Blog

Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on Unsplash

Most of the Argumentative Law class were tucking their textbooks and computers into their backpacks when Dr. Hawkins blew into the room in his normal rush. Filling the vacuum behind him, Monica closed the door and made her way to her usual location in the small lecture hall. Tears edged her eyes and soaked her lashes. Lindsey hopped down a row to sit beside her, giving Monica a quick hug and then held her hand, and Jervin looked on with sympathy. Their first drafts of their senior project were in the rearview mirror, and they understood the trauma of that first round of feedback. Fikes and Goard would be experiencing it soon enough and kept their heads forward, not looking at their classmate.

John’s lip curled and Moore whispered a comment to his girlfriend Breanna which made her punch his shoulder and move to the front row. The two men’s senior advisor for their project was the pre-law department chair, Dr. Leverett, who only took on legacy students, supporting those ‘most likely to succeed’.

“Why is property and property rights important in the law? Mr. Goard, this is your area of expertise, impress me. Don’t limit it to intellectual property.”

“What, oh, property. Well, we own things.” Seth rocked in his chair.

“You are not impressing me.”

“Ownership is important, acknowledging ownership is important.” Seth’s eyes drifted to where Monica and Lindsey whispered.

“Eyes forward Mr. Goard. You talk to the Judge first, the gallery second. You will rarely have a jury in your chosen field.”

“People need to feel that they own the items they make or buy, whether it is their home, their car, their book, or their movie. It’s essential for capitalistic societies and encourages growing economies. Why would citizens put into all the extra work if their stuff gets confiscated at a drop of a hat? If we don’t protect property rights, workers will do the bare minimum because there is no benefit doing stuff beyond roof and food.” The heat kicked on, so Seth raised his voice. “Extra effort is hard. Governments need to respect people’s property rights, or repay them in a fair manner. Thieves and pirates must be punished harshly for their crimes as they undermine the labor of workers. Property is essential. Really, all law is about protecting people’s property rights.”

“Wait.” “No.” “Not this again.” “Are you crazy?”

Dr. Hawkins clapped his hands and everyone quieted. “Let’s work with that assumption tonight. All law is about property rights. Ms. Hargate, how is murder a property crime?”

Monica rubbed the back of her hand against her wet cheeks while Lindsey glared at the professor. The soft-spoken student cleared her throat before talking over the blower for the heating vent. “Murder is a property crime because … people own themselves?” She glanced at Lindsey who nodded encouragement. “That would be it. Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, where the pursuit of happiness is a substitute for property because our forefathers were merchants and didn’t want to have property be an inalienable right so they switched out that. Also made sure it wasn’t happiness, but the pursuit of happiness. Still that means life and liberty, your personal life and your freedom plus the pursuit to make your life comfortable through stuff and ideas, belong to you. You belong to you. Someone assaulting you and-or un-aliving you takes your rights away.”

“That works.” Dr. Hawkins nodded. “Ms. Crawford, why are children property? How are they property?”

Lacing her fingers together, Breanna smiled at the professor and then the surrounding students. “Since children do not yet have full citizenship, they must be protected from general use and abuse by their parents. Children do not yet have the maturity, mentally or physically, to take care of their needs or their home. Interestingly they have two types of property law applying to them, one is their parents being their owners. Some of whom might claim ‘I brought you into this world, I can take you out.’ But that is not the case, because children are also fall under community property laws, not like marriage with everything split, but more like the commons where everyone can use the area but everyone is also responsible to take care of the area. This community property aspect is needed because the children will eventually become adults and have legal rights to themselves and until then the parents and the community must protect them.”

“Anyone want to expand on what else is both owned by an individual and shared through community property.”

“Housing.” Jacob answered. “You can own your house, but you got to keep the lawn mowed and yard clear for health and safety, controlling rodents and disease in the neighborhood. Reducing fire risks. HOAs may be annoying but they have a place.”

Lindsey interjected.  “So long as they don’t confiscate the house for flying the wrong flag out front.”

“I’m going to agree with Lindsey here,” Seth said. “People must feel safe in their neighborhood and homes, and HOAs confiscating houses just because the lawn is too short or too long violates rights.”

“Speaking of rights,” Dr. Hawkins looked at Larry. “Mr. Northern, how can you tie the first amendment to property rights?”

“Thank you for the softball, Dr. Hawkins.” Larry tilted his head to the side and his smile took up the room. “The First Amendment rights covers religion, freedom of expression including the press as well as the individual, and the ability to assembly peacefully. All these are intellectual property rights.”

“Excuse me?” Seth blinked from his seat. “No, no.” He held up his hand as though to push back an oncoming bus about to hit him and shook his head. “No.”

“Do you have more to contribute Mr. Goard?” Dr. Hawkins prodded from this place leaning against the lectern.

“Fuck.” He leaned forward, pushing his curly hair back. “No, I’m good. I’m going to need to change my outline, but I am good.”

“Since you have shaken Mr. Goard’s world, could you continue Mr. Northern?”

“Well, freedom of expression is the easiest, that allows people’s ideas, the most central part of themselves, to be shared and not suppressed. Suppression of the individual is akin to confiscation without reimbursement if done by the government. If done by the community, where everyone has the right to walk away, that is similar people looking at a … painted clay pot and deciding not to buy it. If the government took the clay pot away so no one could see it, property has been removed from the owner. Similarly by preventing an idea from being shared, the government has seized intellectual property. Freedom of religion, the very structure of ideas made reality, and assembling peacefully to share ideas are just expansions freedom of expression.”

“Beautifully stated as always Mr. Northern.” The professor’s black eyes moved to Matt in the back row where he was still glaring at the back of Breanna’s head. “What other bases are there for law other than property, Mr. Moore?”

“I don’t know, Civil law maybe?”

Jervin held up his hand. “How about relationship law?”

“Mr. Santinelli, would you care to expand?”

“Sure, everything we have done so far is basically about figuring out who owns something and someone or something else acting on it – stealing it, suppressing it, protecting it. But another law structure is the connections between people and society. We kind-of have seen a bit of this already with the children not only being owned by their parents, but the community having a responsibility to the children and their potential adulthood within the culture indicates how things are. Many indigenous cultures do not have ownership of things, especially the land, but the relationship between the people and the land. A responsibility of stewardship for not only future generations but to the land and the environment in-and-of themselves, kind-of like how we do corporations as ‘people’ but not really. Anyway some indigenous cultures judge people on relationships. Duty and responsibility, privilege and benefit.”

“What complete communism.” John sneered beside Larry.

“Well, yeah, kind-of. Capitalistic law is all about property, while communism which requires sharing of resources would be more relationship based. That is the discussion we are having today, right?”

“Capitalism is better than communism.”

“When you got the privilege on your side.” Lindsey snapped back from where she sat.

“If you like communism so much, move to China.”

“China and Russia are not really communistic states, they are oligarchies just like America, ruled by an elite who take all the property for themselves.”

A clap stopped the squabble. “This is dining hall discussion, not lecture hall. Good talk everyone. Thursday afternoon we will be working our understanding of law as a relationship versus property through a debate. I will send out links that I want you to read to prepare for the debate and I will send out who will be on which side of the debate at six am Thursday morning via the group chat. You can read beyond the assignment as you wish but you must share your resources on the chat because one of you nine will be the judge and will need to know all sources drawn on. The rest of the class will be divided four to a team. I do want each of you to come up with two, and only two, questions for the debate and post them to the chat by Wednesday at five pm.

“Northern your first draft is due tomorrow morning. Crawford, I will need yours Thursday morning. Santinelli and Mills-Jumper, I need a summary of your present research documents Thursday. Dismissed.”

(words 1,614, first published 4/15/2024)

Argumentative Law series

1. L is for Legality (4/14/2024)
2. M is for Monday (4/15/2024)
3. O is for Options (4/17/2024)
4. Editing Rant: Q is for Quorum (4/19/2024)
5. Writing Exercise: Y is for Yoke (4/28/2024)

Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on Unsplash

Overweight, more of a ball than a triangle, and sweat gleaming on his bald head from the trek from the parking lot to the small lecture hall, Dr. Hawkins rushed in the room, instantly silencing those already there, filling the quiet with a slamming door. One quick sweep of the room verified all students for his special class on “Argumentative Law” were in attendance. “What has the Supreme Court done?” he asked while shoving his briefcase into the lectern. He wouldn’t touch it again until it was time to leave.

“Preserved the Sanctity of Life.” John jumped in first, like normal. Coming from a long line of criminal lawyers, he grew up breathing court talk over dinner.

“Fucking evangelical.” Lindsey muttered under her breath.

Dr. Hawkins beady eyes flew to her. “What’s the problem?”

She shoved her chair back. “You know.”

“No, I don’t. What is wrong with his statement?”

“Sanctity.” Monica said, breathlessly, her soft voice cutting through the classroom’s silent fear of the professor’s rage. “It’s sanctity.” The pleasure figuring out something finally strengthened her statement.

“Why?”

“America, first amendment includes separation of church and state. ‘Sanctity’ is a religious term, basically defining life, all life as holy.” Her dark eyebrow met. “And it’s not, it can’t be.”

“Good.”

Monica beamed at getting a ‘good’ for the first time this semester.

The professor nailed the boy next to her with his eyes. “Why can’t life be holy, Mr. Goard?”

“Well … um. Separation of church and state.”

“Ms. Hargate already said that. Do better. Mr. Fikes?”

“Crap, well.” Jacob stared at the ceiling a second. “Food. We kill all the time for food – plants, animals. So it doesn’t matter if life is sacred as a general thought, some life has other purposes. We don’t care about the religious quality of life. We have to look at the legal value.”

“Oh, oh. Right.” Jervin snapped his fingers thinking. “Pets have a different value from food animals which have a different value from men–”

“Which have a different value from slaves, children, and women.” Lindsey interrupted, her arms crossed. “Sanctity of life only applies to white men and unborn babies. Everyone else is just property.”

“Good point Ms. Mills-Jumper. We will discuss property if time allows, otherwise next Monday. Back to the ‘sanctity of life’. What are other issues? Mr. Northern?”

“The judges, by using a religious argument, invalidate their decision.”

“Keep that in mind. But there is a long history of using God-given rights for the common law. Expand.”

“Well, sanctity has no value in the court of law, any more than God-given rights.”

John growled beside Larry. They were roommates and president and treasurer of the Christian club on campus respectively. Larry lightly kicked his foot to the side to shut John up. Unlike John, a heritage baby with his last name on one of the dorms, Larry needed his grades high to keep his scholarship. Everyone in the class, being seniors, had Dr. Hawkins previously and knew his vindictive nature.

“Legal rights, humanity rights matter. While animals and pets have property rights in relation to their owners, humans have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

“Pretty, but not enough.” Dr. Hawkins leaned on the lectern. “That would get a jury’s attention, but not a judge. Moore? Mr. Moore?”

“Um, when does life begin?” Matthew asked hopefully.

Breanna, his girlfriend moaned, dropping her face into her hands.

“What, you can do better?” Matt snapped.

“Well, the question you asked is important, and that is exactly what the judges should have sent back in this decision. When does LEGAL life begin? That needs to be decided by the legislature. Until it is, life should begin at first breath as that is the common law definition.”

“Is it Crawford?” Dr. Hawkins pinned the woman with his eyes.

“Right, you would ask that. Okay, I take that back. Let me look.” Breanna clicked at her computer, talking all the while, the only one who dared research and talk in this class. ” … the common law defines death as when the heart stops beating, so it could mirror that when the hearts start beating, which a lot of the evangelical Christians talk about. But since legal life also impacts plants, that cannot be the only definition. According to Black Law Dictionary ‘That state of animals and plants, or of an organized being, in which its natural functions and motions are performed, or in which its organs are capable of performing their functions. Webster. The sum of the forces by which death is resisted. Richat.'” She smiled. “Life is the SUM of the forces by which death is resisted, not just heartbeat. Breathing by plants and animals is also an important aspect and modern science prefers to define body life as beat and breathing, but quality of life by brain function.

“In the mix is being ‘born alive’. A child is not considered a child unless ‘born alive’. No social security number will be given until a child is born. A birth certificate isn’t issued. They have no personhood. They cannot be considered a citizen until birth.”

“Exactly,” muttered Lindsey. Dr. Hawkins turned his face toward her again, so she spoke out. “Sanctity of life is bullsh– is an imprecise term. Yes, we should treat life, all life, as important, but we have long established that human life, in particular those who qualify for citizenship, life is more valuable than life of non-citizens and lawbreakers.”

“Damn.” Jervin’s statement carried.

“Very good Ms. Mills-Jumper. There is hope for you yet.”

“Can you be less misogynistic?!” Lindsy waved her arms at the rest of the class. “You don’t even call on the women in your class, only the men. If we didn’t speak up on our own, nothing would happen.”

“You aren’t going to get that special treatment out there.” Dr. Hawkins nodded at the door. “And yes, I am aware I only called on the men. This is our fourth meeting and we got twelve to go this semester. Question, how many men noticed I only called on the males?”

Jervin raised his hand slowly. The rest of the group heads swiveled around, looking at the others. The three female students all had their arms crossed, even Monica’s face had hardened.

“I’m assuming all the women noticed?”

The women nodded at the professor.

“Mr. Santinelli, you noticed, why didn’t you say anything?”

“Um, well, because…”

“When did you notice?” Dr. Hawkins stepped to the side of the lectern and leaned forward, putting the dark-skinned student on the spot.

Jervin whispered, “First class, about half way through.”

“Good on the observation, horrible for seeking justice.” Dr. Hawkins clapped his hands together. “We need justice for humanity, not just men, not just women. For humanity. Our job as lawyers is to help justice happen. That includes stopping injustice at home, in school, if you go into politics, in the legislature and on the bench, if you go into business, in the work world. Going forward everyone will be called on. And if I fall into old habits, I expect everyone in class to call me on it. And ladies, gents, stand up for yourselves. Lawyers run over everyone. Especially criminal trial lawyers. You will need to break the cycle OUTSIDE of the court. Inside court, you are sharks. Outside, you are human. Get the best researchers, receptionists, and law secretaries you can, you will need them because you are human. Treat these people well so you KEEP them. Nothing is better than a well-trained assistant.

“Now to conclude today. ‘Sanctity of life’ has quite a bit of meaning as it keeps being used in law decisions. Today you got some ideas of how to pull that apart or support the ideal, depending on your client needs. As Ms. Crawford indicated, the start of life is not clearly defined, though the start of citizenship is. The legislature should clearly define when legally protected human life begins and its value in comparison to adult citizen’s life. Common law until recently applied different weights to males and females; now it seems that inequality of adult life valuation by gender has resumed. It will be up to you and your generation to either strengthen equality between the genders or formally and clearly remove it. I would appreciate it not be the mess of when “adulthood” begins – drive, drink, sign contracts, inherit, vote – giving hundreds of breakpoints. But that is up to you. I will be in my office for the next hour. Fikes, Goard, I need your senior project outlines. Hargate, your first draft. Dismissed.”

(words 1,452; first published 4/14/2024)

Argumentative Law series

1. L is for Legality (4/14/2024)
2. M is for Monday (4/15/2024)
3. O is for Options (4/17/2024)
4. Editing Rant: Q is for Quorum (4/19/2024)
5. Writing Exercise: Y is for Yoke (4/28/2024)