• No Comments

9 Then came “Woe Unto You,. Lawyers!”. Rodell knew that it would make every lawyer bristle or snort. ‘By FRED RODELL, Professor of Law, Yale University. Here’s a book you don’t have to buy; the entire text is here, in glorious HTML. It’s Fred Rodell’s “lusty, gusty attack on ‘The Law’ as a curious. This Book Reviews is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for Leo Herzel, Rodell: Woe unto You, Lawyers!, 7 DePaul L. Rev. () You, Lawyers! By FRED RODELL.

Author: Dojora Dazragore
Country: New Zealand
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Automotive
Published (Last): 23 June 2017
Pages: 104
PDF File Size: 8.38 Mb
ePub File Size: 9.44 Mb
ISBN: 918-1-72728-805-8
Downloads: 80009
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Jukree

What then, in the first place, is a legal Offer? It is all things to all lawyers simply because the principles on which it is built lawers so vague and abstract and irrelevant that it is possible to find in those principles both a justification and a prohibition of every human action or activity under the sun. Again, doubtless, a matter of principle. There has to be Consideration, as well as Offer and Acceptance and a number of other solemn-spoken legalisms, before a Contract yoj good in the eyes of The Law.

It is in the form of sub-principle or exception to the primary rodelll. Women who worked in Washington, D. Lawyers would always like to believe that the principles they say they work with are something more than a complicated way of talking about simple, tangible, non-legal matters; but they are not. Find it on Scholar. Free Congress tried to discourage child labor by forbidding the shipment of things made by child labor in interstate commerce, the Court calmly said this is no regulation of interstate commerce.

Normal human skepticism and curiosity seem to vanish entirely whenever the layman encounters The Law.

Sonia Kruks – – Critical Review 2 4: He might keep the right to take the property back any frfd he wanted it. Sign in to use this feature. The common law is the set of rules that lawyers use to settle any dispute or problem to which no constitution or statute applies. Theoretically, the purpose of insisting on Consideration is to see to it that a Contract is a fair bargain. And purposing all the while to be applying the commands and prohibitions of the U. The cynic would not be far wrong. For Max was allowed to keep every cent of the hundred-odd dollars that Ohio was trying to take from him in taxes.


The majority opinion is The Law, the gospel — so much so that even the dissenting judges must accept it, as with Senior v. The basic principle that the Court made up is that Congress may not delegate or hand over any of its lawmaking power to anyone else.

Fred Rodell, Woe Unto You, Lawyers,

The Law is something beyond and above every statute that ever has been or could be passed. So far as The Law is concerned, a man offered to pay a hundred dollars for a cigarette and got the cigarette.

Eventually they succumb to the barrage of laweyrs and concepts and all the metaphysical refinements that go with them. But what Max Senior really owns is land, some of it outside Ohio.

Abdelilah marked it as to-read Jul 11, There is no written rule to tell whether a man who orders a house built with a bathroom between the kitchen and the pantry has to take the house and pay the builder if everything else is fine but the bathroom is between the living room and the coat-closet.

Therefore, we do not believe Congress meant what it said when it said to let the constitutional part stand. Want to Read Currently Reading Read. What was unconstitutional about that?

For in Lawrence v. Pawyers commonest and, by and large, the most effective dodge suggested and used was for the rich man to put his property in trust — which of course only meant giving the property to someone else to keep for him by the use of the proper legal rigmarole — and still to keep several strings on the property himself. And it is as useless to run from one lawyer to another in the hope of finding something better or something different or something that makes more lawyerss sense as it would be useless to run uunto one Ford dealer to another if there were no Chevrolets or Plymouths or even bicycles on the market.

The point is that the question of there being or not being an Offer is utter nonsense. Where the logic of the legal rule is so tenuous, the Court can blow now hot, now cold. Sonya added it May 17, The Law would lwayers it, all right, but not in those words. On that day Congress amended the statute so that the estate tax even more specifically applied to transfers of property in which the original owner hung on to the income for himself until his death.


Woe Unto You, Lawyers!

Yet it will take a great deal more than a collection of happenings like these to break down, layers, the superstition frrd the grandeur of The Law and the hold which that superstition has on the minds of most men. It persists in spite of the famous remark of the man whi is now the Court’s chief justice–and few have put the truth so plainly as did Charles Evan Hughes–“We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is.

Nor, if you can hold on just a little longer, is that all there is to Senior v. And incidentally, the idea that this might not be any business of ours at all is beneath serious consideration.

Because it uses the tax money to accomplish an unconstitutional purpose, namely, federal regulation of farmers. But this fact does not stop the Supreme Court from using such concepts as the basis of Constitutional Law. Which fact does not bother the Court in the slightest degree. Practically all the cases that reach the Supreme Court — and reaching the Supreme Court often means going through knto or four lower courts in turn, over a period of years — are of one of three kinds.

Peter Cave – – Philosophy Now Some people today have a strange notion. From the angle of the taxpayers, whether people or companies, the problem is simply: The tax, even though it is measured by the profits so that it works like an income tax, is called a property tax in the statute.

But once you know all those fact situations, what has Consideration become? And The Law is what counts. The changes are almost as good that he is basing his plea on one little clause out of one of the five sections of that longest of all the amendments.

A Tale of Woe?