As an observer of our legal system, which "school of thought" do you embrace?

Essay by csumbaguyUniversity, Master's November 2005

download word file, 2 pages 2.0 1 reviews

Downloaded 23 times

Professor Epstein was through when writing "Written in Stone." He begins with "Fleshing out spare texts is, if not the critical question in modern constitutional law." The constitution is rock solid and written for a particular day and time. If the constitution was written in 2005 there would be some differences. Therefore, the constitutions should be fleshed out, but not to the point to change the entire meaning.

Epstein also stated "the initial text sets the first leg of the journey, but does not provide a roadmap for the entire trip." The constitution was built on the first leg and must be built on. The constitution provides leeway and grey areas which are to be interpreted by the people. The problem is that rather than the people deciding on change, judges decide. Judges maintain the power to change law regardless of people's opinion. Therefore, I agree with Epstein because the law shouldn't be determined by a hand full of judges.

"Ancient Roman law that makes it unlawful to kill the slave or animal of another individual"(Epstein). This statement weakened his whole argument. This statement does not indicate that killing one's own slave is wrong. Therefore, the only wrong would be killing someone else's slave.

On the other hand individuals that consent to certain harms, like boxing are waving their statutory protections. Boxers professionally fight and know the dangers. As a citizen people do have the right to wave their rights, to an extent. This article should have discussed the topic of doctor assisted suicide, which is across the news. The controversy over assisted suicide is, if made legal people will be able to benefit through insurance claims. Also, if made legal who would define the difference between assisted suicide and murder. Although, assisted suicide is wrong to the majority...