9 Then came “Woe Unto You,. Lawyers!”. Rodell knew that it would make every lawyer bristle or snort. ‘By FRED RODELL, Professor of Law, Yale University. Here’s a book you don’t have to buy; the entire text is here, in glorious HTML. It’s Fred Rodell’s “lusty, gusty attack on ‘The Law’ as a curious. This Book Reviews is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for Leo Herzel, Rodell: Woe unto You, Lawyers!, 7 DePaul L. Rev. () You, Lawyers! By FRED RODELL.
|Published (Last):||14 November 2014|
|PDF File Size:||11.31 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||3.31 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
There is only a concentration of all government power — in the lawyers.
But the concept of smartness, a typical legal concept in that its contents and meaning are constantly changing from time to time and from place to place, seems to favor the blue and white dress. Actually however, The Law time after time finds Consideration in an extremely unfair bargain — and fails to find Consideration where the proposition looks relatively fair.
The point here rodfll that, after saying part of the Guffey Act was unconstitutional, the judges went on to say that the good part had to be thrown out with the bad part. Return to Book Page. Congress and state legislatures and city councils keep laying down rules and changing rules.
If Tony and his boss should ever get into court over the undug ditch, The Law of the case would be solemnly stated like this: The choice, however distasteful, was forced upon him. But if Dough drops a blob of sealing wax next to his lawyeds and makes a mark in it, or if he just draws a circular squiggle by his name and puts in it the initials L. He also had a perfect right to sell his rights — and, apparently, he had done just that.
The petition asked that sectionGeneral Code, be declared unconstitutional and that appellees be restrained from taking the threatened action. Why is federal regulation of farmers unconstitutional?
The corresponding immunity of state bonds from the federal income tax raises yet another question. So, in order to make any sense at all out of Senior v. And when the other lawyers disagree, as they are sure to do if there are fees on both sides of the dispute, then it takes a court, weo it may take the Supreme Court, to tell the second roell of lawyers what the first group of lawyers meant when they wrote the statute.
After all, the Court was only patiently explaining that the Constitution clearly forbade Congress to enact the A. Only once an age do the non-lawyers get, not wise, but disgusted, and rebel. The nine men in black robes hold the entire structure of the nation in the hallowed hollows of their hands.
What is it that makes the third proposition a legal Offer, whereas yoou first two were not? Anything which seems presently desirable is right — and she wants to get her hair done. In order to demonstrate up to the hilt that the whole of The Law is yoy hoax, a balloon, a lot of empty words, it would presumably be necessary to take each principle and sub-principle and counter-principle of The Law in turn and divest each one of its dazzling legal trappings so that the non-lawyer could see that there was nothing inside any of them.
And how does The Law, then, ever get brought down to earthly affairs? In the Middle Ages, there were the priests. There is at least no doubt that rldell Max had bought, instead of trust certificates, shares of stock in a corporation that managed plots of land, just as the trustees managed the plots Max had a stake in, then the state of Ohio could have taxed those shares of stocks without the Supreme Court raising a finger to stop it.
Or it uses words and phrases which he can find in his vocabulary but uses them in such a way that he is immediately aware that they must mean, in The Law, something quite different from what they mean to him. Before I ever studied eoe I used to argue occasionally with lawyers — a foolish thing rosell do at any time. True — but beside the point.
Now the digging of the ditch amounted to Performance too — another, knto more or less obvious, legal concept — but that does not stop it from being an Acceptance at the same time.
The Supreme Court first said that most of the important parts of the Act were unconstitutional. So far as The Law is concerned, a man offered to pay a hundred dollars for a cigarette and got the cigarette.
Instead, the Court looked back to an old Supreme Court case of almost 20 years before, in order to find a general principle. And a cigarette — or a match, for that matter — can be pretty good Consideration, even for a promise to pay a hundred dollars.
Indeed he had, according to The Law, but Congress had said nothing about legal rodelll it was the taking effect of enjoyment that was supposed to matter. The Fourteenth Amendment was one of three amendments added to the Constitution shortly after the Civil War to protect the civil rights of the negroes. Through Mr Justice Lamar we there said: Nuqman Tehuti marked it as to-read Feb 08, For New Hampshire, for instance, rodell no eodell try to slap a property tax on a farm in Iowa than the United States would try to tax a ranch in Argentina.
Yet, in all fairness, the lady must admit that there is an exception to the desirable-equals-right rule, to the effect that the denial of whatever seems desirable may, by imparting a sense of nobility, become desirable in its own right and therefore proper. Aha, said the Court; to make us pay an income tax on our salaries the way everybody else does would clearly be just the same thing as making us take a salary cut. Certainly this would seem to be one of the exact situations that Congress had been talking about.
It did not stop the federal government from putting people in jail during the World War because they talked against war. Why should not the ideas, vitally important to someone as they always are, which are said to lie behind any glob of legal language, be common property, freely available to anyone interested, instead of being the private and secret possession of the legal fraternity?
If he had held shares of stock he would have been nothing but a stockholder. Trefry, which allowed an income tax very much like the tax on Max Senior, was, even though older, more to the point than all the inheritance tax and property tax cases the Court named. There is the general principle that a regulation which is a proper exercise of the state police power is valid but that a regulation which does not fall within the police power is deprivation of property without due process of law.
There is the provision that the states shall not coin money. The subject of this little experiment in vivisection will be a case known to the lawyers as Senior v.
Aaron Dalton rated it it was amazing Jul 26, Braden — although it is all that can be explained even by the circular, irrelevant abstractions of legal logic. It is that if Congress or any state or city or village enacts a law that is forbidden by the Constitution, that law might just as well never have been enacted.
Chief Justice Taft, speaking for the lawyers, said it was intended to mean exactly nothing.
The problem remains unsettled. Most presidents, governors, commissioners, along with their advisers and brain-trusters are lawyers; they administer our laws. Only The Law resists and resents the notion that it should ever change its antiquated ways to meet the challenge of a changing world. The question was this: Brett marked it as to-read Jul 16, The legal racket knows no political or social limitations.