4 ms·
The first example about ships is inaccurate. A ship isn't treated as a person in the law; it's treated as the thing that it is. There's a specific type of juris
by otterley 1y ago
The first example about ships is inaccurate. A ship isn't treated as a person in the law; it's treated as the thing that it is. There's a specific type of jurisdiction known as "in rem" ("over the thing") that differs from the typical "in personam" ("over the person") that gives the Court the ability to dispose of property without needing jurisdiction over its owner (otherwise known as an ex parte case). These different types of jurisdictions go back centuries, even further back than English common law from which U.S. law is derived.
This leads to amusing case names, like "United States v. 422 Casks of Wine" and "United States v. One Solid Gold Object in the Form of a Rooster".
- sandworm101 1y agoExactly. I expected reference to all sorts of things that have been held at customs. I remember one old case titled something like "New York v. a shipment of dildos." I also remember some state law where guns were 'persons'. If cops wanted to destroy siezed guns they had to go to court, where the guns would be represented by a lawyer who would argue for sale over destruction. (Arizona iirc)
- westmeal 1y agoDamn dildos get more representation than me.
- inglor_cz 1y agoIn most of the world, "a shipment of dildos" cannot be a participant of a trial, this is a US curiosity.
- sandworm101 1y agoBut nearly every country will put an empty chair on trial (in absentia). Dead people can also sometimes be represented in tort cases. Historically, kings and traitors have even been dug up to appear in court after death, literally. And the US regularly puts pre-verbal children on trial (immigration courts). Compared to that, the crate of dildos seams downright normal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaver_Synod https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaver_Synod
- MengerSponge 1y agoI believe that in most parts of the world you will regularly find shipments of dildos participating in trials.
- gsf_emergency_4 1y agoTotally OT but I just saw your force diagram question. The force diagrams I came up with have "invaginated arrows". In the std diagram students get confused about what forces act on which objects so the invaginated arrows trip them up just enough to make them figure out the right orientation on their own .. If you press me, I'd say these are nothing more than UX trials..
- MengerSponge 1y agoHmm, is there a picture somewhere? I support that statement! Where do you think UX designers learn about A/B trails in the first place?
- gsf_emergency_4 1y agoSee diagrams 2 & 3 here-- I used the water-style arrows for everything https://www.open.edu/openlearncreate/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=153820§ion=4.6 https://www.open.edu/openlearncreate/mod/oucontent/view.php?...
- mattmaroon 1y agoThat’s not a real old case, it’s an urban legend. You don’t remember the case, you remember reading some fiction.
- otterdude 1y agoI am continually baffled by the "logic" behind laws and the justice system. If corporations are people, then how can they be bought or sold considering the 13th amendment? How can money be speech, if the constitution allows congress to regulate commerce, but prohibits it from abridging speech. It just seems like in a common law system we're forced to live with half-assed arguments that corporate lawyers dreamed up while golfing with the judges.
- wmeredith 1y agoThe law is very much like a programming language in that it is attempting to abstract a concept from practice, so that it is useful in many applications instead of just one. In both cases these abstractions are always flawed. In the law's case, that's why we have judges.
- otterdude 1y agoThe problem is judges, especially in a common law system. Computers follow the machine code PERFECTLY. For the legal system judges get to embark on a jazz odyssey of bullshit. Were living in an easy to track, decades long legal conspiracy to abuse power for corporations - based on the Powell memo. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLYoqcr7bAIs7kdyMhh-9m4kPLCG6dGAkX https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLYoqcr7bAIs7kdyMhh-9m...
- saintfire 1y agoExcept that natural language is imperfect, as are lawmakers, as are lawmaking processes. Following exclusively the letter of the law, even where unambiguous, is not a win. That's effectively how people are trying to skirt the intent of a law (see: every corporation). The letter and the spirit are both important. Judges make bad judgments, they also make good judgements. Such is life.
- returningfory2 1y ago> If corporations are people, then how can they be bought or sold considering the 13th amendment? We simply pass a law saying that the act of incorporating a company is, among other things, punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, and the 13th amendment problems go away.
- mattmaroon 1y agoThe first example was corporations which also aren’t people because that isn’t what corporate personhood means.
- mkehrt 1y agoUnited States of America v. One Lucite Ball Containing Lunar Material (One Moon Rock) and One Ten Inch by Fourteen Inch Wooden Plaque
- user_7832 1y agoHonestly these'd make amazing band names.