Primogeniture

It is extraordinary how many people come into my office believing the oldest son somehow has some inherent right to govern the estate of the parents.

Being a lawyer, I start looking for authority for this rule. I start with Exodus 13-

The Lord said to Moses, “Set apart for me the first boy born in every family. The oldest son of every Israelite mother belongs to me. Every male animal that is born first to its mother also belongs to me.”

And thus Primogeniture was born, as well as animal law.

Note the ancient practice of Primogeniture called for the first born male to actually inherit, not just govern his parents estate. This lead to the ancient practice of fratricide as well.

Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let’s go out to the field.”
And while they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.
—Genesis 4:1-8

It has never been clear to me his motive, Abel was not the oldest. Cain was going to inherit anyway. Perhaps Cain got bad legal advise from the internet.

Here is something to keep the modern mind away from such sin; slayers do not inherit. See Revised Code of Washington.

Letters of Marque and Reprisal; Privatize the war on ISIS

It appears the President is hesitant.

Elected on the pledge to return our troops home there seems to be mounting evidence they should have stayed.

Back when the United States Constitution was first framed, it was not uncommon for a country to grant a license to a privately owned and armed ship to sail out onto the seas and sink, burn or capture as a prize the vessels of an enemy. Navy’s are expensive, and the entire enterprise is risky. Why not shift that risk, with the associated rewards, to some one else?

So at Article I, Section 8, part 11 it is reserved to Congress to:

Declare war, issues letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

Sure, Halliburton and Blackwater have given privatizing war a bad name in the present day, but as far back as Francis Drake (d. 1596 ) these men have been considered one piece of paper away from pirates. And that piece of paper made everything all legal.

Plenty of prizes await say, Shell Oil, in the region.

The President is hesitant, Congress should act. Let us issue letters of marque and reprisal to tame the beast that has engulfed Mesopotamia.

Dry County? Is that Legal?

In the check out line in Seattle a customer was purchasing Jack Daniels Tennessee Whiskey. The clerk noted he hadn’t had any of that in a while.

I couldn’t help but relate the stuff is distilled in a dry county.

The staffer was incredulous? “Is that legal?” he asked.

Yes, I know that everything is legal in Seattle it seems.

The most striking aspect of the clerks comment to me was the notion that a ban on sale of alcohol would be considered illegal. File that under “tyranny of the minority”, or “temperance is against the law”, something like that.
Washington is one of 32 states that permits localities to opt out of the sale of alcohol. None have.

Much of Tennessee has the mixed county rule ( yellow ) but not Moore county ( red ) where Lynchburg sits. One has to drive to Coffee county to the north to actually purchase a bottle of Mr. Jack.

The irony of the name of Coffee county as the closest place to purchase Jack Daniels has never been lost on me, which is where I bought my first bottle after the tour years ago. Just before I left Lynchburg the hillbilly tour guide asked me if I knew why the bottle was square. “So it don’t roll out from underneath your seat!”

Family Law Tip: Do Not Bring the Subject Matter to Court

This may sound fairly obvious but if you are litigating over children, the judge does not need to see them. They have a pretty good idea of what children look like, some of them are even parents. They will not be swayed by who is holding the subject matter.

I am just back from the family law motions calendar and found as many babes in arms as there were lawyers and litigants.

One boy was a bit older, and was waiting out in the hall with his aunt presumably. He had a toy gun, which he aimed and fired at everyone.

We have security, how did he get that thing into the courthouse?

How Many Stars Would You Give the United States Constitution?

I recently bought a copy of the constitution on Amazon. My reward is an opportunity to review the document on their website. The question seems a bit obscene, given the gravity of the document, as it has asked me to rate it as if it were a motion picture.

Our constitution embodies a foundational understanding of what it means to be an American. It sets forth a rule of law for us all to count on, no matter who may be in office or what should transpire.

The idea that the foundational laws of a country should be set forth in a single document was rather radical at the time it was adopted, 1788. The precedent Articles of Confederation (1781) failed to work out, and shortly it appeared the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts authored by John Adams (1780) seemed to be the most workable frame for government; a bicameral legislature, an executive and an independent judiciary.

Britain, by contrast has a series of documents starting with the Magna Carta (1215), each of which reflects the prevailing concerns of the age.
We now see a great constitutional debate in our mother country, The United Kingdom, whose Prime Minister has proposed what appears to be more of a federation like our own.

This is feasible. The historical documents delineating the role of the monarch, Parliament and the judiciary remains a workable collection of documents and practices subject to change from time to time.

Our Constitution, by contrast, is treated as Holy Writ, authored by now God like men referred to commonly as “the Founding Fathers” making changing it a heresy. James Madison, the documents author, was an extraordinary man. But he was still just a man.

I am beginning to have my doubts the American Revolution was necessary or has really served us in the long term. I have yet to meet any Americans who agree with me. The British generally feel differently of course.

The British seem to be able to get things done. Sure, it is a much smaller country, but troubles here seem to perpetuate due to the weight given to the terms of a document which certainly allows for amendment, but doesn’t seem to be all that flexible until a Supreme Court is willing to either overrule itself or find a new logic to come to a different result.

Take the 2nd Amendment for example. We seem powerless to address the twin and competing needs to curb gun violence while respecting American desire to own and carry firearms. Change is out of reach.

This is our law. It is good thing for any American to read from time to time. One might ponder the number of comma’s in the 2nd Amendment, which might be read as error and tend to cut the Founding Fathers down to a humanity that may lead to America rising from it’s bended knee before this document and addressing the challenges we face today.