Nussbaum, Dworkin, and Hart

In class today we were discussing Nussbaum and her approach to law. There are two sides to what law is, beginning with the first which is that 1. Law has an emotional component to it and 2. it is essentially impossible to handle these cases without approaching the emotional side of it. For her, law was developed to respond to our humanity directly.

Emotion driven cases

A few emotion driven cases that stood out this week during class were the cases of Judy Norman and Jack Ruby. Beginning with the Jack Ruby and Oswald. The emotion that was driving in the case for Jack Ruby was a feeling of disgust. He felt as though Oswald was guilty of killing Kennedy, and that the smirk that he gave proclaimed that. Ruby felt disgusted by the not guilty verdict and took matters into his own hands. He essentially shot and killed Oswald as a response triggered by disgust of Oswald.

The second case is that of Judy Norman who suffered from battered women syndrome. As a means too salvage tge remainer of yer life, she took her child to her parents home and returned to shoot her abusive husband. Through an extreme history of abuse, Norman felt as though it was her life over her husbands's so she needed to fight for it. She shot and killed him as he slept through the emotion of fear. Norman's emotional state was a representation of the dangers that she faced if she didn't take the actions that she did.

McLean's Dissent of Taney's Dicesion

Currently my group is studying McLean's retort to Taney's decision on Scott V Standford. The primary objection he has is against Taney's claim that the negro is a subordinate class of people who are rightfully oppressed by a superior race. It is Taney's claim that the Founder's believed that negroes should be held in this regard and that they had no right to citizenship.

McLean objected to this by remarking on the multiple cases where black men were treated as citizens, including the result of the Mexican War and the admission of free colored people at the time of founding. The other controversial issue within the case is the extent to which the constitution talks about slavery and race. McLean takes the side that the constitution does no explicitly regard races other than white as inferior or less deserving of rights that the court should hold persons of other races in the same regard. Taney takes the stance that the Founders were in full support of slavery and the perception of black men and women that Taney holds himself.

The major dispute in this case is the following: What constitutes a citizen? Taney argues on the side that, although the US has laws on naturalization, they did not extend to persons of color. A similar controversy would be the birth of a child by illegal aliens on American soil in the past few decades. After this controversial topic is explored and somehow agreed upon, the next incredibly vague question to be answered is, "What are the rights of a citizen?" and "Are there different rights that different citizens should have?"

These are ideas that my group will be exploring during this case study.

Here is an article by G. Stolyarov II on the Dred Scott case that I have used to study for this case study as well that I found very useful.

http://voices.yahoo.com/the-dred-scott-decision-criticisms-john-356695.html?cat=37

The Pros and Cons of Artistic Liscense

Everyone has their own voice, whether it is spoken or written. Even if two people speak the same language, their perception of the words exchanged and their understanding of them can be radically different. As such, communication of ideas becomes very difficult. Since academia sets its foundation on the exchange of ideas, I'd like to take a moment to remark on one of the controversies that occurs in the world of communication do to this  phenomena: the fight between "artistic" writing and "scholarly" writing. 

The fact that a writer must use quotes when citing these two literary school is evidence of a miscommunication in the world of academics, since the two categories overlap extensively, if not completely. However, for the sake of simplicity, artistic writing is considered to be more informal, opinionated, and an expression of the writer's personal style, whereas scholarly writing is more formal, "objective" (see my other works for the many problems I have with this standard), and a reflection of observations outside of the writer's personal belief system. In both styles the writer has the goal of communicating thoughts and ideas to the readers, but the approach is different for each. 

The pros and cons of these two approaches are ambiguous, controversial, and convoluted, but will be explored so as to open the floor for discussion. Artistic writing is typically seen in solo works (e.g. not a compilation of literature, but a publication accredited to the author as an independent work.) The list of these writers is endless, but two classic philosophers to cite would be Friedrich Nietzsche and Ronald Dworkin. These writers are known for using unique styles that stray from the orthodox approach of systematically laying out one's philosophy, or presenting it in a practical sense. Instead, they write in a method favoring artistic expression and appreciation of the ideas that they are discussing. One of the benefits of this is that the writing will appear more casual and approachable, encouraging a reader to continue reading and exploring the topics. However, this is not always the case. In fact, Nietzsche is known for being one of the most commonly misunderstood and misinterpreted philosophers in modern philosophy. As such, the language used by a writer has equal potential to include or exclude potential readers. 

Academic writing is typically seen in journals and other joint publications. This is the style that is used in the majority of classroom settings and strives to be universal in its language, fitting to a system of writing and citing. More often then not this type of writing loses the personal touch of the writer as they lose the freedom to write as they feel and are forced to fit a standard. 

The similarities between the two are rather striking. Both express the ideas of the writer, both will cite other works and evidence in order to support their own argument, and both will be read and interpreted (and misinterpreted) just as easily as the other. True, there are certain cardinal sins in the world of academia, such as avoiding profanity, obeying laws of grammar and punctuation (because you do not have the poetic license to defy them, and never referring to oneself in the first person. But outside of this, there are very few things a person shouldn't be allowed to publish in a journal or for a class that they otherwise would be able to in a personal memoir. Allegories and discuss the same concepts as a paper presented at a conference, and personal anecdotes should be cited in either, though to varying degrees of strength in supporting one's argument depending on what argument is being argued. Thus, one must ask: what are the differences in artistic and academic writing? What are some pros and cons of each? I open the floor to discussion. 

A little bit on Natural Law and the Philosophers

Ive started to read a bit from Ronald Dworkins Law Empire and have found it to be quite interesting. His concept of Natural Law really makes you wonder. Over the last couple of weeks we have discussed a few philosophers and their concept of Natural Law. There have been several historical and prototypically philosophers who have spoke on it very thoroughly. The two philosophers who I’ve learned a lot about and are slightly familiar with from this semester and my last semester Philosophy class are Immanuel Kant and Thomas Aquinas.

From what I can recall, Kant tried to redeem the Natural Law through Universal reason and as for Thomas, he spoke about it very thoroughly in the Summa Theoloica.

Philosophers like Kant, Locke, Aquinas, etc. defend their beliefs in a universal law based on their beliefs that would be based off Christianity. They also state that there are principles outside of their “religious thinking/beliefs” that can be used to validate and explain their moral mechanisms. 

SEGMENT 1 OF THE MLK GROUP VLOG/BLOG 1

For this first blog, team 4 will be discussing the laws that were around during the time of Martin Luther King Jr. Specifically laws that promoted equality and removed any form of segregation from existence. A very important act that resonated during the time of Martin Luther King Jr., was the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This Act prohibits discrimination against sex, race, religion, and national origin. The passing of this act ended the harsh Jim Crow laws which were basically racial segregation laws. Employees are protected against this act in regards to sex, race, religion, and national origin. They are also protected against retaliation against their employers for acting against them if they were to file a discrimination complaint based on those topics.

 My other actually video was posted on dropbox in the video sections.

Case vlog

Posted a word forum instead of a video blog (vlog). Webcam isnt working properly so I'd prefer going the less chaotic route with regular blogging methods. I'll repost my section momentarily.

Abelman v Booth

This issue with this case is whether or not the Supreme Court of Wisconsin had the authority to issue the writs of habeas corpus that released Booth?

Will further elaborate on the case study today.

Ableman v Booth Discussion

Hey Team 4,

Here's a synopsis of historical facts that I've gathered from the case:

Sherman M. Booth was charged before Winfield Smith, a commissioner duly appointed by the District Court of the United States for the district of Wisconsin, with having, on the 11th day of March, 1854, aided and abetted, at Milwaukee, in the said district, the escape of a fugitive slave from the deputy marshal, who had him in custody under a warrant issued by the district judge of the United States for that district, under the act of Congress of September 18, 1850.

Booth made application on the next day, the 27th of May, *508 to A.D. Smith, one of the justices of the Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin, for a writ of habeas corpus, stating that he was restrained of his liberty by Stephen V.R. Ableman, marshal of the United States for that district, under the warrant of commitment herein before mentioned;; and alleging that his imprisonment was illegal, because the act of Congress of September 18, 1850, was unconstitutional and void;; and also that the warrant was defective, and did not describe the offence created by that act, even if the act were valid.

I understand that there's a discrepancy when it comes down to whether or not the State of Wisconsin had the power to arrest Booth. There's also further misunderstandings as to the laws at the city, state, and federal level.

Outside of this, it seems to just be bureaucratic meandering as Booth is tossed in between court rooms and prisons. I can honestly admit defeat at the hands of this case as I haven't the foggiest idea what happens elsewhere in the case.