Stop Seeking Certainty.. Minows Response To Bork Essays - Intention

"Stop Seeking Certainty.." Minow's Response To Bork Philosophy Of Law In considering the views of Robert Bork and Martha Minow, I am impressed more by Minow. I will compare their respective views and arguments in an effort to show why I prefer the arguments of Minow to those of Bork. First though it is necessary to have a brief overview of Bork's philosophy. Bork is a firm believer in the originalist mode of Constitutional interpretation. Many different scholars may have differing views as to the meaning of the word originalism. Here, it is intended to define "an.. approach to constitutional adjudication that accords binding authority to the text of the Constitution or the intentions of it's adopters" (Lyons, pp. 329). This view can be subdivided into two categories. Those categories are the intentional and textual originalist views. The intention-based originalists argue that the original intent of the framers can be discerned from a neutral reading of the Constitution and peripherally related documents. The problem here is that the framers, the adopters, the ratifiers, and the electors all had possibly separate intent and it would be difficult to know all of their intentions. According to this view, the Constitutional text merely provides clues as to the intent of the above mentioned groups. So peripheral documents, such as the Federalist papers, are important clarifiers of the original intent. The second subdivision of orginalism is called the textual orginialist view. This view argues that the actual text of the Constitution is what is most important in terms of understanding Constitutional intent. Bork began as an intention theorist, then later changed and came to adopt the textual originalist view point. Neither subdivision of the view of orginalism is very popular today, as is evidenced by the fact that Bork was not confirmed by the Congress when he was nominated for the Supreme Court. Bork argues that by reading the text, and figuring out what the public understanding of the Constitution was at the time of it's writing, we can discern what the Constitution actually means. The problem here is obvious. It is very difficult to know what the public understanding at the time of the enactment of the Constitution was. It is even difficult to know if there was in fact a public understanding at all. It seems possible that there did not exist a public awareness of all of the facets of the Constitution. Bork argues that new Amendments to the Constitution are appropriate and permissible, that these are simply additions of new original ideas. However, he is opposed to constitutional "revisionism" of any kind. Here the term revisionism is intended to mean any reauthoring of constitutional principles by any governmental body other than the legislature. I think that Bork was specifically leery of the judiciary performing revisionist acts. He seemed to be more leery of a Judiciary branch performing "revisionism" than he was of the executive branch performing such acts. Bork said "The theory [of Constitutional interpretation] must therefore enable us to say what is the limit of the judge's legitimate authority..." (Bork. pp.54). Bork argues for a kind of enforced judicial restraint. Here, when I use the phrase "judicial restraint", I mean a strict adherence to precedents, the effects of which are so ingrained in our society as to make overturning them destructive to the fabric of our society at large. Bork goes on to argue for the importance of the neutrality principle as it relates to constitutional interpretation. According to Bork, a judge should make a decision based only on an original intent understanding of a given law in a given case. No personal pr eferences should come into play. Instead, legal principles should be applied equally across all cases which those principles encompass. It is Bork's assertion that his philosophy of original understanding can supply neutrality in deriving, defining and applying any legal principle. (Bork, pp. 53) So, on to the distinctions between deriving, defining and applying. On the issue of derivation, Bork argues that via his philosophical view of original intent, it is possible to derive the meaning of any given Constitutional principle and that if any given situation is not covered by the Constitution, that situation is beyond the scope of the power and scope of the Courts jurisdiction, and thereby leaves the court "quite properly powerless.." (Bork pp.53). On the issue of defining a principle, Bork argues again that this is quite possible within his framework and that all judges need to do in order define the breadth of a given principle is to take a historical look at the events a given principle concerned itself with at the time of the principles

Sample Con Law Speech Essay

Sample Con Law Speech EssayA sample con law speech essay can serve as an excellent first step in conveying your ideas. Here, you will find useful tips on how to organize your ideas in a short but succinct manner that can be easily understood by both students and potential attorneys. Just as you would not want your presentation to seem as if it were a rambling dissertation, you should also avoid the trend of showing off your knowledge and expertise by continually getting repetitive. The key is to be succinct and to be unemotional, yet empathetic.Experts have spoken about the importance of having a strong emotional connection with your audience as this is the most effective way to connect with them. You must make sure that your resume accurately portrays your objectives as well as what you hope to accomplish. If you are an attorney looking for a job, you will want to emphasize your unique set of skills and experience. As far as your resume is concerned, this is your own idea of a sampl e con law speech essay. Writing a sample con law speech essay can help you accomplish this objective.There are three ways to write a law school research essay. The first and most effective method is to use a legal research service. These firms can help you with all the legal research questions, you may be suffering from and can write you up a quality paper. Some companies have received awards and have been recognized by the government for helping those in need. This type of service has several advantages over writing the essay yourself.Using a typical sample con law speech essay also has disadvantages. It is best to have a mentor to help you out. You can get one of these services by contacting your university or going online. This way, you can be able to talk to experts who know what to say and how to say it. Also, this option allows you to keep the hard copy of your draft where it is and which you can view at any time. You can use it to reference whenever it's convenient for you.Th ese service organizations offer many alternatives to you if you do not like to write a persuasive paper. You can consult your local law school to learn more about the type of essays that they offer and compare their prices. This will allow you to get one-on-one assistance to discuss the pros and cons of using a particular service.Although many law students do not want to deal with the emotional baggage of the material, they must accept that there is a good chance that this could happen. Sooner or later, they will need to deliver a speech at a prestigious venue, which includes making friends with an interesting person. Also, you might run into a problem like a successful but troubled client, which would require some help. Law students need to prepare for this eventuality before hand so they are prepared when it actually happens. If you plan on attending a meeting, find a solution to this problem beforehand.All the same, law students should always remember that their goal is to learn. They can achieve this goal if they stick to the proper mindset and approach. If you are not confident in your abilities, you can always try out new techniques and methods. So, go ahead and try to provide a fresh perspective to your audience.