I've noticed a lot of misconceptions about the law on this board

I've noticed a lot of posters have misconceptions about the law. As a lawyer, I could patronizingly wave my finger at people with these misconceptions and tell them, "no you are wrong." Better yet, I can teach them the law.

What if we created an online law school where I was the professor and you were my pupils. Each week I can pick one or two cases on a subject of your choosing. We can agree to meet on ATS and discuss the cases. Bulletin boards like ATS are a great way to discuss cases as they allow people to question each other back and forth.

All you would need to do to participate is read the cases, maybe brief them, and show up to the thread and give us your 2 cents.

Is there any topic that anybody is particularly interested in? I think a great topic would be the commerce clause of the US constitution.

hotpink
I think u have a wonderful idea
however, I think most folks on here
are more worried about why the
laws are being broken unconstitutionally
rather than understanding what they mean.

reply to post by boondock-saint


One of the common misconceptions people have is that they throw around the word "unconstitutional" quite a bit. These people's readings of the Constitution is seldom based on any case law and often conflict with the case law.

Well it does sound like a good idea however "OMG IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!", yeah that is what you are going to hear...about everything.
For the most part this is the typical grasp of the law we have here on ATS

Things that are "constitutional":
Everything i want to do

Things that are "unconstitutional":
speeding tickets
drug laws
taxes
The president
DUIs
ANY search
police using ANY force
debt collecter requesting money
Eye contact with police
Eye contact with religious person (this is cramming religion down one's throat)
Getting banned from ATS
Getting a sticky
pretty much anything people do not like here is "unconstitutional"
oh yeah anything peter joseph or alex jones says

Maybe go over better in R.A.T.S.?
Unfortunately I have to agree with Boondock, I'm afraid too many of the ones who make the blanket statements you are referring to would either not show up or everything said would be lost. Like usual...


There's actually a lot of misconceptions about most things here. Maybe there should be an IQ test to gain entry to certain boards?

I'd say I have to agree with zaiger too but I've already had to do that once in the last week.



[edit on 26-4-2010 by webpirate]

I would be very interested in an ongoing thread...it's been decades since I was in school and I honestly wish I could sign up for the civics classes I took in high school as I had an excellent teacher with an international perspective too who did graduate work at Fletcher School of International Law, no less.

Do they still teach civics in public schools? More to the point though what;s your specialty? Constitutional law? What states have you passed the bar in?

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint

As a lawyer, I could patronizingly wave my finger at people with these misconceptions and tell them, "no you are wrong." Better yet, I can teach them the law.

I have come to know a few lawyers in my lifetime, and you my friend are not at all one of those finger wagging lawyers, or as I like to refer to them, the priest class lawyers who solemnly utter their mystical incantations. You are a most excellent and patient man who has always been open to others ideas and understandings.

What a great idea and I would love to be one of your students. I suspect that makes you cringe a bit, and I have no doubt I would be one of your more maddening pupils, but I would hope a promising one as well. Can't wait to hear more about this.

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint


First case in point I would like addressed is the two Supreme Court decisions that stated the 16th Amendment did NOT give the federal government anymore taxation powers.

I find this one of the biggest conspiracies involving lawyers. Either that or the replacement of the original 13th Amendment with the current 13th Amendment.

The commerce clause is just too simple. It allowed the federal government to make regular commerce between states. That about does it.

Just because the federal government twisted the original meaning to now try and mandate me purchasing a damn insurance policy, does not mean I need to listen to a lecture on what the federal government thinks they can get away with. Yes, me being forced to buy something has what to do with interstate commerce. Especially when I am not even allowed to go outside my state to purchase insurance.

Another idea could be to go over "color of law" compared to real law.

Another idea could be how courts setting precedent is completely different than the original intention of courts. That one is another HUGE conspiracy.

Good idea, you do know you have quite a lot of people here on this site that are quite knowledgeable about the LAW.

reply to post by webpirate


There are those that are so deep into conspiracy theories they would think a Supreme Court case is not for real. There is nothing you can do to "save" those people.

There are people that are open minded or just need to be served a cup of shut the f--- up. They might be helped.

One reason why I would like to start of on some commerce clause cases is that these cases tie into plenty of issues that grab headlines like health care reform and medicinal marijuana.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


You would be a great pupil and I might even let you take over and run the class. We'll need people like you to stir up the discussion.

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

You would be a great pupil and I might even let you take over and run the class. We'll need people like you to stir up the discussion.

Woo-hoo! Thank you professor. I will do my best to make you proud.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Hey, quick sucking up.

You know OP, I will be the maddening pupil.

reply to post by ChrisCrikey


I specialize in Tax and am licensed in only one state. I would like to keep anonymity so I will not mention the state.

In high school, I remember taking a class called political science, which was like civics. It covered the structure of government and such.

As a tax attorney, I sometimes run across Administrative law issues. Administrative law is the body of law that deals with the law of the Executive Branch of government.

As an aside, you probably learned in Civics that the Executive branch only enforced laws. It was up to the judicial branch to interpret laws and the legislative branch to make laws. Well, I am here to tell you that is not completely true. The executive branch makes more laws than the legislative branch and has courts that interpret laws!

Sounds like a great idea my friend.

I am always looking for ways to beef up on the laws and how they can be applied.

I will mostly be an observer but may jump in from time to time.

Professor HotPink. I have a question.

Could you please explain "Guilt by association"? Is this a legitimate charge and how close is it related to Seditious Conspiracy?

[edit on 26-4-2010 by The Undertaker]

Sounds good to me. Let the games begin!
2nd

great idea OP! but, you do realize, some (read-many) will be labeling you disinfo, liar, unconstitutional, america hating, god hating democrat (sorry, i'm one, just seems that we're blamed for everything). you will be asked a lot on the second amendment i bet.

ya, but GREAT IDEA!

ETA: reminds me of one of my attempts at trying to fix misconceptions on here. . .OMG IT'S THE END of the WORLD. . . NOT

[edit on 26-4-2010 by LocoHombre]

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint

But isn't it also true that law school is more about case law these days than about the Constitution?

If that is true, and I have heard that it is, it is indeed a sad day for our Republic.

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint


Oh, I totally like this idea. I love this idea for this type of thread. I have a degree in American history and a lot of that dealt with legal history. I love a good debate, and will usually take the other side just because.

I'm not a lawyer, but I did really like The Devil's Advocate and A Few Good Men.

I'm all for this...
As a side note...I'll be more than happy to provide medical clarifications as long as it's known it's not intended as medical advice... I have seen lots of similar discussions on medical topics here.

Originally posted by LocoHombre
great idea OP! but, you do realize, some (read-many) will be labeling you disinfo, liar, unconstitutional, america hating, god hating democrat (sorry, i'm one, just seems that we're blamed for everything). you will be asked a lot on the second amendment i bet.

ya, but GREAT IDEA!

That's why I think maybe R.A.T.S. is a better place for this. It would at least keep out most of the lurkers and some of the trolls.