Politics for the Unwary
Apparently there have been a lot of talks about politics and the core of our American government has been put on jeopardy. Democracy has been the topic of all the arguments and the validity of this term has been put on the spot light. I tend to stay away from these arguments since there are a lot irreconcilable differences which are clearly unanswered by the end of any argument. I can argue up a storm especially with those republicans who think they can put up a fight about the legitimacy of our president and the justification of the Iraq war. I alone choose not get involved in these discussions since I know a solution is clearly unattainable in one sitting.
But of course there is my newly acquired assignment; I’m given a scenario that I am the adjudicator of 5 claims. These five claims are brought forth because the claimers believe that they have complied with the Ten Commandments and that they have not committed adultery in anyway. In order for these claimers to qualify for the 10 grand they would have had to comply with the Ten Commandments for 17 year. (crap, I have to argue this) Sounds easy right, well no, the text clearly states that a few of them did commit adultery but some of them stated that when they took their oath 17 years back the definition of adultery clearly stated that it was only between a married woman and a man. The claimer took that into consideration and asked all the women that he slept if they were married. Well they weren’t married so the claimer believes that adultery was not committed. (crap!!)
The very next claimer is the first claimers wife; she also slept with other men… The next claimer is a man that his religion allows him to have two wives which he does. He claims that adultery was not committed since he only had sex with his wives, (yeah I don’t know this one, maybe I can use that whole congress can’t combine religion and state).
Well that’s the assignment, six page paper. Which isn’t long but I think its going to be hard trying to argue my point nevertheless I think it is doable but my legal reasoning is at its weakest point I think, so I just hope to at least prevail with a good grade at the end of all this madness.
But of course there is my newly acquired assignment; I’m given a scenario that I am the adjudicator of 5 claims. These five claims are brought forth because the claimers believe that they have complied with the Ten Commandments and that they have not committed adultery in anyway. In order for these claimers to qualify for the 10 grand they would have had to comply with the Ten Commandments for 17 year. (crap, I have to argue this) Sounds easy right, well no, the text clearly states that a few of them did commit adultery but some of them stated that when they took their oath 17 years back the definition of adultery clearly stated that it was only between a married woman and a man. The claimer took that into consideration and asked all the women that he slept if they were married. Well they weren’t married so the claimer believes that adultery was not committed. (crap!!)
The very next claimer is the first claimers wife; she also slept with other men… The next claimer is a man that his religion allows him to have two wives which he does. He claims that adultery was not committed since he only had sex with his wives, (yeah I don’t know this one, maybe I can use that whole congress can’t combine religion and state).
Well that’s the assignment, six page paper. Which isn’t long but I think its going to be hard trying to argue my point nevertheless I think it is doable but my legal reasoning is at its weakest point I think, so I just hope to at least prevail with a good grade at the end of all this madness.
written by Mr. Vasquez at 8:07 p. m.
4 Comments:
Controvery makes it much more interesting. There's always a weakness to exploit. Just look for it carefully.
I don't know how you guys could argue though -- by case law? policy? pure reasoning? Do you EVEN have access to Westlaw or LexisNexis?
no just pure legal reasoning.
hand-to-hand combat?
You can always count on Igots for senseless legal violence LOL
Legal reasoning is so abstract...that's like arguing in front of the Supreme Court. It could swing any way you want.
Good luck!
Publicar un comentario
<< Home