Jump to content
tears_for_fears

CLS (critical legal studies)

Recommended Posts

Anarchy sux. Gov key to heg=kicks yo' ass fo sheezy

 

YEEEAAAAHHHH.......THAT'S A BRILLIANT ARGUMENT. THE GOVERNMENT'S EXISTENCE IS KEY TO THE GOVERNMENT'S ABILITY TO GO TO WAR. YOU REALLY FLESHED OUT A NUANCED ONE HERE. AND CERTAINLY ANARCHY HAS NO ANSWER TO THAT ONE. NO WONDER YOU'RE "MSU BOUND."

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HA! I seam to recall a certain team losing to MSU at a nonexistant tourny this year. in elimination rounds? If your witty response is, "when is the last time that you qualified to the NDT?"(Which I would expect something much funnier then what I would say) then dont bother

 

 

love

jamie

nhs 2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HA! I seam to recall a certain team losing to MSU at a nonexistant tourny this year. in elimination rounds? If your witty response is, "when is the last time that you qualified to the NDT?"(Which I would expect something much funnier then what I would say) then dont bother

 

 

love

jamie

nhs 2006

 

SOMETIMES THE VIRTUOUS FALL AND EVIL REIGNS. THIS EXPLAINS THE HOLOCAUST, THE TSUNAMI, 9/11, AND THE RESULTS OF THE 2004 NDT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SOMETIMES THE VIRTUOUS FALL AND EVIL REIGNS. THIS EXPLAINS THE HOLOCAUST, THE TSUNAMI, 9/11, AND THE RESULTS OF THE 2004 NDT.

Someone got SERVED bad enough for me to make a lame ass movie reference and it ain't the WGLF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
YEEEAAAAHHHH.......THAT'S A BRILLIANT ARGUMENT. THE GOVERNMENT'S EXISTENCE IS KEY TO THE GOVERNMENT'S ABILITY TO GO TO WAR. YOU REALLY FLESHED OUT A NUANCED ONE HERE. AND CERTAINLY ANARCHY HAS NO ANSWER TO THAT ONE. NO WONDER YOU'RE "MSU BOUND."

 

It's not as if certain members of the WGLF haven't successfully defeated a team on "state key to heg."

 

Plan flaw my ass :-P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not as if certain members of the WGLF haven't successfully defeated a team on "state key to heg."

 

Plan flaw my ass :-P

thats just how the WGLF rolls, if you are as talented as the WGLF (which i am willing to bet your not) then you can run arguments that happen to be bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thats just how the WGLF rolls, if you are as talented as the WGLF (which i am willing to bet your not) then you can run arguments that happen to be bad.

 

THANKS FOR ROLLING ALL UP IN OUR BUSINESS. STEVE'S OUR BOY, HE WAS MAKING AN INSIDE JOKE. NOW GO EAT GIRAFFE FECES.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so now that people know what its all about...who the fuck are the main authors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
THANKS FOR ROLLING ALL UP IN OUR BUSINESS. STEVE'S OUR BOY, HE WAS MAKING AN INSIDE JOKE. NOW GO EAT GIRAFFE FECES.

meh thats why i don't like inside jokes...i already had giraffe feces for dinner and am stuffed or i wouild have some more, actually there not bad with some salt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DO NOT BUY FROM THE WGLF. ONLY OBTAIN THE CLS FILE FROM ME. I WILL TRADE FOR ANYTHING YOU HAVE. I HAVE 3 DIFFERENT VERSIONS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DO NOT BUY FROM THE WGLF. ONLY OBTAIN THE CLS FILE FROM ME. I WILL TRADE FOR ANYTHING YOU HAVE. I HAVE 3 DIFFERENT VERSIONS.

 

 

WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU? BUY FILES FROM PROVEN WINNERS, NOT RANDOM KANSANS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU? BUY FILES FROM PROVEN WINNERS, NOT RANDOM KANSANS

TRU DAT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i already had giraffe feces for dinner and am stuffed or i wouild have some more, actually there not bad with some salt

 

 

lollerskates!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<<so now that people know what its all about...who the fuck are the main authors?>>

 

allan hutchinson and patrick monahan

phyllis goldfarb

mark tushnet

peter gabel

duncan kennedy

lynne henderson

 

arguably schlag can be used with cls'ers argument about the indeterminancy and subjective nature of the law

 

if you type "critical legal studies" into the law review search on lexis you'll get a buncha good / useful articles - most of the best to start with are from the mid to late 80s because that's when this whole debate was going down among lawyers and such. there are also several books with critical legal studies in the title that will probably be useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so now that people know what its all about...who the fuck are the main authors?

 

Robert Unger and Duncan Kennedy are probably the best known crit scholars. I'll scrap up a few names later. Schlag could probably be loosely grouped with the crits. But you can just hit up Lexis or the Interwebs and find stuff about critical legal studies in the law review section.

 

(Edit: see the above post, which has a few more names.)

 

FYI, a number of these types advocate radical deconstruction of the law rather than anarchy or activism. Somebody, I think Kelman or Tushnet, dubbed this "trashing" the law so that may be a keyword for anyone looking for CLS alternatives. Keep in mind that a lot of scholars are highly critical of "trashing" and CLS in general because they believe it is nihilistic and precludes non-academic solutions to legal problems.

 

A lot of legal positivists and realists provide the best answers to the CLS critique. I'd highly recommend reading any of Posner's stuff for your A/T file.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd highly recommend reading any of Posner's stuff for your A/T file.
See also Karl Llewellyn (especially The Cheyenne Way)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't remember who told me this, but wasn't CLS the first critique ever run in debate? from it progressing to arguments that are accepted today.

 

Also there's as aspect of this argument that hasn't been mentioned.

 

CLS talks about rights being coded into law. People would say that our rights come from the bill of rights and therefore come from the government. However, thinking that the government gives us our rights, also justifies saying that the government has the right to take them away. The alt there would be something on the order of rejection of the mindset that our rights come from the government and adoption of the mindset either that rights come from god or some secular humanist "every person has the right...etc"

 

Rule by general decree maybe? This is hard to think of an alt that isn't anarchy, but that argument is so far to the left of the rest of the position that it seems to make more sense being run seperately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to remember a lot of cards in my file from Margaret Jane Radin and R. Polk Wagner, or something close to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CLS talks about rights being coded into law. People would say that our rights come from the bill of rights and therefore come from the government. However, thinking that the government gives us our rights, also justifies saying that the government has the right to take them away. The alt there would be something on the order of rejection of the mindset that our rights come from the government and adoption of the mindset either that rights come from god or some secular humanist "every person has the right...etc"

 

That's a misinterpretation of liberalist democracy. Certain rights are intrinsically necessary for humanity and aren't "given" to us by anyone; rather, government exists to mediate disputes between people and ensure that these rights aren't violated. In this mindset the Bill of Rights recognizes these necessities and lays down a set of negative rights, e.g., things that the government may not do (No restrictions on religion or speech, no imprisonment without trial by jury, etc.) It was only until much later that the Constitution was amended to specifically recognize rights.

 

Not to mention, your alternative wouldn't address the main concern of critical legal scholars. Who cares if the source of law is God or some philosopher, they point out, the notion that it's even possible to set standards of measure for lawful behavior is wrong. CLS and other poststrucural theories have lost steam in the academies partly because they dead-ended; you can only be anti-establishment to a certain degree without being totally nihilist or relativist, and it's pretty easy to cherrypick extreme examples that would cast doubt on such theories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...