Legal Theory: Why the Masses Love Coke!

“Legal Theory Love Coke”

By Neila Bennett.

Legal theory relates to the contextual history of political, social and economic landscapes at the conception of each law as it shapes the underlying principles governing laws that we take for granted as accepted in society today.

Is original law, still relevant, appropriate and equitable given the advancements in political, social and economic structure today?

An analysis of events that catylsyed the law reveals the context in their formation to discover in the details what it’s really doing, the how, when, where and why of the circumstances.    Looking at specific events as they relate to the general principles dislodges Aristolian from 16thC Hobbes and Locke.  What was relevant at 400BC may have adjusted by 16C.  Similarly Coke v James1, where King James sought to exempt himself from the law and deliniate judgement as he saw fit in accordance with the Divine Right of Kings.  Coke, known as an incorrputible judge saw fit to create and found the fundamental rights of the individual as distinct from tyranical monarchy.  Bequesting in Prohibitions del Roy (1607) 77 Eng Rep 1342 that monarchs are indeed subject to the law and not at liberty to judge alla quasi.  Nowadays Judges are given the inalienable right to align former law principles with contemporary conscience, i.e. dismissing ‘fairy tales’ and making up the law for themselves (albeit in association with current trends) as noted in 1998 House of Lords in “Kleinwort Benson Ltf v Lincold City Council [1998] UKHL 38 [1999] 2 AC 349.

Interestingly Jerome France in American Legal Realism (1949) noted that law education is [by far and away] inept in social and practical application.  Analogous to some representations of Occupational Health & Safety Laws in theory being totally impractical, unreasonable and overbearing to workers carrying out procedures in day to day tasks.  It is the weight of dislodgements of law that steam group dissent and eventually tip the balance of scales to the people in asserting due fundamental reasonableness.  In applying the originator’s case law from Coke v James1, people expected to be governed by laws e.g. Occupational Health & Safety Laws, should be consulted in the creation and formation of the Laws as they relate to practical and reasonable application if it is expected to be upheld in confidence.

1. People making laws are subject to them.

2. Can’t misjudge unfairly for self-interest only. Misappropriate of authority.

Terminology:  Declaratory Theory, Theory of legal positivism.

How did you react to the story of James 1 and Coke?  Interesting.

Did you like it or not like it?  Liked it.

Think it is relevant for law or irrelevant?  Totally relevant.

When you take something for granted, you accept it as an endogenous assumption, that cannot be changed.

When you research the origins of the ‘law’ and discover the context in which it was first established it may become apparent that the ‘law’ is obselet, irrelavant, unjust, or just plain stupid.  It may therefore give rise to readdressing the assumption to accomodate and assimmilate current, relvant infromation and therefore change the belief, law, and concurrent actions and behaviours incumbent in the operation of the previously upheld assumption.  Thereby progressing through moratorium, and establishing a Quadrapole Intercept Current (QIC pronounced kiss) which exists independent of the good opinion of others.  Speaking the instinctive truth that underly’s your natural state of being and loving existence.

Thank you,
Thought Leader, GLOBAL Markets Research/Writer,
Neila Bennett 

REFERENCES

Law Student Research Legal Theories: Context and Practices by Marett Leiboff and Mark Thomas, Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia Limited 2009

• Share
• Tweet
• "&title=""">