Laying down the law...
923596
When one thinks of Plato and his ideas of politics, one naturally gravitates toward his best-known work, the Republic. In that book, Plato set up the ideal city-state, with classes born and bred to specific functions and roles in society, and a sense of philosophical outlook consistent across the board. However, such a society was unlikely to be brought out, in Plato's time and, as it turned out, in any other.

Plato tried at different times to persuade rulers to become his envisioned philosopher-king; the last attempt was with a tyrant of Syracuse, who in the end imprisoned Plato rather than following his directions. Plato wrote this work, 'The Laws', as the last of his dialogues. Its difference from the Republic is immediately apparent in the absence of Socrates as a character - Plato at the end of his life has finally taken to working in his own right and not through a proxy.

Just looking at the contents will show the breadth of this work - it involves practically every aspect of civil society: legislative bodies (and Plato has some scathing commentaries on some that he has known); education and its proper role and method (including even drinking parties as part of the educational process); ideas of monarchy, democracy, and the balance of power (some American constitutional ideas were generated from a reading (and occasional misreading) of this work); civil administration; arts and sciences; military and sports training; sexual conduct; economics; criminal law, torts, and judicial process; religion and theology; civil law, property and family law; Plato even argues for the need of a 'nocturnal council', one that delves not only into the practical aspects of the law, but also their philosophical bases.

According to translator and editor Trevor Saunders, 'The reader of the Republic who picks up the Laws is likely to have difficulty in believing that the same person wrote both.' Saunders speculates that Plato in his older years changed from optimism to pessimism, from idealism to realism, but that this is not all there is to the assumption, because in actual fact the transition from the Republic to the Laws involves transitioning unattainable ideals to attainable realities.

Plato describes the construction of a utopian society in great detail, down to the number of citizens permitted to live in the city (5040) and the length of time foreigners might reside in the city (20 years). This shows that Plato considers politics to be an exact science (indeed, despite the inclusion of the 'nocturnal council', he did see his system of laws being essentially unalterable through history). Plato is not averse to the use of force and coercion to set up and maintain the utopian society. Finally, Plato sees a self-contained kind of society that is likely to become xenophobic to the extreme, with less tolerance toward its own citizens than toward those foreigners permitted to live and work in the city. Indeed, for the virtuous citizens to be free to pursue their virtue, the majority of the manual work and crafts must be done by a worker class composed of slaves or immigrant workers, or both.

Plato's Laws suffer from much greater criticism in the modern world than the Republic, in part because it is a more 'realistic' work, with a reality that no longer applies. However, many of his insights are worthwhile, and the overall structure of his society reflected in the Laws is worth discussion as much as is that of the Republic. One of the problems with this work vis-a-vis the Republic is its length (the Laws is considerable longer); another problem is that it lacks the dramatic reading possible from the Republic, rather the difference between a political debate and a legal seminar. Still, it is an important work, showing how Plato's thought had shifted in his lifetime.
3490478
Maybe Cathy will write a book one day about the REAL reason why victim ideologies have taken over.

Oh, wait, we don't need a book; here's the real reason: because lawyers make a lot of money from it.

Ever wonder why lawyer's groups are such huge contributors to the Democratic party, and why the Democratic party does anything it can to scuttle tort reform? Hmmm . . .

More victims = more lawsuits = more money for attorneys. Doesn't matter who the victims are, as long as we have lots of them.

As always . . . follow the money.

N.O.W. and attorneys go together like sunlight and tanning lotion.
282174
Lookit---Bushkin did pretty good after rubbing elbows with Johnny Carson. How many other lawyers would have killed to represent Carson ! There can be no sour grapes here.
4741933
The Gulabi Gang takes to the streets with the threat that they will take the law into their own hands.  Armed only with theri voices and big sticks they are making a mark in their world.  it is time the politicans listened to what they had to say before it is too late. Excellent!
2856543
Of all the scathing indictments of the Bush administration, this book may be the most so. Not hysterical at all, no knee-jerk liberal reactionary, constitutional lawyer Glenn Greenwald lays out in a jam-packed-with-information 128 pages (I used 68 page markers in all on this book, well more than my usual 50 or so for a book twice that length) exactly how and why this administration is the most lawless ever to hold office. Not only are they lawless, he shows, but they are attempting to fundamentally alter our system of government through a pattern of deceit and unilateral decision-making. Completely bypassing or ignoring laws such as FISA, by eavesdropping (something no one has a problem with) without a warrant (something MANY people have a problem with), anti-torture legislation, etc., the administration is putting forth a theory of the Constitution, laid out in black and white by administration attorney John Yoo, that the President has UNLIMITED authority in matters of national security. Thus, he can do, quite literally, ANYTHING he wants if he deems it necessary to national security, and cannot be checked by either of the other two branches of government. This includes the ability to lock up American citizens, without a hearing of ANY KIND, nor access to legal representation, FOR LIFE. Therefore, under this theory, if the courts make a decision, or Congress passes a law, he can simply ignore it - it does not apply to him. There have been at least two instances of American citizens being jailed for years at a time without access to courts - and when challenged by others, they simply punt - in one case, charging the individual with an unrelated crime to what he was jailed for and insisting that the challenge to Bush's authority was now moot, and in the other, simply forcing the person to renounce his citizenship and setting him free. There is really no way of knowing how many others are in this situation.

This is dangerous stuff, and Greenwald does an excellent job of laying out before the reader how exactly the administration is doing this, I can only encourage all persons of liberal, moderate, or non-authoritarian conservative bents to read this book. The one criticism I have would be that there are no footnotes, but all of these items have been reported by major media at one point or another, and are easily uncovered with a simple google search.

While Greenwald barely mentions impeachment in this book, the implication is clear - this President has openly admitted committing what amount to high crimes and misdemeanors.
4306177
my husband was at Ft. Bragg when this happened.  This was clearly a botched job of the MP's and the police, and FBI.  the man was framed for something that a group of mad hippies did, because Dr. MacDonald wouldn't give them RX for their drug habits!  That judge was prejudiced, and wanted Dr. MacDonald to pay for the crime.  So did the prosecution!
1168013
I am just reading this now and it is shocking to realize that families in political power (both parties) in our country can freely get away with these things.  The political challenges of this country with others is in grave jeopardy because of the underlying goal of these individuals to first enrich their families and friends by agreements made, that on the surface are made to look like they are being made for the good of our country.  These practices need to be shut down and rules need to be put in place to end this corruption.
762129
Historically and traditionally, "law" was considered to be something that lawyers and judges "discovered," rather than something a group of legislators made up and voted on.  The law was something that private parties used to settle disputes among themselves, not something that the state, or some groups in society, used to force their will upon others.

_Freedom and the Law_ explores this distinction, between the old idea of law and what people today call law, which is really legislation.  Leoni persuasively argues for a return to the imperfect but vastly superior Roman law, or the English common law, as a means of restoring the individual liberty that the state has been destroying in modern times.

It is a challenging book, and perhaps best suited for those with a strong background in history, law, and/or economics.  I first attempted to read it when I was younger, and stalled after the first chapter or two.  Coming back to it with more education and understanding, I've found a lot to appreciate.

Incidentally, this volume actually contains two books: _Freedom and the Law_ and _The Law and Politics_.  The latter is a relatively short collection of lectures from the 1960's, but will be of particular interest to anyone who's studied public choice economics, as Leoni examines the then-new ideas of Duncan Black, James Buchanan, and Gordon Tullock.
1902131
John's Grisham's latest legal thriller, THE CONFESSION, is an entertaining rant against the death penalty and all of the legal systems and societal pressures that go into sustaining the state sanctioned execution of criminals. A USA Today review said proponents of the death penalty would not enjoy this book. I'm for the death penalty, Grisham's against it, and that didn't deter me from enjoying the book at all.

A terminally ill Travis Boyette comes to the office of minister Keith Schroeder with a bombshell. Donte Drumm, a boy scheduled to be executed in Texas in four days is innocent. Shroeder asks why. Boyette says it is because he killed the high school cheerleader Nicole Yarber. What follows is a race against time. Lawyer Robbie Flak is frantically filing appeals trying to save Donte. Nicole's mom is milking the execution for all the publicity she can get. Appeals courts and the governor refuse to reconsider. Keith tries to get Boyette to tell his story. With time, and the system against them, will they be able to get the truth out in time?

Now for some random thoughts about the book: I don't know if Grisham's writing style has always been like this, but his all-knowing, jump around between characters writing style prevents you from really caring or getting to know any of the characters. He can still tell a great story, but some of the passion is missing. None of the characters are memorable.

Grisham obviously hates the death penalty. THE CONFESSION is just a fictionalized version of what he wrote about in AN INNOCENT MAN, and that is a justice system so corrupt that an innocent man can be found guilty of murder.

This book is obviously meant to be political and take a stand against the death penalty. But the true villain in the book is the system that allowed Donte to get to death row. The coerced confession, the corrupt judge and prosectur, the ignorant appeals courts.

If you like this book, I also recommend CONVICTION by Richard North Patterson. Patterson is also against penalty, and makes the case against it in a more subtle matter.

By reading the book, you also get the feeling Grisham hates Texas . True, Texas executes a lot of killers. But so do many other states, and these states have the same appeals systems and same structures that exist in Texas . As you read, you'll understand why Grisham never felt compelled or had a reason to consider pro death penalty argument.

Death penalty supporters want to kill murderers, not innocent people, so death penalty supporters will be rooting for Donte just as much as the most liberal reader. The problem with combining social advocacy with fiction is that you face the possibility of alienating a lot of fans. Grisham's stance didn't bother me, but I recognize that his novels aren't as good as they used to be. THE CONFESSION was fast moving, but Grisham never lets us get too close to any of the characters. Therefore, the story doesn't pack a big a punch as it could have.
468851
An exellent reference to the new law and easy to read.
It is kept on the side table and used whenever  there
is either a discussion on the law or I have a question
of coverage.
G.Mott
3574728
Among the many logic errors (and legal errors) Woods makes, is the basic premise of the book.  He says that states should have the right to ignore unconstitutional laws.  Well, even if that is true, what the states do NOT have the right to do is DECIDE if a law is constitutional.  That is solely the responsibility of the Supreme Court.  Recent legal decisions on same-sex marriage demonstrate this exactly.  Even if a state's "sovereign" citizens vote on a law (like making marriage only between a man and woman), if the courts find the law unconstitutional, it cannot be enforced.  (We shall soon see what SCOTUS says about that particular one)

And yes, Mr. Woods, it would be a bad thing if states did things entirely differently.  We'd probably still have segregation in Mississippi.  The issue of married couples not having rights in one state when they do in another is one current example.  You can't have some states paying Federal taxes and others not bothering

Mr Woods argues that nullification has been used by "The North" (his capitals) to fight fugitive slave laws (note:  it's disturbingly not clear if Mr. Woods thinks fighting fugitive slave laws is a good thing).  If something was once used for good, it must be good.  Well, that's another glaring logic fallacy.

If you want to read about how the Federal Government is evil (and actually so are state and local governments) and that the "North" has been continuing to subjugate "The South", then this book is for you.  If you want to continue to wrongly believe that POTUS can't write an executive order or that the Constitutions founders didn't REALLY mean it when they wrote the Supremacy clause, go ahead and give it a read.  If you are interested in valid logical and legal information without prejudice and contempt for the US government (and the "North"), steer clear.

Mr Woods says that only individual people are sovereign and I guess from that reasoning, we all get to decide which laws we follow, not just states, but individuals.  Even the staunchest Libertarian doesn't go that far.

Truthfully, we do have the choice to follow or not follow any law.  We just then have to suffer the consequences.  So, civil rights leaders are jailed and some soldiers who decide not to follow an order are court-martialed (even if it is an illegal order).  So yes, Mr Woods, feel free to ignore Federal laws.  Just be prepared for the consequences.
765886
"Getting to Maybe:  How to Excel on Law School Exams" by Richard Fischl and Jeremy Paul, Carolina Academic Press 1999, ISBN 0-89089-760-3, SC 328 pgs.  15 Chapters and 3 pgs Sources.  8 " x 5 ".  No inveiglements.

The book's mission, to teach law students how to write meritorious exams and look forward to Law Review, was co-authored by two Harvardian law school graduates who took bold issue with using IRAC methodology, i.e. issue, rule, application & conclusion, that they found, interestingly, lacked merit and to be counterproductive.  Instead, in some 15 chapters, they gave weighty contemplations toward (1) finding the reason for an exam question, (2) its intent to contain one or more issues that (3) had forks either in applicable law or within stated facts and (4) dealing deftly with these in masterful manner by discussing both applicable rules and counter-rules while applying argumentation of both sides - and, importantly, allocating adequate time to provide clear legal reasoning or arguments, particularly so if it was that which the teacher had presented in class.  Clearly, they state, mere regurgitation of case law and self-evident facts is getting poor mileage, and citing peripheral material or BS is going a field and misses the target.  You must demonstrate reasoning ability.

There is discussion of Black-Letter Law, legal reasoning, case law statutes, and restatements plus discussion of plain meaning vs intention, majority vs. minority, traditional vs. modern, contributory vs. comparative, riparian vs. reasonableness, and  other competing interpretations including: Wicked `Whiches', policy and shaping aspects and theories of law plus teaching by Socratic method, appointing Czars of the Universe, preparing and writing (or typing) the exam and finally several sample questions (only four!).  The bottom line seems to be a determination if you are able to effortlessly communicate to the teacher that you can argue/reason the issues you've extracted and answer his premise.  The book is effusive (extravagant), garrulous (wordy) and vociferous (shouting) but otherwise a good read.

finis
3524477
Great book to read to those who want to learn a little about the law. It is not comprehensive however its a good starting point
3940558
I want to thank the author for writing this book.  I always knew Mr. Jackson was innocent because you know them by their fruit.  It was interesting to learn how the law works.  I didn't know that when all a person wants is money, the legal system requires all parties to participate in mandatory settlement conferences before going to trial.  When friends asked why did he settle if he was innocent, I would only say he received poor advice.  I didn't realize the court system prefers settlements, or think about the cost to taxpayers if it goes to trial.  Some of Jackson's lawyers wanted to go to trial for extortion.  Your documentation reveals a shady manipulation of the court system to bring about the settlement.  We, as the general public, should be taught about the court system in high school.  Then we wouldn't make poor assumptions.  This information revealed to me why judges are elected and not appointed.  I now feel I need to learn how to know what a judge is like.  What is his record?  Does he follow the law or not?  According to what I've just read, judges have the power to overturn the conventional law and take away our Constitutional Rights.  This book is a real eye-opener concerning our legal system.
2406269
NOLO has made quite the name for themselves over the years by publishing law books that the average lay person can understand and utilize. This latest book of theirs is no exception. It lays out, in fairly clear language, what employment law is like. It covers just about anything you can think of, and is useful no matter what side of the fence you are on.

There are some things I wish they would have covered in detail, like what employers are allowed to ask in regards to felony convictions and how far back they are allowed to ask about them, but overall I thought this was a well-done book and good reading.
2153734
This is not by any stretch a balanced account, even by legal standards.  The author is a lawyer and attempts to apply his legal basis for evaluating arguments to the question of creationism (or intelligent design) versus evolution.  He purports to do this without bias, but his bias is obvious.  Regardless, some valid arguments appear, which scientific naturalists should do a better job of acknowledging and addressing (rather than merely scoffing at as ignorance -- even though they are rooted in lack of understanding of scientific methodology).
3681728
Saw this around town and had a good giggle over so I ordered it.  Once I got it the realization that this might not be all that legal set in. Check your local laws!