Theme: Constitutional Order

Source date (UTC): 2023-02-17 17:23:29 UTC

Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1626633443629989900

Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1626633306555940882

IN REPLY TO:

Unknown author

Q: “Curt doesn’t know as much about the law as he thinks he does.”
A: Good argument. I haven’t passed a bar exam. And I would never want to ‘lawyer’ for a living.

However, there is a difference between extant jurisprudence and ‘lawyering’ as thought and practiced, vs the science of decidability, uniting the sciences with it, applying that science by completing the natural law program (scientific law), and reforming constitutions, legislation, regulation, and findings of the court, and then a reformation of the law, constitution, institutions, legislation, regulation, and findings of the law.

In other words, there is a difference between a scientist, an engineer, and a craftsman. Judges and lawyers are craftsmen. They practice ‘lawyering’, as said by our dearly deceased Saint Judge Antonin Scalia. I work on and produce the science and logic (computability) of law proper and its application to legislating, judging, and lawyering.

PART 1
PART 2

PART 1:

WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?

1. Well, the practice of law “Lawyering” consists largely of knowing:

… a) How to research and argue law. Any decent law school professor will say they’re teaching you how to think about the law. But you’ll forget most of what you learn in law school quickly. It’s more important that you know how to read, interpret, apply, and argue local, state, federal and constitutional law than it is that you recall everything in the body of law.

… b) In particular, the law of Civil and Criminal Procedure. Meaning the terms, processes, and procedures of conducting ‘lawyering’ in court. Civil procedure is the most important subject in law school, because it consists of the rules within which you can conduct your ‘lawyering’. The difference is criminal procedure sets a high bar for the state and a very high bar for defending individual’s rights against the state.

… c) Some depth in whatever specialization(s) of the law you work within. People tend to specialize in very difficult matters (criminal) difficult (tax, technology, corporate, mergers and acquisitions, international law) or in mass market law (divorce, family, bankruptcy, civil court), or in the big boy games of appeals, supreme court.

In reality, if you read documents from a few cases, especially in appeals courts, you can judge a lawyer by his or her arguments as easily as you can any other student papers in college. 😉

.. d) The problems that arise in expectations of the people vs lawyers and judges. It’s hard for inexperienced people to imagine the many ways people commit harms or crimes. But the court doesn’t have to imagine, it has encountered them and has to decide them. So, that means the courts have to account for all varieties of complex human interactions and interactions between those actions and laws. So the court defends against things you would never do by design, but are still violations of the law. And your opponent’s desire is to cast your actions as intentional – even if ignorant or accidental. In other words, the scope of reasonable conditions that each of us assumes is small than the scope of actions the courts account for. This is why those of us who specialize in legal theory prefer simple laws. And it’s why the court grants you the benefit of the doubt if it can do so.

… e) the law as practiced is neither what’s promised to us, what’s moral, or what’s ethical. (This is what I work on fixing). And you must ‘get over it’ to practice law. (I can’t and won’t get over it. I’d rather fix the law instead. 😉 )

( more in Part II … )

Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1626633306555940882