Michael Malice’s excellent anthology, The Anarchist’s Handbook, includes an essay by John Hasnas, a professor of law and business at Georgetown.
He opens his essay with a simple quiz:
On the basis of your personal understanding of the meaning of this sentence (not your knowledge of Constitutional law), please indicate whether you believe the following sentences to be true or false.
- In time of war, a federal statute may be passed prohibiting citizens from revealing military secrets to the enemy.
- The President can issue an executive order prohibiting public criticism of his administration.
- Congress may pass a law prohibiting museums from exhibiting photographs and paintings depicting homosexual activity.
- A federal statute can be passed prohibiting a citizen from falsely shouting “fire” in a crowded theater.
- Congress may pass a law prohibiting dancing to rock and roll music
- The Internal Revenue Service may issue a regulation prohibiting the publication of a book explaining how to cheat on your taxes and get away with it.
- Congress may pass a statute prohibiting flag burning.
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/john-hasnas/
Hasnas successfully argues that human law (versus the laws of nature) are necessarily ambiguous and subject to interpretation, which interpretations will not only be biased by the values and prejudices of the interpreter but almost wholly determined by them.
I will display the correct answers in 24 hours or whenever @siggy47 reminds me
I scored 2 out of 7
#1429702
The only rule we have right now is the golden rule, who has the gold makes the rules.
love this
I don't, better a real hard money that's easier to move
Ah, I meant that I loved the assessment. Didn't mean that I like the situation!
like diamonds?
why are most if not all diamond merchants Hasidic Jews?
diamonds can be created easily, not scarce like gold
humor me and take the quiz
it will take 60 seconds or less
Based on the wording, I think they are all true.
They might not withstand a legal challenge but those groups can do those kinds of things.
Right. Congress has passed many laws that have been declared unconstitutional. Now that the constitution is more or less meaningless, the title is apt.
I should have set this up as a poll with 7 questions to see user responses aggregate
Plus, all of the above and none of the above (it's important they be in that order, too)
1 and 4 are False
the rest are True
True for all 7 questions? got it
@remindme in 24 hours
I will post the answers and explanation after you take the quiz which should take about 70 seconds or less
Oh. They are all true.
1 and 4 are False
The rest are true
I will elaborate in another comment with my sources
Okay. I look forward to it.
From John Hasnas:
Unless your responses were:
You chose to interpret at least one of the words 'Congress', 'no', 'law', 'speech', and 'press' in what can only be described as something other than its ordinary sense.
Why did you do this?
Were your responses based on the plain meaning of the words or on certain normative beliefs you hold about the extent to which the Federal government should be allowed to interfere with citizens' expressive activities? Were your responses objective and neutral or were they influenced by your politics?
I chose this portion of the First Amendment for my example because it contains the clearest, most definite legal language I am aware of. If a provision as clearly drafted as this may be subjected to political interpretation, what legal provision may not be?
But this explains why the legal system cannot be reformed to consist of a body of definite rules yielding unique, objectively verifiable resolutions of cases. What a legal rule means is always determined by the political assumptions of the person applying it.
http://files.teodesian.net/docs/liberty/MythFinalDraft.pdf
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/john-hasnas/
Read section 6 in the PDF linked above...
Hasnas:
If your response to question 1 was "True," you chose to interpret the word "no" as used in the First Amendment to mean "some."
If your response to question 2 was "False," you chose to interpret the word "Congress" to refer to the President of the United States and the word "law" to refer to an executive order.
If your response to question 3 was "False," you chose to interpret the words "speech" and "press" to refer to the exhibition of photographs and paintings.
If your response to question 4 was "True," you have underscored your belief that the word "no" really means "some."
If your response to question 5 was "False," you chose to interpret the words "speech" and "press" to refer to dancing to rock and roll music.
If your response to question 6 was "False," you chose to interpret the word "Congress" to refer to the Internal Revenue Service and the word "law" to refer to an IRS regulation.
If your response to question 7 was "False," you chose to interpret the words "speech" and "press" to refer to the act of burning a flag.
The rule of law is a myth similar to Judaism.
There are no laws, only lawyers and judges.
There are no laws in Judaism, only rabbis and technicalities
@siggy47, thanks for indulging me and humoring me
The rule of the jungle - the strong eat the weak.
I need a lawyer to take this stupid quiz
I don't know what the "correct' answer is. But should be "no" to all.
your answer is False for all 7 questions?
The "law" probably makes all of those true.
I'm my opinion, no one should have those powers.
1 and 4 are False,, the rest are True
Better than nothing I guess.