How many Lawyers does it take to mess up the legal system? How many does it take to fix it?

Question

*this is a serious question, but I felt it should go in the "jokes and riddles" section.

www.potential.20fr.com

Answer 1

Whenever there are two or more lawyers (you can count judges and politicians as lawyers in this case) you get confusion.

Our legal system is based on the adversary system, the defense against the prosecution. So lawyers are trained to fight, and their best opponent is another lawyer. The reason for this system is so that the best ‘legal’ case can win, which is usually the correct one. Many cases can be decided on technicalities though, which is why the lawyers love fine print. If the case is a bad one, or the person is guilty, then sometimes the only way to win is with the technicalities.

This system is good because it makes the lawyers get really involved in their cases and work hard to win them. It is also why stories and TV shows about lawyers are so interesting. It also explains why lawyers are so cutthroat. They are in it to WIN, and 2nd place is only for losers, usually because there are only two sides to a legal case. It is also why a law case can seem more like a battle or a war, than a legal argument.

Most law is made in the courts. If the legislature passes a law then it remains valid until someone questions it. Then it goes to court where the defense and the prosecution fight it out. Any important law will eventually meet with someone who argues against it and that means a court case. This works because then unjust laws can then be repealed. The politicians can argue it out and compromises can be made.

Because the lawyers only FIGHT over their cases the final deals (which become laws, the basis for laws, or the test for current laws) are more like the Allied victory over Hitler, rather than a legal discussion. When the case is poor then sometimes a technicality can be the only way to win, which is why there is so much legal jargon and fine print. If the law (or the legal document) says that “he shall be held liable for the full price…” Then a woman can say that she won’t be held liable, or a company can say that they can’t be held liable. Therefore in “lawyereise” the statement will be “The parties concerned shall be held liable and accountable for the full price…”

This is what makes the law so complicated, and why more and more fine print keeps being added. Then there are the exceptions, which have to be covered. In the previous quote the lawyer would add “liable and accountable” in case if liable wasn’t enough to cover all the situations. If they could think of more words, and they usually can, they will add more.

The law is built upon case after case so all the fine print just adds up. The only way to fix the problem is to re-write the laws entirely.

The Texas State Constitution was passed soon after the Civil War. It concerns itself with the times and tries to limit the powers that had to be given over to the carpetbaggers’. So the Texas Constitution requires that spittoons be placed on the sidewalk at so many feet. It also says that carrying wire cutters in your back pocket is illegal. During the Range Wars (when Billy the Kid was on his killing run) cattle ranchers would cut the barbwire fences, put up by the farmers, so they could move their cattle north to market.

In the 1970’s the Texas State Legislature tried to rewrite the Texas Constitution, it was out dated and need to be done, but they couldn’t agree. It turned into an argument, because two or more lawyers were involved, and it became a complex argument since there were so many lawyers involved (Texas is a big state, and it has two houses of legislature). The entire process got bogged down and was finally dropped.

Now days the laws are interpreted. You can go in public with wire cutters in your back pocket and not fear arrest. The courts have interpreted that law to say it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon—since wire cutters were the weapon, that the drafters of the State Constitution were concerned with. At the time almost everyone carried a gun. With the carry permit laws this interpretation has gotten more complicated.

That’s the beauty of the US Federal Constitution. It is simple and to the point, and once written it cannot be changed. It can be amended, but that requires a two-thirds majority of the states to ratify so adding anything to it is hard to do. The Constitution is very general because the framers intended it to last as along as the United States lasted. The founding fathers never thought about aircraft, let alone that a federal department would be needed to handle civil aviation and another to handle accident investigation. The Constitution allows the federal government to create new agencies to handle these problems. The ability to amend the Constitution, the open-ended nature of the document, and the Supreme Court’s power of ultimate interpretation makes the Constitution a “living” document. It can be changed if needed to keep up with the times. The Supreme Courts handles the minor changes with its decisions, while the major ones are handled with amendments.

The Supreme Court’s only job is to determine the Constitutional impacts on a case. You can take a freedom of speech issue to the Supreme Court, but you can’t handle a land dispute there. That can only be handled in a Federal or State Court. In this way the Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution. Any state or federal law can be passed, but if it bears on a Federal Constitutional issue then the Supreme Court has the final say. By doing this the Supreme Court prevents junk, and fine print, from being added to the Constitution. The Miranda act became a Supreme Court issue, because a case was brought before it saying that the accused was denied “due process.” The Supreme Court said that a criminal must be advised of their legal rights, as part of the due process of arrest. With this interpretation every police officer must read a suspect his or her rights just after arrest. Police officers carry a card, with them, so they can make sure that they use the approved text each and every time. Since the Supreme Court said that the Constitution covered this no extra law had to be included. State Supreme Courts don’t fill this role; typically they are just the higher court of appeal. When they make a decision on the law that becomes a new piece of case law and yet another law.

The only way to create a streamlined legal system is to totally trash the current one and create a “living” document like the Constitution with a Supreme Court to rule on it and prevent any fine print from being added to it.

Answer 2

You sound very youthful, i'm sorry which you're in this form of mess. There are some very unusual issues approximately your tale which make me think of that the adults have not been telling you each and everything. a million. if your mom offered the domicile 13 years in the past she owns it. Your grandmother can not then supply it on your uncle or all and sundry else. Your mom owns it and that's that. 2. if your mom owns the domicile, why is she asking your uncle for funds to repair up the domicile? 3. Paying taxes has no longer something to do with possession. you pays the taxes on my domicile despite the fact that it does no longer supply you any rights in any respect, no longer even to bypass to me! if your grandmother has been paying the taxes out of money given to her by utilising your mom as a results of fact she lives close to the area, it makes no difference to her place. probably the tax charges have been coming on your mom? This could have been the case in the different case your mom does no longer have primary how plenty to pay. The tax charges could have been going on your uncle if the domicile replaced into in his call.

Answer 3

If it REALLY was about what gets sworn to: "To tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth...," it wouldn't take ANY lawyers at all to fix it... One problem is we don't KNOW the whole truth... And the courts have become an arena in which winning - at all costs - is everything...
Hence, "Justice is turned back, and righteousness stands afar off; for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter, so truth fails, and he who departs from evil makes himself a prey."
- Isaiah 59: 14 and 15

Answer 4

it takes one to mess it up but it is impossible for any amount of lawyers to fix it

Answer 5

Or just wipe out the Republicans

Answer 6

1-all of them to fix it

Answer 7

to mess it up - they all are

to fix it - the one with the gun who shoots all the others

Answer 8

I agree with sandy c-t