Hilton, Adrian. The Principality and Power of Europe: Britain and the Emerging Holy Roman Empire (1997).

August 29, 2007

The Principality and Power of Europe
“The Union is a creation of law, and is now an autonomous law-making body in its own right, with full and final authority over its citizens. British national law is now subordinate to European law . . .”

UPDATE: My reviews on this blog are based purely on my impressions of the books that I read. I would hate to mislead anyone, so by all means read Mr. Hilton’s response to this item that is in the comments area to get the full story. Cheers.

Adrian Hilton begins his book about Euroscepticism declaring that he should not called xenophobic or accused of bigotry towards Europeans. He’s right, too, no where in this book does he really say he hates Europeans. Instead the book is all about his fear of Catholics. So bigotry towards Catholics is a better accusation.

Hilton’s book is an attack on the United Kingdom’s integration into the European Union, and (while I don’t have a horse in the race) I agree that the EU is a bad fit for the UK. At the same time Hilton’s argument is terribley flawed in that it is primarily based on arguments about the Church of England and the powers of the Queen. These seem, to me, to be very weak arguments to be making about a liberal and autonomous society such as the UK. He argues that because England is a protestant country, it should stay out of the EU because the EU is essentially a Catholic entity. It makes a great conspiracy theory, but doesn’t hold water. He bases this on Pope John Paul II (the book is a bit dated) support of the EU and on his opposition to the Yalta Agreement which subdivided Europe.

He reaches all the way back to Henry VIII’s split with the Rome to assert that England should be autonomous of the EU. He refers to Henry’s statement “This realm of England is an Empire” as legal grounds for Englands independence. What he is overlooking is the ongoing jurisdictional battles that had been occuring between Popes and temporal Princes. Rome claimed that it had both divine and temporal authority (granted at the Council of Chalcedon) over the leaders of Europe. Henry simple wouldn’t play along anymore (for reasons of divorce), but Rome abandoned the policy of asserting the temporal power that it claimed (although it still claims it), and has continued to so. One of his major critique’s is the Pope’s political persona. For example the Pope can address the UN. He claims that no other religious leader has that right, but he fails to realize that the pope is also a head of state and this is what allows him to address the UN. It is disconcerting that Hilton is worried about the Pope’s abilities as a religious leader, but endorses the English law that keeps the Queen and Prime Minister from being ROman Catholic.

To be honest though, I’m way behind on my posting, and just can’t be bothered to delve deeper into this book. Its got some interesting legal history and a very skewed and dated approach to the European Union. Probably, not the best place to begin your research, but hey, its your research – do as you please.

Adrian Hilton


Herrnstein, Richard J. and Charles Murray. The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (1994).

July 27, 2007

The Bell Curve

“Lawyers, for example, have higher IQs on average than Bus Drivers.”

The Bell Curve is a mammoth study of the effects of intelligence on social trends. Herrnstein and Murray seek to show that intelligence is the relevent predictor for things such as socio-economic status and unemployment. They then use their study to propose public policy based on this information; they claim this with help to destratify the rising high IQ upper class from the low IQ underclass. They were able to get a lot of press for this massive book by including a completely irrelevant section on ethnicity and intelligence (I’ll bet you can guess what they said). It’s fascinating reading if you can stomach 600 pages of statistics laden writing. If your like me and can only cope with the most basic of math then it is a book that takes some amount of dedication, and in the end might not be worth the trouble.

Before I hit on the law, I’d like to try and come to grips with what I found to be the major flaw of the book. There is nothing new in this discussion, it has been rehashed much better elsewhere. I think that the authors make some basic assumptions in their work that can’t be justified, and this is one of the things that has made the text so controversial. They fail to take into account basic cultural things that I just can’t conclude (even after their extensive proofs) don’t come into play more. For example, they attempt to show that IQ is for the most part set at birth and is not effected by years of education. However, the flaw is that they treat all education as equal. The result is that they assume two people with high school diplomas are similarly situated. This just isn’t the case. My high school education from Thomson High School in Thomson, GA prepared me much better for the SAT (a test they specifically address) than say a student at M.S. Palmer High School in Marks, MS. It doesn’t have a thing to do with the intelligence or race of the students in Marks. It has everything to do with the amount of opportunity embodied in the two different school systems. In the same way they show that Asians have a higher IQ than whites, especially in the area of maths. However, the cultural background emphasizes math and that sort of thinking. Thus culturally math is taught (if you don’t believe me have a look at Chinese school children and their abacuses). I don’t dispute that some portion of IQ may be genetic, but the study seems lacking to show that it works to the extent the authors claim. It excludes that the brain tends to be a muscle that can be exercised and can be developed.

The author’s claim that the main purpose of their book is to address public policy concerns, so I’ll leave all the nature versus nurture talk to the pros. As this is a law blog I’m going to run down the policy that they suggest and its legal implications. For this purpose I’ll simply accept their assertions about intelligence and get to the meat of what they suggest, which I at times find more problematic than their genetics discussion.

First, I think it should be pointed out that the authors are quite naive when it comes to the results of what they suggest. Early on they give a brief summation of the ways in which IQ has been used in the past to disadvantage ethnic and racial minorities. These include immigration policies as well as sterilization laws that were passed in the early 20th century (see Buck v. Bell a 1927 case in which Oliver Wendell Holmes upheld sterilization laws: “Three generations of imbeciles are enough”). Thus the authors are certainly aware of the dangers that racial differentiation have proved to cause in the past. But later the authors, before giving their racial data, seem to be dismissive of the history of racism in the United States. They state, “We cannot think of a legitimate argument why any encounter between individual whites and blacks need be affected by the knowledge that an aggregate ethnic difference in measured intelligence is genetic instead of environmental.” It seems to me that a Havard professor and a Bradley Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute might realize that in the US (and the world in general) “legitimate arguments” aren’t often used to support racism. I agree that study of such things can be extremely important scientifically, but when they begin to base public policy around it, they tread on the exact ground that our forefathers did in cases like Buck v. Bell and risk retrograde motion in society’s achievements.

Their jumping off point for their public policy claim is employment law. They note that both Congress and the Supreme Court (Griggs v. Duke Power) have made it illegal to use intelligence testing in hiring practices, and that this costs the economy up to $80 billion a year. This is due to hiring inefficiencies, which they claim could be beat with an IQ test. I grant intelligence testing is an effective way of determining whether a candidate will be suitable for a job. However, as the authors pointed out early on, this tradition has a history of manipulation. Thus the Supreme Court held that a test should have to do with the skills involved on the job and not general intelligence. Herrnstein and Murray dispute this logic by claiming that general intelligence tests tend to predict job performance better. As you might guess affirmative action also draws their fire, and probably rightly so. They explain the convoluded system which is used to determine whether a business is discriminating or not. But they also forget to put the system in historical perspective, and that we are still feeling the effects socially and culturally of past racism. The systems heart is in the right place, its just an inefficient way of producing the correct results. Thus they point out that the Civil Rights Act did not create a sudden change in blacks being in jobs, but just because those jobs are open to blacks doen’t mean that Blacks have been trained for them. In 1965 education was so ineffective for minorities that the effect of affirmative action would be impossible to feel immediately. The program seeks long term results in changing trends of disadvantage among minorities, who are not as ingrained in the upper eschelons of culture. Thus, they propose a thought experiment in which if all employment laws were abolished would the reader begin to discriminate. Two problems with this experiment. First, they have numerous times pointed out that the average reader is probably well educated and most likely and academic, so no the average reader probably wouldn’t, but the reader isn’t the average American. Second, They have told us statistically that intelligence is the best predictor of job preformance and that statistically a white person is more likely to be the more intelligent person – but suddenly the reader isn’t supposed to use that information. It follows right along with their willing naiveite when looking at racial problems. Essentially, the authors choose to ignore a history of discrimination, which we still feel the effects of today. The government hasn’t fixed the problem, but there is something empty in the authors suggestion.

They also attack the education system. I love this boneheaded quote from way up in the Ivory Tower, “on the whole, America had already achieved enough objective equalization in its schools by 1964 so that it was hard to pick up any effects of unequal school quality.” It is amazing that the South, just integrated had suddenly reached school equality. There are still large portions of the Southeast where de facto segregation still occurs which robs public (black) schools of tax support, because property taxes are voted down while people send the extra money to support private (white) schools. I’m not suggesting that anything illegal is happening, but it seems to me that a declaration of school equality is a bit of a premature and that it occured in 1964 exhibits some sort of backward thinking. They point out the inefficiency of such acts as Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and project Head Start. But even these don’t seem to get the fairest of shakes. For example they discuss how Project Head start works in the short run, but not in the long run. They never address whether this could be a failing of the environmental parameters. A child with intelligent parents is in that environment all the time, a child that is in the Head Start program shows improvement, but when the program ends backslides. This says to me that thereis an advantage to a continuing nuturing and developmental environment. They also point out that there is a neglect of gifted children through funding, but thi seems bit problematic – if there are so few really gifted and their chances of success are already greater, then why spend extra money on them, especially since they are less likely to be a burden to society (wouldn’t this create more of the stratification they claim to oppose?). They suggest that as a solution that 1. the federal government should support programs that enable all parents to choose the school their child attends; 2. A federal prize scholarship program; 3. reallocate some portion of existing elementary and secondary school federal away from the disadvantaged and to the gifted. My main concern is their reliance on the federal system to effect change in state education systems. I’ll not deny some of these may be helpful, but the state system is where change should be made inorder that all children in that state (not just the ones who have parents with enough gumption to send them to a better school) get a better education.

They also investigate affirmative action in Higher Education. Specifically addressing affirmative action in Law Schools and the evidence that came out of Georgetown University by an impromptu study by law student Timothy MacGuire. I must say that I agree with their assertions on affirmative action. While, initially it was to correct racial abuses, it is now used to enrich university life. That being said it should be reformed so that universities “cast a wide net in seeking applicants.” Giving advantage to disadvantaged students, instead of race based advantages, which are becoming obselete in university systems.

While they seem to appeal to liberal ideas and reforms at some points, at others they take on extreme conservatism. It is like they are a wolf in sheeps clothing or a sheep in wolfs clothing. As a whole their public policy comes up short because it seems not to be a progressive thing as they claim, but instead it is an attempt for them to reclaim some sort of historical life style. They exhibit this throughout the book with simple things such as their attatchment to the term “illegitimate” when referring to children. They base this on anthropological work on primitive cultures. Or when they state that they would like to “return to a state of affairs that prevailed until the 1960s, when children born to singloe women . . . were more likely to be given up for adoption at birth.” Or there assertion that to stop children being born out of wedlock the goverment should give unmarried mothers no recourse to child support and unmarried fathers no recourse to visitation (because obviously the mother is always deserving of the child). It seems they want to have their cake and eat it, too. They talk big about a free society, but at the same time want to revert to a culturally oppressed one, in which the government may regulate less, but society still disadvantages and stigmitizes numerous people. The race implications of the book don’t help. They do have some good policy ideas, but being linked so inextricably to race soils them way too much. Basing any new policy on a study that says that blacks are dumber, no matter how effective the policy is unacceptable. They would probably claim that this isn’t their intention. In fact, they make claims about the fact that people won’t discriminate in light on this information, but they have presented no proof on that front. Racism isn’t as dead as they would have you believe; it is alive and well. Reading objectively, the case for the authors racism is in the book: the inclusion of the section on race and intelligence is irrelevant for proving the point they sought to prove. It was included to be inflamatory. Congrats.

A few other legal tidbits from the book that I might include. There is a bit of Ph.D. elitism going on: The authors mention, as advanced degrees Ph.D.s, M.D.s, and LL.B.s. Don’t they know that we lawyers get J.D.s these days or are they still holding a grudge that we get that Doctorate in three years? Later of course they do pay homage to the fact that lawyers can be of great worth (including those that never see the inside of a court room) by gaining favorable decisions or even through such things as jury selection. They also claim that attorneys are likely to be, on average, one standard deviation above the mean intelligence, but of course we already knew that. They claim that the destruction of the concept of negligence in tort law is based on the egalitarian principle that endorses the redistribution of goods to the underpriviledged. I would like to direct them to Torts I – Negligence. They suggest redoing the criminal law system to make it simpler (against dumbing dowm school books, but for dumbing down the law), they completely overlook why the system is complex in the first place: Justice isn’t easy.

Richard J Herrnstein
Charles Murray

Jerome, Jerome K. Three Men in a Boat (1889).

June 19, 2007

Three Men in a Boat
“It must have been worth while having a mere ordinary plague now and then in London to get rid of both lawyers and the Parliment.”

Somewhere between a travel guide and a satirical victorian novel, Three Men in a Boat is a crafty piece of writing that takes the reader up the Thames river from London to Oxford with three men weary of the city but not quite adept at coping outside it’s bounds and a dog who at times seems more like a kidnap victim than a pet. Jerome, leads us up the river with a self deprecating narrator and his two pals, all of whom know exactly what they are doing but have no idea how to do it. The trip itself is laden with comedic tales, historical lessons, and sublime meditations on the beauties of nature. I found it a great read and highly reccomend it.

As for the law. It comes in a few different divisions. Probably the largest chunk could be looked at as Legal History. As the trip goes up the river the narrator points out numerous sights where Kings and Queens have inhabited. The first with real legal connotation is when he is at Runnymede where in 1215 Magna Carta was signed on Magna Carta Island in the middle of the Thames. He recounts the story as if he were there amongst the barons who were forcing the hand of the slippery King John. The narrator also notes that Magna Carta was “translated to the common people some four hundred and odd years later by on Oliver Cromwell, who had deeply studied it.” The trip then passes Old Windsor where, according to Jerome, Earl Godwin was “proved guilty by the justice of that age of having encompassed the death of the King’s Brother.” Godwin apparently said that if he was guilty the bread that he put in his mouth would choke him, and it did. Finally they pass through Reading where Parliment would move to if there were a plague in London and the “Law followed suit” in 1625.

Property law is addressed in a scene where the trio are on the bank of the river and man comes up and asks whether they are trespassing. After a comical exchange they send him away and note that he was only after a bribe and the best way to handle these situations is to “offer your name and address, and leave the owner, if he really has anything to do with the matter, to summon you, and prove what damage you have done to his land by sitting down on a bit of it.” This interaction though leads to a short diatribe at the riparian land owner on the Thames who placards up no trespassing signs, and that this selfishness creates an urge in the narrator to hammer the placards down on their heads. It reminds me of that Tesla song. Of note here though, is that under common law there was no need for the owner to show damage only that the defendant had actually trespasses, so the party could have been held liable.

There is a smidgen of criminal law as George recounts a morning in which he got up too early and wandered about London. It raised the suspiscion of the police who escorted him back home. This scared him a great deal and he “pictured the trial, and his trying to explain the circumstances to the jury, and nobody believing him, and his being sentenced to twenty year’s penal servitude, and his mother dying of a broken heart.” Illustrating the coercive power of the police force to even disuade a person from legal activities. Poor George is later charged with playing the banjo badly in public. The evidence is clear and he is given a six month restraining order. Another run in with the police is suggested when lodging is hard to find. George thinks they could get a free nights lodging by assaulting a police officer, but there is the danger that they would only get hit back, so the thought is abandoned.

Mention of a will is made in which a Sarah Hill, left £1 to be divided amongst two boys and two girls who “had never been undutiful to their parents; who had never been known to swear or tell untruths, to steal or to break windows.” The narrator says that these types of children had been hard to come by and observes that this is alot to give up for 5 shillings a year. I agree.

Finally, there is a funny little moment where the Narrator recalls an attempt by Harris to sing the Judge’s song from Trial by Jury. The lines of which are “When I was young I served a term/ As office-boy to an Attorney’s firm.”

Jerome K. Jerome

Rushdie, Salman. Midnight’s Children (1981).

June 6, 2007

Midnight’s Children“Mr. Kemal, who is the thinest man Amina Sinai has ever seen, sets off with his curiously archaic phraseology (derived from his fondness for litigation, as a result of which he has become infected with cadences of the law courts) a kind of chain reaction of farcical panic . . .”

Trying to summarize a book by Salman Rushdie in a small paragraph to start a blog article discussing it is just futile. This is due to the multiple competing topics that one could claim to say one of his books is “about.” Midnight’s Children is no exception and may even be the epitome of his layered and complex storytelling. I will take the overt metaphor from the book though, and make the claim that it is about India, but only with the reservation that this is only one of many themes and in a story about fractured land, fractured people, and fractured plots. In fact this is probably to simple. Thus I could also be very happy claiming that it is about fractures. What I won’t do is attempt to tell you what happens in any detail as it would bog down the legal analysis. Instead I will write from the oh so academic stand point that you the reader have already read the book (and if you haven’t you should) and commence with the legal analysis forthwith.

My reading of the novel is that Rushdie presents the law as a magically real experience that attempts to define and control man but in the end causes postmodernesque fragmentation and fracturing instead. This is a theme that I think can be traced throughout Rushdie’s work, but this is my initial foray into this little project so what I present below is more formative than anything else.

Saleem Sinai is Rushdie’s overt metaphor for the state of India, and was born at the exact moment that India gained independence from Great Britain. This can be seen as an initial jumping off point for Magically Real Law. At this moment India became India again, and not the British Colony of India. The magically real aspect is that this is treated as a birth, but does anything new actually exist, are the people suddenly different? Or instead is it simply that the legal matrix has shifted? Rushdie’s answer, I think is that it is only a legal matrix, which attempts to create a concrete existence for the people.

As is proper, we learn of the birth of India, but we must first look at the history. Rushdie examines Ghandi’s attempt to defeat the British domination with silence, the British counter of the Rowlatt Act (against political agitation), and Martial Law regulations. These are battles that are occuring not so much between peoples as between legal frameworks. That is not to say that people aren’t affected, indeed they are highly affected in that the law helps to support culture. The metaphor for this can be found when Methwold insists that those that buy his estate live like the English until the exact moment of Independence. In doing this he forces his culture, through a contract, upon the Indian Families that move into to his estate. Not only do they must absorb his culture, but they must also absorb his law. The contract is probably based on the British model, as is the property law that supports it. The larger picture is that after the British leave, the remnants of their legal order doesn’t, and those remnants may not support the underlying culture of the people as well.

The theme again arises in light of the partition of Pakistan from India. It was all occupied by the British, but upon independence there were two countries with competeing views. These two regions, before the British colonization had not existed as any sort of nation state, yet afterwards they had embraced the idea of nationalism. This is a very real thing, but its basis is ephemeral. Time even was suceptible to it as the clocks in Pakistan “would run a half an hour ahead of their Indian counterparts.” These partitions and borders, while real and enforced are only magical divisions and do not reflect the actual layout of the culture and the population. Furthermore they are suddenly Western nation states, thus creating the need for a large legal net as opposed to micro legal systems.

Much of this partition is drawn along religious lines, with India becoming a secular state and Pakistan becoming a Muslim state. But this partition can’t hold up under its own terms, because of the deep religious currents in India. We find this when Ahmed’s assets are frozen by the government because he is a Muslim. It is fought in the courts but only won by bribes, which further exposes contradiction within the law, which is meant to be secure and final. As Nehru consults astrologers for his 5 year plan for his secular state, the legal system for the people becomes just as malleable and susceptable to non legal argumentation. Hindu’s and Muslims clash, but they now clash under the framework of a Western legal tradition. Later in the book, there is an attempt to reorganize India into states of Languages, an analysis of this would follow the same sort of reasoning.

The magically real partioning on the territories then becomes magically real in Saleem who feels himself literally fracturing into pieces. What Rushdie has achieved is showing the consequences of the law on the person or body. The fracture is more than legal, more than mental; it is a physical affliction to the people and the culture. This physicality is repeatedly shown in the main character of Saleem.

Saleem describes his existence in India as one of an “infinity of alternate realities,” but in Pakistan where truth is what the law says it is he is beset with and “infinite number of falsenesses.” The differences in the two cultures can be explained by the differences in the law. Secular law allows for possiblity, whereas theocracy allows only for the binary of truth an falseness. When the law enforces this binary the truth becomes magically real as it is supported by an item that is also magically real (if you accept that the law is a magically real structure i.e. that it comes from nowhere yet we accept it as a solid and binding force). The dichotomy between the two exhibits exactly this point. If the law were a real thing it would be substantially the same in each country, instead the law is created in reaction to the presence or lack of religion exposing the law’s preoccupation with rule and its lack of concern with justice.

These are just really initial thoughts and formulations on a somewhat perfunctory read of the novel. It should be noted that legal themes run through out. On can find criminal law, contract law, family law, tax law, immigration law, and probably scads of other items throughout. Each of these in turn can probably have this idea applied to it and be used as a way of exposing weakness in the system.

Salman Rushdie

Lukefahr, Oscar. “We Believe…”:A Survey of the Catholic Faith. (1995)

April 30, 2007

We Believe…: A Survey of the Catholic Faith : Revised and Cross-Referenced to the Catechism of the Catholic Church

“Laws are necessary and good, but Christ’s followers must constantly strive to view them according to their mind and heart.”

Oscar Lukefahr, in “We Believe…”, attempts to give a straightfoward and short introduction to Catholicism. Its main audience is intended to be those that are new to the faith, but it could probably be handy for tried and true Catholics as well (not being Catholic myself I’m only assuming). His text covers many parts of the faith and cross references to the Catechism of the Catholic Church making it very easy to reference back to the source of the official doctrine. It is an easy read and is very accessible to the average unitiated reader.

There are three different types of references to law that can be found in the book. The first is references to occurences of law within the Bible. The second is to Canon Law itself. Finally, there are references to the role of the Catholic Church in the political state.

His references to law in the Bible aren’t by any means a full treatment of the subject. Instead, they are incidental to the story that Lukefahr is telling. He begins with a brief history of the nation of Israel. He notes that in 63 BC the Romans conquered Jerusalem and made Palestine a vassal state. This event created, of course, conflicting regimes in the area: Roman Law versus Jewish Law. He states that throughout its long history “the Israelite nation had little political or military influence” (barring a brief period under David). He then goes on to discuss the formation of the Bible itself as the telling of this history, noting that among the different items collected into the document are laws, which is what the Jewish priests were trained in.

After his discussion of Jewish history he moves into the life of Christ (and the beginnings of Christian history). In describing the political climate, he relates the different sects of Jews that were active at the time. Of particular note are the Sadducees and the Pharisees both of whom strictly followed the written law that could be found in the Torah. Also, he mentions the Zealots, who believed the Messiah would be a military leader and a political leader.

Christ’s tensions with these groups came partly, according to Lukefahr, from his resistance to their observance of “thousands of detailed regulations.” The Sadducees feared that he would cause a “civil disturbance,” whereas the Pharisees accused him of breaking the law. This, of course, leads to one of the most monumental moments in history and an interesting bit of conflict of laws. The Pharisees tried Christ in a secret “unfair trial” and sentenced him to death. They then took him to Pontius Pilate in order that he might be condemned under Roman Law also. Lukefahr claims this is because they didn’t want to bear the blame and because they wanted Christ “to undergo the humiliation of a Roman crucifixion.” They accused him of treason, but Pilate found him innocent. As we all know, though, the Pharisees were persistent and eventually forced Pilate to sanction the execution.

After the death of Christ, the apostles go on telling his story. This is when Canon law begins to develop. One example that can be found in Lukefahr’s work is that many Christians of Jewish background were upset that Paul and Barnabas did not require new converts to follow Jewish Law. This view was rejected by a council in Jerusalem in 49 AD. This council reflects one of the early law making bodies in the church. Councils like this dealt with theological and rule making matters (and still do today). Lukefahr takes note that some people believe that “Christ never intended a Church with its leaders, rituals, laws, and potential for scandal and sin.” he makes the argument though that the Church was intended to have standards of membership and portrays Christ as a rule giver. He states that the church is a society and that “no society can exist without” rules and leaders.

As to specific rules of Canon law, his references are sparse. Propbaly the best place to find them are in his description of the sacrement of Marriage. He discusses specifically the capacity to be wed noting that a marriage can be invalidated by the Church if it violates either Church law or civil law. He also discusses the process for a annulments that are given by a diocesan tribunal. The anullment does not have civil effects and does not affect the status of children. He then discusses the Pauline Priviledge in which the Church amay disolve the marriage of unbaptized persons (and the similar Petrine Priviledge between an unbaptized and a baptized). Finally, he addresses divorce. The Catholic Church does not view civil divorce as ending a marriage, an annulment must be granted. Lukefahr does note though that the civil divorce does not exclude a Catholic from practice of the faith and that the civil divorce may be a necessity in order to protect people from abuse.

He also addresses the Ten Commandments. He argues that if the commandments are kept by all then we can truly be free. For example. if nobody steals then we are free from having to lock up out things, etc. It is an interesting argument, but not terribley well developed.

When it comes to the Church and its functions in the State, Lukefahr begins with the Decree of Milan issued by Constantine in 313 which granted religious toleration to Christians. While he notes that Constantine’s effots ended many problems, he is wary that this “opened a door to church-state entanglements that would create new problems for the Church.” This door is taken advantage of as the Roman Empire begins to collapse allowing the Church to “bec[o]me a civilizing force,” and again when Charlemagne was crowned Holy Roman Emperor in 800 and “renewed church-state ties, laying the groundwork for corruption and decay.” This corruption persisted until, he claims, the Council of Trent, after which there has been a steady movement “away from secular entanglements.” He even goes so far as to mention the US Constitution as a “new understanding” of the church state relationship.

This book functions as a handy introduction to the Catholic faith and includes both Theology and a little bit of law. While it is targeted more towards those actively trying to enter the faith, it could prove handy to someone needing an introduction to Catholic teachings.

Oscar Lukefahr

Gayle, Mike. Brand New Friend (2005).

March 14, 2007

“. . . or the Bell and Basin in Clapham, which, when it came to licensing laws, was a law unto itself . . .”

I feel that I need to defend myself for, knowingly, picking up such a piece of rubish to read (how did I know it was rubbish? The review quote on the back that touted it as “Bridget Jones for boys” was what gave it away). The wife and myself had just moved to Charlton in the Greenwich Borough of London. While we were out exploring our new environs, we happened upon the Charlton House. As we went in we were asked if we were there to see Mike Gayle speak. The next thing we know we are watching a discussion with the author over his new book, which has been chosen by the Greenwich Borough as the book that they want everyone in the Borough to read (so that everyone will be “buzzing” about it). Being good community people (and suckers for autographed books) we bought a copy.

Why Greenwich would choose such a trite novel as the “one book to get the borough reading” for its Greenwich Reads campaign is beyond me. The author isn’t even local (hell he isn’t even from London and had never been to Greenwich until the day we happened to see him at Charlton House). The book follows Rob who is a graphic designer that moves from London to Manchester in order to be with the love of his life, Ashley. This decision though causes him to move away from his friends, and the focus of the book is his inability to make new friends. Finally after many miserable pages he makes a friend, the hitch is that she is a girl. This causes all the cliched friction that is customary, and the situation ends just about how you think it will. The characters are stereotypes, the plot is meaningless, and the only consolation is that is a very fast read.

The books moments of legal inquiry are brief and unexciting. SInce there is no sort of legal theme that I could identify, I’ll just run through it willy nilly and be done with this stupid review of this stupid book.

Rob’s group of friends in London include in their pub discussion topics “will a socialist utopia ever be possible.” The reason I mention this is that whenever one is reading English history, one finds that everything from literature being written to scientific discoveries happens in pubs. So why not a healthy discussion of the law.

When, Rob moves in with his friends during University he is told not to steal food from a certain roomate unless he wants to start World War III. I once answered a question on an international law exam to the effect that the law among the nations is analogous to the law among roomates. I got an A.

Rob’s girlfriend asks him “who died and made you Minister of Boozing?” What a wonderful government position. I’m running for it next year.

Jo, Rob’s “brand new friend,” is a housing agent who must insist (due to legal requirements) that a man who breaks his own toilet only to have it repaired must fill out the requisite forms. He refuses and tells her that she’ll be hearing from his solicitor.

One of Ashley’s friend’s ex’s married a trainee barister.

And finally some questions “weren’t issued in a digging-for-information-that-can-and-will-be-used-as-evidence-against-you way.” This simply illustrates the prevalence of the United States’ Miranda Rights in world culture.

Brand New Friend
Mike Gayle

Wallace, Irving; Amy Wallace; David Wallechinsky; Sylvia Wallace – The Secret Sex Lives of Famous People (1993)

March 6, 2007

“But sex is part of us all. As the late Justice William O. Douglas of the US Supreme Court put it, ‘The idea of using censors to bar thoughts of sex is dangerous. A person without sex thoughts is abnormal.'”

The Secret Sex Lives of Famous People consists of a series of short biographical sketches about actors, heads of state, authors, sports stars, and various other people situated in the public eye. Each sketch, of course, seeks to shed light upon the more intimate details of that person’s sexual experience. The book contains numerous fascinating tidbits, but needs editing both in that it is too long (491 pages) and that it is packed full of mistakes (e.g. to whom it may concern: William Faulkner is not from Missouri . . . I swear pearls before swine).

The book is actually ripe with legal tidbits (it is too ripe with them for me to even list them all) including everything from divorce suits to laws about sex to bizarre tort claims. However, a theme can be found in the pages even if it is unintended by the authors. The book is organized alphabetically instead of chronologically so tracing the theme throughout the pages is like a puzzle, but if put together correctly it paints a picture of how laws dealing with sex (mainly through family law) have evolved from early church rule in the matter to state adoption and legislation. Furthermore, it shows how the state (up until recently I would argue) has legitimized the traditional sex roles that came from the origins of family law within the church. The state has drawn those traditional mores foward into modern society, but not just in the realm of family law. For instance obscenity laws often serve to enforce societies views on sexual morality instead of actually outlawing items that are so offensive that they are dangerous. A prime example of this is one of the prongs in the US Supreme Courts formulation of what obscenity is for First Amendment purposes: whether “the average person, applying contemporary community standards” would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest. By using “contemporary community standards” the court allows a community to decide on the level of deviancy from norms (it also allows for things to be constitutional in some places and not others, which is to say the least problematic).

This theme of legitimation by the state in the book is counter balanced by a steady theme of subversion. Subversion of sexual norms were traced throughout history from Popes to heads of state to political activists. Interestingly, this subversion is unlike most political activism, which is often explicit and pronounced. Sexual subversion is usually private due to the nature of the relations, and it only takes on an activist role once it has been exposed to the scandal sheets. Of course this isn’t the rule, both Rasputin and Marquis de Sade (who both have chapters in the book) were quite outspoken subversives for their own ideas about sex. However, it has only been very recent that there have been outspoken and widespread sexual movements that show some sort of solidarity. These movements still suffer from the norms that the state seeks to enforce through of family law, obscenity laws, and other avenues, thus many who would speak do not due to the stigmatizing effects that this sort of legitimation entails.

This is not to say that all restrictions on sexual activity should be repealed, but instead for us to question the true motives of restrictions and whether they serve a purpose that goes further than enforcing the majority’s moral code.

Below I have listed some of the more memorable law related moments from the book as well as a list of Lawyers, Law Students, and Judges that had their own chapters:

Law Moments

  • Father Divine was arrested in Georgia and booked as “John Doe alias God.” He later proved his divinity when a New York Judge who had sentenced him to 6 months in Jail died of a heart attack.
  • Napolean refused to allow punitive legislation against homosexuality.
  • Farouk I painted all of his cars red and then made it illegal for any other cars to be that color. This way he could speed without police interference.
  • Errol Flynn was involved in a saucy little statutory rape suit. He was aquitted.
  • When 10-years-old, Billie Holiday was sentenced to a Catholic Reform school, because she was raped by her neighbor the much, much older Mr. Dick.
  • J. Edgar Hoover said, “I regret to say that we of the FBI are powerless to act in cases of oral-genital intimacy, unless it has in some way obstructed interstate commerce.”
  • Marie Stopes testified at her divorce trial that her husband “was never effectively rigid.”
  • Oscar Wilde pressed charges against a Marquis who accused him of homosexual activity. The Marquis then showed that he could prove it. Wilde dropped the charges and had to flee the country to escape prosecution.

Lawyers, Law Students, and Judges

  • Giovanni Jacopo Cassanova
  • Charles Dickens
  • Honore Balzac
  • James Boswell
  • Mahatma Gandhi
  • William Gladstone
  • Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
  • Aly Khan
  • Martin Luther
  • Guy de Maupassant
  • Marquis de Sade

The Secret Sex Lives of Famous People
Irving Wallace
Amy Wallace
David Wallechinsky