I understand but in order for us to overstand, knowledge(no limit)must be conceded. Therefore; sometimes common sense has to be accrued still and yet.
So you do have "a passion for the law" like I thought! Passion, excitement, what's the difference?I guess you can say something like that. The reason why I jump into this thread is because I just did research and wrote a paper on this doctrine. It was my second option behind writing about prosecutorial discretion which is the power of prosecutors to pick and choose who, what, when, and where to prosecute, which I think causes the law to be enforced unevenly. I think that black people usually get the short end of the stick. Because I was told that I probably would not be able to meet the requirement with that subject, I chose to go deeper and wrote about this subject, the ignorance of the law doctrine, which I think is the foundation to prosecutorial discretion. I can get deeper into it, but I do have a passion for the law in certain aspects such as this. I think in order to understand the game we must learn the rules. I think the first step to fighting back against inequality and injustice is to learn the law, then use the law to later change the law.
It is pretty crazy that I stumbled upon this subject because I just finished writing a paper on this very subject. I am actually going to expand on this paper in the upcoming semester and will be doing more research. This is a major issue, especially in our community. Ignorantia juris non excusat, the latin and legal phrase of this doctrine, is deeply rooted in this nations legal history and courts stand by this more times than not. I know someone said that this is just a legal doctrine, but legal doctrines are the law (precedent/case law/common law). We have to teach ourselves the laws which impact our everyday lives.
I will receive a J.D. in may (thanking God). This last semester, I will be preparing for the bar and networking. Yes I will be a lawyer, hoping to do civil work for most of the reasons we have talked about here.Hello Again !!!
I love this topic (the law) and am glad you do too ... though i know little about it.
What are you studying, if you don't mind sharing? I mean ... what will your degree be in ... will you be a lawyer?
I think it's so kewl to be able to study the law ... do well with it ... make us proud !!! ...
Much Love and Peace.
In order to help you through the process to work off some or most of the expenses your are now obligated to.I will receive a J.D. in may (thanking God). This last semester, I will be preparing for the bar and networking. Yes I will be a lawyer, hoping to do civil work for most of the reasons we have talked about here.
Law is pretty vast. Most people aren't going to be interested in studying it all.
In addition to jurisprudence (theory and philosophy of law), there is the history.
I recommend studying a small, basic subset of it all, for one's protection and benefit with emphasis on contracts.
Law is an overloaded word meaning it has multiple definitions and contexts.
Law is will. Will of the political power holder.
The Bible, especially the Old Testament, is a good primer on law.
The word covenant is an older synonym for contract.
This being the case marriage is a covenant, agreement, or contract.
So are many of the everyday conversations we have. If someone tells me they will pick me up and give me a ride to work, and they don't. If I loose my job. I can sue them for failure on their part. Under Negligence for not giving me a ride as agreed and contracted."This being the case marriage is a covenant, agreement, or contract."
I will receive a J.D. in may (thanking God). This last semester, I will be preparing for the bar and networking. Yes I will be a lawyer, hoping to do civil work for most of the reasons we have talked about here.
=================================================The concept of mens rea refers in law to the question of a mental act in a criminal case. According to the traditional principle, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means that "an act does not make a man guilty unless the mind is guilty. In other words, without the existence of a guilty intention, a person should not be found guilty of committing some crime - accidental acts are not to be regarded as criminal.
I read the first ten of forty-five pages and found it very informative. If the law was argued and applied as it was written and applied by Philosophers such as Aristotle. It would be more just.Although this seems reasonable, there are problems with it. How, for example, are we to treat people who commit crimes out of negligence, for example failing to stop at a stop sign because they did not see it? They are often given a fine and held responsible for that negligence, which would seem to violate the above principle.