Download Midterm Exam Study Guide | PHIL - Philosophy of Law and more Quizzes Philosophy of Law in PDF only on Docsity!
Deductive Model of Law
"If act A is of type T, then law L is applied. Act A is of type T. Law L is applied." This model is important because we see legal decisions presented in this form very commonly. However, this model is naive in attempting to account for all law. TERM 2
Precedent
DEFINITION 2 A legal case which establishes a principle or rule that a court may use when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. These are important because there would be an inconsistency in the law if a case was decided one way and a following case with a similar issue was decided completely different. TERM 3
Stare decisis
DEFINITION 3 Stare decisis literally means "let the decision stand". It is a policy of the court to stand by precedent in the common law system. It is important because provides law with a natural stability. TERM 4
Paternalistic interference
DEFINITION 4 Interference with an individual's liberty that is justified by reasons referring exclusively to the welfare of the individual himself or herself. Examples: Laws requiring seatbelts, helmets, and laws regulating recreational drugs. TERM 5
Majoritarian interference
DEFINITION 5 Interference with an individual's liberty on the grounds that his or her choices or actions are contrary to the views, values, or preferences of the majority. Examples: Laws against polygamy, gambling, and the restriction of alcohol sales on Sundays.
Privacy as autonomy
Privacy as autonomy is one of two distinct ideas of privacy (the other is privacy as secrecy). Legal concerns with privacy usually tend towards autonomy; "private property". TERM 7
Planned Parenthood v. Casey
DEFINITION 7 A Supreme Court case which was decided in 1992. Planned Parenthood challenged the constitutionality of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act signed by Governor Casey. It affirmed the right to an abortion under the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment. TERM 8
Brandenburg v. Ohio
DEFINITION 8 A Supreme Court case which was decided in 1969. It was based on the First Amendment and held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it intends to cause or is likely to cause imminent lawless action. It is important because it resulted in the Brandenburg test (or the imminent lawless action test). TERM 9
Brandenburg test
DEFINITION 9 The Brandenburg test was created by the Supreme Court case Brandeburg v. Ohio in 1969. It refines and limits the clear and present danger test for cases of political speech and states that speech which is directed to produce imminent lawless action and is likely to incite the action is not protected by the First Amendment right to free speech. TERM 10
Texas v. Johnson
DEFINITION 10 A Supreme Court case from 1989 regarding Greg Johnson, who had burned a flag at a political protest. It is important because it decided that laws prohibiting consecration of the flag were not constitutionally justified.
Question #2...
Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution starts: "The Executive power shall be vested in a Prez of the USA. He shall hold his office during the term of 4 years..." The pronoun in this article might be interpreted as meaning that a woman may not hold the office of President. Tony Honore presents 2 approaches to judicial interpretation. What does the purposive approach to interpretation say about Article II? What does the textual approach to interpretation say about Article II? Critique each approach to interpretation (positively and negatively) in light of Article II. TERM 17
Question # 1 Paragraph Summary
DEFINITION 17 Mills Harm Principle is a foundational principle of law and morality for liberal societies. It was presented in the book On Liberty by John Stuart Mill. Mills distinction between two categories of conduct include conduct which concerns only oneself and conduct which concerns others, even though in reality the distinction isnt sharp and clear. Self-regarding conduct directly affects the individual himself or herself. Other-regarding conduct directly affects the interests of others. TERM 18
Question #1 Paragraph Summary cont.
DEFINITION 18 Basically, the Harm Principle states that the law/society is justified in interfering with and/or preventing an individuals conduct only if it is found to be harmful to others. So, if someone wanted to cut off their own hand with a steak knife, they could very well do so, but if they intended to do it to another, they should not be allowed to do so.
