we now are told we live under perpetual threat of all sorts of impropriety, the argument is used as a universal repeal of our rights.  History indicates that “emergencies” never go away.  For instance, 68 years after winning World War II, we still station troops in Japan and Germany.  We also have a portion of our incomes withheld prematurely for taxation purposes – this was supposed to be a temporary war-time measure of WWII.  History also shows that a government will do anything to maximize its power under a security “threat,” including the manufacture of threats from nothing.

Taxation

“That the power to tax involves the power to destroy; that the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create….”  Chief Justice John Marshall, McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819).  Governments have proven themselves able to destroy just about anything, they create next to nothing.  Originally, our government was funded by tariffs and import fees and simple requests to the States for assistance.  The advent of the 16th Amendment gave Washington awesome power to take as much money as the need from the people’s labors.  The illegal Federal Reserve scheme allows them to create additional monies at will.  The courts have constantly upheld the power of taxation even when Congress didn’t know they were implementing a tax.  See: The Obamacare decision, Slip Opinion 11-393, June 28, 2012.  Taxation gets its own law school class – where it is worshipped like a god.  Dissenters are frowned upon as heretics (I know…).

A Few Rights

Over the years, several levels of scrutiny have been assigned to several pet rights.  I am suspicious of each of these levels and will not bore you with their application.  For the most part they apply rights based on classification of persons and against the backdrop of government “interests.”  It is interesting that usually deference is given to a particular law; the law is presumed Constitutional absence some showing that it is an abuse impermissible under one of the abstractly devised levels of scrutiny.  I would prefer deference to the Liberty of the People, with the government left to prove conclusively their law does not infringe that right or that any infringement is necessary in order to secure greater liberties for all.

Most Constitutional law teaching about “rights” center on the First Amendment.  There is usually a class devoted singularly to the subject.  The First is worthy of great attention.  However, too often the cases studied thereunder tend to regard outrageous acts.  Rather than securing rights to fundamental speech for example, such as protesting abortion, educating potential jurors, and protecting free speech during an election, the courts have wasted much time protecting things like naked dancing and wearing offensive sloganed t-shirts. 

Voting rights, due process, and equal protection in general have also received great review.  However, given the steady deterioration of fundamental due process and equal protection, it is obvious there is a systemic bias towards the government over the free people.  For example, Rand Paul’s protests aside, next to nothing has been done in response to the President’s plan to murder Americans in America using drones and no legal process.  The scheme is likely to survive (hopefully unused) due to deference to vague assertions of “national security.”

The rest of the Constitution is left in the dark void of undecided law.  It is either taken for granted that such matters will be resolved in due course by the courts or simply that the provisions have no effect.  In law school I was bluntly told that the Second, Ninth and Tenth Amendments didn’t exist.  I found this hard to believe.  Now, with several positive court cases to lean on, the Second has been given some legitimacy though many “scholars” still remain grounded in the ancient, misdirected past.  On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 I will attend a symposium on the Second Amendment, replete with reference to these lost interpretations.  I have several questions sure to generate discussion and maybe laughter among the gathering.  Join me if you will.

If you teach Constitutional law, incorporate the actual text into your class. It could be a prerequisite, covered at the beginning of the semester and then referred to during the subsequent discussion of cases.  Attorneys need to familiarize themselves with the text of the Constitution, everyone else should too.

Together, each of us acting as we may, we may be able to slowly restore a rational teaching and application of the Constitution.  Perhaps someday we will return to the looser confines of the Articles of Confederation, allowing the member States of the Union (closer to their respective citizens) to affect policies towards the People.  With an eye towards ultimate freedom, I can envision an even less restrictive society.  I am reminded that “anarchy is better than no government at all.”  I’m not sure society is ready for that level of responsibility yet.  Someday…

Perrin Lovett

FREE Ebook!

The Substitute – my first novel

NOTE! Much better, revised edition coming ASAP!

The Happy Little Cigar Book

Buy From Amazon! The perfect coffee table book!

Perrin On Politics

FREE E-book! Download now~

Right-Minded Social Media For Normal People

Freedom Roasters Coffee AND Apparel

Ritin’ @ Reckonin’

Archives

  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • June 2012

Prepper Post News Podcast by Freedom Prepper (sadly concluded, but still archived!)

Have a Cup!

Perrin’s Articles and Videos at FREEDOM PREPPER (*2016-2022)

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • PERRIN LOVETT
    • Join 39 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • PERRIN LOVETT
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

You must be logged in to post a comment.