The Supreme Court has failed to do what its English predecessors did for centuries: create remedies for wrongs. But in the states, courts have started living up to their ancient responsibilities.
I like this article. Our legal traditions are complex, and you've done a good job here of parsing some basic ideas about their framing.
This may interest you. A few years ago, I wrote a long article deconstructing our concepts of laws and rights from a linguistic point of view. I started from the observation that our rights, intrinsically, are never exactly "equal"; for instance, someone convicted of murder doesn't have the same rights as someone not convicted of murder. I found that questions about *who* laws apply to and *when* they apply could use a different kind of attention, and, in grappling with these questions, I needed to set aside a lot of legal thinking about how law is practiced and strip these terms down to a more technical and general set of definitions. I posted it on Researchgate, if you are curious:
I like this article. Our legal traditions are complex, and you've done a good job here of parsing some basic ideas about their framing.
This may interest you. A few years ago, I wrote a long article deconstructing our concepts of laws and rights from a linguistic point of view. I started from the observation that our rights, intrinsically, are never exactly "equal"; for instance, someone convicted of murder doesn't have the same rights as someone not convicted of murder. I found that questions about *who* laws apply to and *when* they apply could use a different kind of attention, and, in grappling with these questions, I needed to set aside a lot of legal thinking about how law is practiced and strip these terms down to a more technical and general set of definitions. I posted it on Researchgate, if you are curious:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351608819_The_Ineluctable_Person
Thank you! Sounds really interesting.