This is a purely educational website. Nothing here is legal advice or creates or implies an attorney-client relationship. If you have a specific legal issue, PLEASE talk to a lawyer who practices where you live—laws vary from place to place, and how they're applied varies from courthouse to courthouse. Your local county bar association can probably refer someone.
By using this site, you agree that you are awesome. Use of this site also constitutes acceptance of its
Terms of Service and Privacy Policies, which are known to medical science as a cure for insomnia.
It's best to keep all discussions in the comments. But if you really need to reach Nathan privately, go ahead and email him at n.e.burney@gmail.com. He won't mind.
THE ILLUSTRATED GUIDE TO LAW and the PEEKING JUSTICE logo are pretty damn cool trademarks and should probably be registered one of these days.
© Nathaniel Burney. All rights reserved, though they really open up once you get to know them.
Is it wrong that what I’m taking from this is that things ran much more smoothly when leaders focused on leadership and things went to hell after they got their hands on legislature?
How do you define leadership without including any legislative responsibilities?
It isn’t exactly difficult. The state does more than just writing laws, you know.
This is true. However, it doesn’t change that from the time the Roman Empire collapsed to the restoration of the Monarchy after the English Civil war the people of Great Britain were usually at war with either the continental Europeans or each other. So at least as far as England is concerned, things did the opposite of running smoothly before their leaders became enthusiastic legislators.
This depends in part on what is meant by “more smoothly” – are things running more smoothly, for example, when a system takes no notice of the question of motive, and treats one child accidentally killing another the same as deliberate murder by an adult?
More broadly I challenge the idea that simpler law adheres more to “common sense”, to the extent that is even meaningful – judicial innovation comes about because existing law is nonsensical.