#Law History

[gracehosborn]

A map of Hamilton’s law offices as seen on page 333 of The Law Practice of Alexander Hamilton: Volume I, edited by Julius Goebel.

This map was a surprise find inside this volume, and a very insightful and helpful one at that. The key also includes other important locations, and years of operation for each office Hamilton held throughout his career.

[soapdispensersalesman]

I just saw Max Fosh's newest video and I gotta know the backstory behind the following law:

No Trespassing (Unless You’ve Climbed A Tree To Point At A Fish) - Cornwall, 1603 (Bylaw)

[oh-my-damn]

Don't know whether to be proud or concerned that I finished my 24 hour law exam in 8 hours... But hey, I wrote 10 pages, so surely SOME of it has to be correct!

Right???

Anyway.......

[thoughtportal]

Michigan Law passed in 1945 banning female bartenders

[lloydlawcollege]

Understanding Common Law: Definition, Origins, and Key Examples

Discover the concept of common law, tracing its origins and evolution over time. Common law, built on past court rulings, forms the foundation of many legal systems worldwide. This blog explores its development from early legal traditions and highlights key examples of how common law is applied today. You'll learn how decisions made by judges influence future cases, making common law adaptable to modern challenges, while still holding a significant role in shaping justice across various regions.

[h0bg0blin-meat]

Here's the link to the video

👏 SAY 👏 IT 👏 LOUDER 👏

[sojournertales]

Excerpt from Mr. Justice Brandies' concuring statement in Whitney v. California, concerning free speech.

Starting at Page 274 U. S. 375:

Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the State was to make men free to develop their faculties, and that, in its government, the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end, and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness, and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that, without free speech and assembly, discussion would be futile; that, with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty, and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. [Footnote 2] They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies, and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law -- the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed.

Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. To justify suppression of free speech, there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the evil to be prevented is a serious one. Every denunciation of existing law tends in some measure to increase the probability that there will be violation of it. [Footnote 3] Condonation of a breach enhances the probability. Expressions of approval add to the probability. Propagation of the criminal state of mind by teaching syndicalism increases it. Advocacy of law-breaking heightens it still further. But even advocacy of violation, however reprehensible morally, is not a justification for denying free speech where the advocacy falls short of incitement and there is nothing to indicate that the advocacy would be immediately acted on. The wide difference between advocacy and incitement, between preparation and attempt, between assembling and conspiracy, must be borne in mind. In order to support a finding of clear and present danger, it must be shown either that immediate serious violence was to be expected or was advocated, or that the past conduct furnished reason to believe that such advocacy was then contemplated. Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify repression. Such must be the rule if authority is to be reconciled with freedom. [Footnote 4] Such, in my opinion, is the command of the Constitution. It is therefore always open to Americans to challenge a law abridging free speech and assembly by showing that there was no emergency justifying it.

Moreover, even imminent danger cannot justify resort to prohibition of these functions essential to effective democracy unless the evil apprehended is relatively serious. Prohibition of free speech and assembly is a measure so stringent that it would be inappropriate as the means for averting a relatively trivial harm to society. A police measure may be unconstitutional merely because the remedy, although effective as means of protection, is unduly harsh or oppressive. Thus, a State might, in the exercise of its police power, make any trespass upon the land of another a crime, regardless of the results or of the intent or purpose of the trespasser. It might, also, punish an attempt, a conspiracy, or an incitement to commit the trespass. But it is hardly conceivable that this Court would hold constitutional a statute which punished as a felony the mere voluntary assembly with a society formed to teach that pedestrians had the moral right to cross unenclosed, unposted, wastelands and to advocate their doing so, even if there was imminent danger that advocacy would lead to a trespass. The fact that speech is likely to result in some violence or in destruction of property is not enough to justify its suppression. There must be the probability of serious injury to the State. Among free men, the deterrents ordinarily to be applied to prevent crime are education and punishment for violations of the law, not abridgment of the rights of free speech and assembly.

[yesterdaysprint]

The Age-Herald, Birmingham, Alabama, September 12, 1913

[reality-detective]

American History You Were Never Taught! 🤔

[aroaceleovaldez]

my hot pjo take is that Jason isn't a second Percy, Jason is a second Annabeth. Jason is just if Annabeth was a guy and also a Big 3 kid.

[gracehosborn]

Doing an assessment of materials for planning out Volume 3 of The American Icarus and am getting to dig into the details of Rutgers v. Waddington, (so fun having to read through 227 pages of documents and such), but this note at the top of the Editorial Detail of The Law Practice of Alexander Hamilton, Vol. 1, made me laugh:

The texts of documents of a substantive nature in Hamilton's hand are reproduced here as they stand in the manuscripts from which they have been transcribed. In other words, there has been no med-ding with abbreviations, punctuation, or spelling, except to remedy Hamilton's propensity not to dot his i’s

[worfsbarmitzvah]

there’s such an attitude among ex-christian atheists that religions just spring up out of the void with no cultural context behind them. like ive heard people say shit like “those (((zionists))) think they own a piece of land bc their book of fairy tales told them so!!!” and they refuse to understand that no, we don’t belong there because of the torah, it’s in the torah because we belong there. because we’re from there. the torah (from a reform perspective) was written by ancient jews in and about the land that they were actively living on at the time. the torah contains instructions for agriculture because the people who lived in the land needed a way to teach their children how to care for it. it contains laws of jurisprudence because those are pretty important to have when you’re trying to run a society. same for the parts that talk about city planning. it contains our national origin story for the same reason that american schools teach kids about the boston tea party. it’s an extremely complex and fascinating text that is the furthest thing from just a “book of fairy tales”

[winningismyjob]

Success in your studies isn’t about cramming the night before or relying on last-minute luck; it’s about consistent effort and dedication. Every time you sit down to study, you’re investing in your future self. Remember, the small, daily efforts add up to something great. So, take a deep breath, organize your notes, and tackle each topic one step at a time. Your journey may be challenging, but it’s also incredibly rewarding.

There will be days when motivation is low, and distractions seem endless. On those days, remind yourself why you started. Think about the goals you’re striving toward, the knowledge you’re gaining, and the growth you’re experiencing. You’re capable of more than you realize. Stay disciplined, take breaks when needed, and don’t forget to celebrate your progress, no matter how small. You’ve got this!

[upennmanuscripts]

LJS 280 is an abbreviated version of the decretals compiled by Raymond of Peñafort in the 1230s by order of Pope Gregory IX. It was written in France in the second half of the 13th century, bound in sheepskin over wooden boards in the 15th-century, and attached to this chain in the 17th century.

🔗:

[lloydlawcollege]

Property Law Explained: Definition, History, Key Examples, and Essential Facts

Dive into our comprehensive guide on property law, where we cover everything from its fundamental definition and historical evolution to key examples and important facts. This blog offers an in-depth look at how property law governs real estate, ownership rights, and transactions. Whether you're a student, professional, or just curious, gain a thorough understanding of property law's role in legal systems and its impact on property management and disputes.

[stil-lindigo]

ashes to ashes.

a short comic about the day Ash was born.

Ash's story

Red and Wolf's story

notes:

--

all my other comics

store