Extra-credit: "Does God Exist?" Tosin Onibiyo.

This is the link to my extra credit video. Does God exist? I believe there is a God even though at the seminar there were a lot of people who believe God do not exist. I believe God exist even though I have not seen him but he shows His signs and wonders. He heals when we sick, he has risen the dead, He has performed miracles and I just believe totally in Him. The other opponent believe otherwise. They think the miracles we claim was just a coincidence of time, it's just human being getting lucky or you don't and so forth. And like said in the video, even though they have a pretty good point, I still believe God do exist. 

Link to video below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQtn4Q2dnaw&hd=1

Enjoy! 

Conclusion of Nussbaum argument - Tosin Onibiyo

In my arguments, I noticed how McLean’s dissent in aspect to racism basically pointed out the Justice Taney’s historical errors once again, how irrational the decision was towards another fellow human being who was labelled as only a property of another, and how disgusted Justice Taney was towards Scott and classified him a non-citizen of the United States. Disgust relies on moral obtuseness. It is possible to view another human being as a slimy slug or a piece of revolting trash only if one has never made a serious good-faith attempt to see the world through that person’s eyes or to experience that person’s feelings. Disgust imputes to the other a subhuman nature. How, by contrast, do we ever become able to see one another as human? Only through the exercise of imagination.

The disgust statement above  in aspect of the Scott case explains how Justice McLean tend to emphasize that the other justices did not show much compassion before making the harsh decision they made against Dred Scott as per they saw him as just a slave, minority; a piece of property and not human just like they are. But in fact, Justice Mclean was a visionary for his time because he understood that justice couldn’t be in scarcity for an ethnic group in society. He firmly believed the Dred Scott decision was a miscarriage of justice and that decision could have farther consequences in the black community.

In the “disgust” perspective, the system did not accord any compassion for Scott, an attribute that is essential to fairly try a case and emphasize with fellow humans. However, Mclean did show emotions in his dissent although that did not stop the decision from taking effect. I welcomed emotions in my discourses and encouraged it to be part of court decisions. I also argue that, hiding behind the robes, judges and justices are making gigantic mistakes because their humanity is hidden which was the case for Dred Scott and his family. I argue the relevance of emotion for the law to be undeniable. It would be impossible to completely remove emotions from the law and transform it into a tool of pure logical analyses.

The second part I am discussing disgust on will is the same sex marriage/homosexuality scenarios. Today, disgust is not much defended as a ground for sodomy laws, but it does play a prominent role in debates over gay rights. Same-sex relationships have been disgusted by so many in the society even states enacted laws upholding sodomy acts to be illegal practice and a crime. In Bowers v Hardwick (1986), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a Georgia sodomy law criminalizing oral and anal sex in private between consenting adults when applied to homosexual after Hardwick was observed by a Georgia police officer while he was engaged in the act of consensual homosexual sodomy with another adult in the bedroom of his home. He was thereby been charged with violation of the Georgia statute that criminalized sodomy. Hardwick challenged the statute but to no avail (although this case was later overturned in 2003). Another example, campaign literature on behalf of Colorado’s Amendment Two (the law that denied local communities the right to make non-discrimination laws for sexual orientation, overturned in Romer v. Evans – a case which Supreme Court ruled that a state constitutional amendment in Colorado preventing protected status based upon homosexuality or bisexuality did not satisfy the Equal Protection Clause) said that gay men drink raw blood and eat feces.

There have been quite a few cases in which people who kill a gay man have been able to win a reduction from classified degree murder to manslaughter on the grounds that they were disgusted by the person’s sexual appearance. For some people, the disgust towards homosexuality is traditional to them, and some, based on culture. When one never grew up to see such happen in the society before and it starts to happen, they immediately project this unexplainable disgust towards suchpeople and activities. Because it was not the norm of the societyduring their time or has never really been seen or done. This will then bring about disgust in such society and then the separationof the disgusted from those groups as emphasized earlier and there comes hatred; separations and can sometimes in rare occasions can lead to killing of such person(s). For example, there have been couples of scenarios where gay students get bullied or frustrated by their fellow classmates and due to too much pressure, they either become depressed, sad, or suicidal and kill themselves. But nowadays, even though some certain people still do not and will not accept this to be a part of the society norm, it sure has improved drastically over the years and we also do have important people in the society coming out of their “shells” and announcing that they are gay and such. It is much acceptable in the society than it was about ten years ago and most states in the U.S are accepting this to be a part of our lives and society today.

Speaking as Nussbuam in perspective to "Disgust" - Slavery and same-sex marriage. By Tosin Onibiyo. Part 1.

In “Hiding from Humanity,” I clarified how disgust has traditionally played large roles on certain issues in the society generally. And I will focus on the legality of slavery in aspect to racism and same-sex marriage and/or relations of it in this paper today. To start with, disgust cognitive content involves a shrinking from contamination that is associated with a human desire to be non-animal. And of course, that desire is irrational in the sense that we people know we cannot succeed trying to fulfil it and it mostly ends in a pernicious manner. Psychological research have shown that people tend to project disgust properties onto groups of people in their own society; people who usually are different and act different of what the norms of the society entails. For example: gender, same-sex marriage, slavery, and so forth. By branding members of these groups as disgusting, awful, slimy, foul or smelly, the dominant group is able to drastically distance itself even further from its ownanimality.   Such irritation projections have been involved in more localized forms of discrimination, hatred, racism, and inequality in the society against slavery, homosexuals and allsort.

However, disgust does not provide the disgusted person or persons with reasons as to why they are disgusted in public or private scenarios. For example, If a particular person happens to feel that gay men or homosexuals are disgusting, that person cannot and will not be able to offer any reasoning that will persuade another to share the emotion; there isn’t anything per se that would make the dialogue a real piece of persuasion unlike anger. Anger will bring about enough reasoning for the persuasion. With this been said, I will discuss briefly on the slavery aspect and the same-sex/homosexuals aspect. From the previous case studies done; Scott v. Sanford (1857); Justice John McLean, in his dissent to the decision pointed out Taney's historical errors. He emphasize the time of the Founding of the United States, and how several states had admitted free persons of the color to the suffrage-thereby recognizing them as citizens and few other arguments he and Justice Curtis made.

Continuation of Dworkin theory on equality - Tosin Onibiyo

Now, to the two general theories of distributional equality I proposed to talk about earlier in this paper. The first I call equality of welfare and the second I called equality of resources. I will be speaking briefly about this two in this part of the essay. Equality of welfare can be well described as an interpretation of treating people as equals. In other words, it holds that a distributional scheme when it transfers or distributes resources among people, it treats them as equal. But when it no longer transfers, this would leave them more equal in welfare. On the other hand, equality of resources holds that distributional scheme treats people as equals when it distributes or transfers so that no further transfer would leave their shares of the total resources more equal.

These two theories as just stated are very abstract because each holds different interpretation and theories to it. If a man with wealth for example was to draw his will based on equality of welfare, between six kids; where one is deaf, another a pimp with quality rich taste, the third a writer with less-expensive taste, another a successful governor with expensive ambitions, and so forth. If he was to base this on equality of welfare, he has to take all differences between his children into account so as to not leave them equal shares according to my article on “What is equality.” Why is or should this be so?  The ideal of equality of welfare may seem a plausible explanation of why this is so. Because when we look at the example closely enough, we will see that those who are handicapped like the deaf child in all fairness should be entitled to more wealth than the others. He is deaf and for this reason, he will need more resources to achieve the equal welfare. Even with this equal welfare analysis, this same example provides some problems for the ideal. Some might insist that the governor will need more of the wealth than the deaf because he will need more money to run his political campaigns. Some might say it’s the pimp who needs more money than the writer to continuously look expensive and flashy. We can say the governor case from this example is much stronger than that of others but weaker in comparison to the deaf child. But if it were to be based on equality of resources, he need not worry on how to not leave them with equal share but how to equally divide his wealth assuming the children have almost the same wealth as the other. Furthermore, I argue that equality ofresources presupposes an economic market of some form,mainly as an analytical mechanism but also, to a certain extent, as an actual political institution. And economic market have been seen as a device for both defining and achieving certain community-wide goals variously described as prosperity, efficiency, and overall utility. Also as a necessary condition of individual liberty, the condition under which free men and women may exercise individual initiative and choice so that their fates lie in their own hands. But the economic market has during this same period come to be regarded as the enemy of equality, largely because the forms of economic market systems developed and enforced in industrial -countries have permitted and indeed encouraged vast inequality in property.

The two theories of equality from Ronald Dworkin - By Tosin Onibiyo. Part 1

Two general theories Ronald Dworkin emphasized about in his article "Equality." 

(Talking like Dworkin the author here): 

The first I call equality of welfare and the second I called equality of resources. I will be speaking briefly about this two in this part of the essay. Equality of welfare can be well described as an interpretation of treating people as equals. In other words, it holds that a distributional scheme when it transfers or distributes resources among people, it treats them as equal. But when it no longer transfers, this would leave them more equal in welfare. On the other hand, equality of resources holds that distributional scheme treats people as equals when it distributes or transfers so that no further transfer would leave their shares of the totalresources more equal.

These two theories as just stated are very abstract because each holds different interpretation and theories to it. If a man with wealth for example was to draw his will based on equality of welfare, between six kids; where one is deaf, another a pimp with quality rich taste, the third a writer with less-expensive taste, another a successful governor with expensive ambitions, and so forth. If he was to base this on equality of welfare, he has to take all differences between his children into account so as to not leave them equal shares according to my article on “What is equality.” Why is or should this be so?  The ideal of equality of welfare may seem a plausible explanation of why this is so. Because when we look at the example closely enough, we will see that those who are handicapped like the deaf child in all fairness should be entitled to more wealth than the others. He is deaf and for this reason, he will need more resources to achieve the equal welfare. Even with this equal welfare analysis, this same example provides some problems for the ideal. Some might insist that the governor will need more of the wealth than the deaf because he will need more money to run his political campaigns. Some might say it’s the pimp who needs more money than the writer to continuously look expensive and flashy. We can say the governor case from this example is much stronger than that of others but weaker in comparison to the deaf child. But if it were to be based on equality of resources, he need not worry on how to not leave them with equal share but how to equally divide his wealth assuming the children have almost the same wealth as the other.

Team 5 video blog - video 4

We all talked about the Patriot Act in the last team video blog (video 4). It was how the Patriot Act as changed out lives in the country in our own different opinions. We talked about how there is no more securities or much privacy in our separate lives anymore since it's was enacted. In my opinion how things we do like right now can be used against us all in future when we want to get some government job or confidential job. That's why the secret service will bring all the things you've said in your private email or messages or what you have posted on social media against you and will not allow you to be able to get the jobs. The Patriot Act is good to some clarification but also derive you of certain privacies. Learn more from what's been said from the videos: links below... Enjoy! 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3a_CumXthGw / part 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AGsNikkxNs - part 2. 

Video link to team 5 video 3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRa6osJNr3U

All about the same sex ideas 

Enjoy

Justice McLean Analysis of Dred Scott in Nussbuam perspective; Disgust - Tosin Onibiyo

Justice John McLean, in his dissent to the decision in the case Scott v. Sandford (1857), pointed out Taney's historical errors. He emphasize the time of the Founding of the United States, and how several states had admitted free persons of the color to the suffrage-thereby recognizing them as citizens and few other arguments he and Justice Curtis made…

According to Nussbaum; Hiding from Humanity, Justice McLean’s dissent in aspect to racism as per this case was about; basically pointed out the Justice Taney’s historical errors, how irrational the decision was towards fellow human being; Dred Scott, how disgusted Justice Taney and others were and making such decision of how Scott cannot be called a citizen of the United States. As Nussbaum as said:

“Disgust relies on moral obtuseness. It is possible to view another human being as a slimy slug or a piece of revolting trash only if one has never made a serious good-faith attempt to see the world through that person’s eyes or to experience that person’s feelings. Disgust imputes to the other a subhuman nature. How, by contrast, do we ever become able to see one another as human? Only through the exercise of imagination.”

This quote in this case explains how Justice McLean tend to emphasize that the other justices did not show much compassion before making the harsh decision they made against Dred Scott as per they saw him as just a slave, minority; a piece of property and not human just like they are. But in fact, McLean showed much compassion as well as Justice Curtis, they sympathized with Scott in ‘good-faith’, saw and felt what he was going through even though the majority opinion still prevailed.

 

 

Slave codes analysis - North Carolina (Tosin Onibiyo)

In my opinion, a slave can be a crime victim even though in the North Carolina slave code, a master must not necessarily kill his/her own servants/slaves. And according to this slave code; for example:  a slave who is obligated to do exactly as his/her master have said can be a victim of crime of whatever unlawful act that master have asked that slave to do. And the slave been obligated once again to do as the master say; if not done, might suffer severe consequences, will do as his/her master have said and pay the price of what’s been done by getting beaten, transported or death. For instance, section 36 states “Slaves and free negroes not to preach in public.” If for any reason, a slave’s master told him/her to go to town and preach, the slave is obligated tohearken his master’s voice and at the same time, the act is forbidden. If not done as told, the slave suffers. And if done as instructed, he faces the consequences of punishment making that slave a crime victim at this point. 

 

Legal restriction is seen as legal framework when it comes to the slaves. Even though as Holmes explained in “Agency”; “As at Rome, the analogies of the familia were extended to free agents” he also made it clear that “The Roman law held that the possession of a slave was the possession of his master, on the practical ground of the master’s power” (p 9); and as said in relations with the North Carolina slave code, slaves are mostly held as properties just like any other inanimate objects are and can be sold anytime the master wishes, put away and much more; which made the legal restrictions on this slaves a legal framework of property. This can be understood in terms of contractual agency law because masters have to ability to trade an agent/slave for money or something beneficiary to them as they please. They can be sold, transported and used for other purposes in this aspect. Why? Because “servants have no possession of property in their custody” (p 9) but they are properties to their masters.

Part 2 of my slave codes views - The constraints instituted by North Carolina for it's slaves - Tosin Onibiyo.

​The slave-to-slave constraints instituted in the North Carolina Codes includes:

Section 29; “If any slave shall teach or attempt to teach, any other slave to read or write, the use of figures excepted, he or she may be carried before any justice of the peace, and on conviction thereof, shall be sentenced to receive thirty-nine lashes on his or her bare back.” 

Here, it shows the restriction between two slaves or more in the aspect of helping/teaching one another how to read or write. This code might be so for different reason: might be so the slaves don’t come together and rebel against their master, so they don’t try to escape or get too smart for their masters and for other reasons.

Section 37; Conspiracy of slaves.

“If any number of slaves shall at any time hereafter, consult, advise or conspire to rebel or make insurrection, or shall plot or conspire the murder of any person, or persons whatsoever, every such consulting, plotting or conspiring, shall be adjudged and deemed felony, and the slave or slaves convicted thereof in the manner prescribed by law, shall suffer death or be transported, as hereinafter provided.’’ 

To my understanding, slaves shall not come together to conspire to rebel against any person(s). And if done, they shall be put to death or transported.

Section 81 through 85 also focused on how free blacks/negroes not allowed to associate whatsoever with slaves

...free black not allowed to “entertain any slave in his house during Sundays or in the night between sunset and sunrise”

83. “If any free negro or mulatto, shall entertain any slave in his or her house during the sab-bath, or in the night between sun set and run-rise, he or she shall, for entertaining such slave, be subject to a fine of two dollars for the first offence, and four dollars for every subsequent offence, to be recovered on conviction before any one justice of the peace, and applied to the use of the poor of the county in which the offence shall be committed, saving to the party the right of appealing.”

Section 38,39,40 and 41 discusses in case slaves rebels amongst each other and the consequences of death or transportation “awarded’’ to such slave(s).

My views on the slave codes of North Carolina in the aspect of criminal menace and the restrictions placed on the slaves - Tosin Onibiyo

​In my perspective and to my understanding, first of, criminal menace is the act whereby the master is placing/putting his slave in jeopardy of injury or death. And criminal law/menace in the southern states such as the North Carolina Code Act tends to lump together these three categories without any clear differentiation; blacks, slave or free. Part of the code and not specifically described how a master can criminally menace his slave into doing something unlawful for his own benefits/gain and getting the slave suffer for such consequences such as getting convicted for the crime receiving several strokes of lashes, getting transported or even deathpenalty though a master is mostly prohibited in the North Carolina Code from executing their personal slaves or another’s.

 

​Reading the Act concerning slaves and free persons of Color, Congress established and placed some restrictions on Negro slaves. Most which stated below:

Section 25 of the slave code describes how slaves are not to be armed with guns, swords, cub or any kind of weapon, and when they do, they have to be punished by the person or persons who saw the slave(s) possessing such weapon as well as take such weapon from the slave.

A slave cannot go off his master’s plantation without a certificate of leave in writing.

 26. No slave shall go from off the plantation or seat of land where such slave shall be appointed to live without a certificate of leave, in writing, for so doing from his or her master or overseer.

No slave is allowed to raise stocks whatsoever, and when a slave does, it shall be seized and sold by the country.

 27. No slave shall be permitted on any pretence whatever, to raise any horses, cattle, hogs or sheep, but all such belonging to any slave, or in any slave's mark, shall be seized and sold by the county. Wardens as directed in the act entitled an act concerning the Poor.

No slave who is able to read or write is allowed to teach another how too. And when done, the slave shall be convicted and receive 39 lashes on bare back.

29. If any slave shall teach or attempt to teach, any other slave to read or write, the use of figures excepted, he or she may be carried before any justice of the peace, and on conviction thereof, shall be sentenced to receive thirty-nine lashes on his or her bare back.

No slaves are allowed to sell spirituous liquors

30. If any Negro slave shall presume to sell any spirituousliquors by retail or otherwise, such slave so offending shall be taken before a magistrate of the county, where he may have committed such offence, and if found guilty, shall receive not exceeding thirty-nine lashes, on his or her bare back.

31. It shall not be lawful for any slave or slaves to play at any game of cards, dice, nine-pins, or any game of hazard or chance, for any money, liquor, or any kind of property, whether the same be staked or not; and any slave so offending shall, upon conviction before a justice of the peace, receive a whipping on his or her bare back, not exceeding thirty-nine lashes.

32. Any slave convicted of setting fire to any woods, under circumstances which, if the offence were committed by a free person, would subject such free person to a penalty, shall be ordered to receive on his bare back thirty-nine lashes.

34. No slave to go at large as a freeman; No slave shall be a freeman fully.

35. No person shall grant permission for any meeting or meetings of the negroes of others, or people of colour, at his, her or their houses, or on his, her or their plantation for the purpose of drinking or dancing, under the penalty of forfeiting twen y dollars on conviction of such offence, in any court having jurisdiction thereof, unless such slave shall have a special permit in writing or otherwise from his or her owner for that purpose.

36. Slaves and free Negroes not to preach in public…And few others.

Same-sex marriage views according to team 5 - Tosin Onibiyo

   The third video created by team 5 was about the same sex marriage in the society today. In our respective opinions, we collectively agreed that Same sex marriage has been drastically accepted over the years; let's say since ten to 20 years ago. Same sex marriages were been categorized as abomination before (a sodomy act); that cannot be done or stand in the society and people who were involved will get convicted for it because it was classified as illegal; a crime. But today, it is a different story entirely. Even though in some part of the world, it's still looked upon as a sodomy and unusual act, the society is beginning to accept it as a norm in certain countries and for example, the United States as it's been legalized in certain states now including New Jersey! Even though same sex people are still most time stared out weirdly here and there, I believe as also the group agrees that within ten years from now, it will be more accepted by majority if not all and be classified as a social norm in our society. 

Video to this is in drop box. Enjoy! 

Justice McLean Analysis in Dworkin Perspective - Tosin Onibiyo

   Justice John McLean, in his dissent to the decision in the case Scott v. Sandford (1857), pointed out Taney's historical errors. First he emphasize the time of the Founding of the United States, and how several states had admitted free persons of the color to the suffrage-thereby recognizing them as citizens. Furthermore, he explained that being colored is not and has never been an inherent disqualifier for citizenship; right after the Mexican War, the U. S. made citizens of "all grades, combinations, and colors." According to Justice McLean, neither the Founders nor the Constitution explicitly promoted slavery; rather, slavery was a system imposed on the colonies by their mother-country and the Founders were careful to protectthe Constitution's language against the mentions of slavery. Justices McLean and Curtis argued, contrary to Taney, that every free person born on the soil of a state and a citizen of that state is also a citizen of the United States. Moreover, they also defended the Missouri Compromise's constitutionality; because it was passed intensely by Congress and approved as by the president as constitutional; no one had thought of questioning its constitutionality not until the Dred Scott decision,   for that would also call into question the constitutionality of Congress's first act: prohibition on slavery in the Northwest territories andthe renewal of the Northwest Ordinance.

If Ronald  Dworkin was to analyze the opinions of the case Scott V. Sandford, especially the dissent opinion been focused on in this paper, I believe he will argue about Judicial Activism; which is the theory under which judges may 'actively' interpret the law on a broad plane and are not necessarily constrained to relying on the sources and issues strictly before them as Justice McLean as done in his dissent He broadly interpreted the case and not narrowing it specifically to any source like the other Justices have done except Curtis. . In addition, as predicted of what Dworkin’s analyses will be; activism is a necessity when the other branches of government do not act to bring about social change. Just like when the other justices didn’t bring about any ‘social change,’ Justice McLean and Curtis did. They stood their grounds and broadly emphasized on the citizenship aspect, the constitution and Congress’ Act.

Shapiro's meaning of legal interpretation linked to Dred Scott decision -Tosin Onibiyo

         According to Shapiro, Interpretation is the activity through which a legal text is given a certain meaning: any act of interpretation, then, can subsumed under a certain “interpretive methodology,” that is, “a method for reading legal texts”

Every legal culture allows for a vast array of interpretive methodologies. Moreover in any case, (a): more than one interpretive methodology can be legitimately available to the interpreter, and (b)the different interpretive methodologies available to the interpreter can lead to different interpretive results. The conclusion immediately follows that the interpreter, in most cases (maybe, always), is supposed to make a choice between the various interpretive methodologies available. (Shapiro)

​And in this case, the Supreme Court diverted from what the framers intended when they created the Constitution. They gave their own meaning (interpretation) to what they think the constitution say and judged a fellow human as not a citizen, having no right to bring suit to federal court as well as just a property to another without any consideration; which makes them divert from the limits of the Constitution. And as Shapiro insinuated, before concluding any in any case, choices as supposed to be made as per what is the Constitution really means and say (in this case) instead of totally diverting from limitations of the constitution and making decisions based on their own beliefs or feelings.

Marijuana Scandal; Team 5. Tosin Onibiyo

So in this second video, there was a lot more going back and forth than the usual. I called it "angry birds video." We basically spilled our minds towards the legalization of Marijuana; how we think it will better the society or not. 

In my perspective, I think Marijuana should be legalized but to some degree/level. Not just legalizing it for the fun of it ( meaning people should just smoke anytime they feel they need to "chill" "relax" or be in their comfort zone - "high") but actually for a purpose, that will benefit people and make them better. It has been scientifically proven this plant - Marijuana helps some cases of health issues. It makes some certain types of sicknesses better and make them not sick instead of using all crazy chemicals from factories that make these people even more sick, nauseous, delusional and much worse. Some in my team believes it should be legalized to relief tax payers, reduce jail time of smokers who smuggled weed illegally and some other reasons. Marijuana shouldn't just be legalized because "I feel the need to be high right now" - kind of concept. It should be legalized for other reason that will benefit the sick and beneficiary to our society. 

Here's the link below. Enjoy! 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNIcp_gwcaw

Part 2 - Leviathan; Hobbes. Tosin Onibiyo

Furthermore, as Hobbes has emphasized, three principals that causes men to quarrel and be at a stage of war are: Competition which makes men invade others for benefits and gain, Diffidence – act of self-defense; for safety, and Glory for reputation. To prevent this warre Hobbes believed that man needed some outside influence to keep them in awe, as man in the natural human state without this outside influence is in a state of war of 'every man against every man’. Men must choose to cede their rights (laying exact amount of rights as others) to a Leviathan; a state of Leviathan, (social contract) who must then have absolute control of things and their lives. In exchange, they will receive protection and security – civil rights and law which creates a civil society and civil society brings forth Common Wealth (Respublica) “The only way to erect such a common power… , is to confer all their power and strength upon one man, or upon one assembly of men, that may reduce all theirwills, by plurality of voices, unto one will: which is as much as to say, to appoint one man, or assembly of men, to bear their person; and every one to own and acknowledge himself to be author of whatsoever he that so beareth their person shall act,or cause to be acted, in those things which concern the common peace and safety; and therein to submit their wills, every one to his will, and their judgements to his judgement. This is more than consent, or concord; it is a real unity of them all in one andthe same person, made by covenant of every man with every man, in such manner as if every man should say to every man: Iauthorise and give up my right of governing myself to this man, or to this assembly of men, on this condition; that thou give up, thy right to him, and authorise all his actions in like manner.This done, the multitude so united in one person is called a COMMONWEALTH” (Hobbes, 227).

This arrangement will last until such time as the sovereign is no longer able to provide protection and security, at which time it will dissolve. How can the Leviathan crash or dissolve? According to Hobbes, being taken back to the State of Nature can happen when men who gave up their rights to the Leviathan; and those rights are being taken back or when a man asks for more benefit for example from the Leviathan and another, then another; he also said it to be void when the Leviathan could no longer protect you, no security of your life and property; thisautomatically leads to the crash of the governmental body and then goes right back to the state of nature which is the state of chaos. This is why according to Hobbes, it is impossible to take back rights when laid down to the Leviathan. Therefore, without a strong central government like the leviathan, life is just grief because of man’s daily struggle. This is why he argues thatsecurity and peace is a better way of life. And to obtain and maintain this peace and security, every person agrees to give up the right to govern themselves and by giving the power to an individual, or group, who would create peace and security for all subjects with all means necessary. Hobbes also argued that people after laying down these rights must obey the law in return for order and security.

Overall argument of Hobbes. Part 1 - Leviathan. Tosin Onibiyo

In the Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes emphasizes about the account of an unchangeable human nature, with his prescription for a system in which a supreme sovereign rules with absolute power given up by all subjects to a person or persons that would then govern all. “Right is layd aside, either by simply Renouncing it; or by transferring it to another. By simply renouncing; when he cares not to whom the benefit thereofredoundeth. By transferring; when he intendeth the benefit thereof to some certain person or persons. And when a man hath in either manner abandoned or granted away his right; then is he said to be obliged, or bound, not to hinder those to whom such right is granted, or abandoned, from the benefit of it: and that he ought, and it is duty, not to make void that voluntary act of his own: and that such hindrance is injustice, and injury, as being sine jure; the right being before renounced or transferred”(Hobbes, 191). Hobbes, here tries to clarify how we collectively as a whole create the power that rules and governs over us, it does not come from God but from every one of us by laying/giving up our rights all equally to that person or persons. We are the artificer of the state, creator of our society and not society or politics creating us. Why does Hobbes believe we have to lay down our rights to this one body?

Hobbes believes this is the best form of government because men are equall in nature, men are not good or bad, men just wants to survive and to survive, will do anything; Natural Right. Hobbes believed that the life of man in a state of nature is“solitary, poor, nasty, and brutish and short… Nature hath made men so equal in the faculties of body and mind as that, though there be found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body or of quicker mind than another, yet when all is reckoned together the difference between man and man is not so considerable as that one man can thereupon claim to himself any benefit to which another may not pretend as well as he”(Hobbes, 186; 183). And to Hobbes, this is a problem. Why? Because men are self-centered, selfish, driven by a perpetual andrestless desire for the same things such as power and other things needed to survive, he argued that man's fundamental concern is with self-preservation. “And therefore if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way to their end (which is principally their own conservation, and sometimes their delectation only) endeavour to destroy or subdue one another.And from hence it comes to pass that where an invader hath no more to fear than another man's single power, if one plant, sow, build, or possess a convenient seat, others may probably be expected to come prepared with forces united to dispossess and deprive him, not only of the fruit of his labour, but also of his life or liberty. And the invader again is in the like danger of another” (Hobbes, 184). In the pursuit of these desires, men have to fight one another (competition) become enemies which leads to warre of all against all, in which the constant threat of violent death will loom over every man. Why warre? Because at this time, before everyman gave up one right or the other, men lived without a common power; i.e. no rules, regulations or law to keep men in awe “during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man” (Hobbes, 185).

My little summary and perspective on Dred Scott and the awful decision! - Tosin Onibiyo

Dred Scott V. Sandford

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) was about Scott who was a slave in Missouri.  From 1833 to 1843, he resided in Illinois (a free state where slavery was forbidden) with his master Dr. John Emerson, an Army Surgeon. In 1836, Emerson moved with Scott from Illinois to Fort Snelling, in present – day Minnesota, well north of 36 degrees 30’ in old Louisiana territory, where slavery had been banned by the Missouri Compromise of 1820. In 1838, Emerson returned to Missouri with Scott. After returning to Missouri, Scott sued unsuccessfully in the Missouri courts for his freedom, claiming that his residence in free territory made him a free man. The lower court held for Scott, but the state Supreme Court reversed the decision in 1852 claiming whatever Scott’s legal status outside Missouri, he remained a slave under Missouri law.  Scott then brought a new suit in federal court. Where the Supreme Court denied Scott’s request to be a free man and ruled in a 7-2 decision written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, that neither he nor any other person of African ancestry could claim citizenship in the United States, and therefore Scott could not bring suit in federal court under diversity of citizenship rules and also that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the federal territories acquired after the creation of the United States, ruling an Act of Congress to be unconstitutional for the second time in its history.

In my opinion, honestly, this was sincerely the worst decision in the American history. Like Nussbaum (under the disgust perspective) - I am highly "disgusted" by the decision of the Justices.  7-2 decision, not even a 5-4 (something closer) it's highly disappointing how humans can label other human like themselves properties, a second hand citizen, minorities and all sort. Just disgusting! 

Team 5 - Show and tell video blog - Tosin Onibiyo

    To start with, actually this video was fun and amazing. All we had to do is relax and give our own personal views and opinion on slavery, particualry; Dres Scott case decision by Chief Justice Taney's Court. We equally spake and voiced our opinions on how it was wrong or right and how it has helped black people generally in our society today. Since the decision as emphasized on in the video, it has drastically changed the way black people are treated upon in the society one way or the other; either as a slave, property or as a minority. It has helped changed the society's view on black drastically since the decision if not all quite yet. Overall, the video helped bring us all together and learn as well from one another. Link to the video below: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7l0wvxSxuPo

Enjoy! 

Slave Codes

Haven't blogged yet but I've got to start somewhere...so here I go.  Just some random thoughts as I finish up case study 1.   North Carolina was one of the states with codes and restrictions that were less harsh than other states, although the codes still seemed to be quite restrictive.  All these questions we have been pondering about agency and could slaves be considered an agent,  looking at it from a cut and dry prospective, without involving philosophy, it could be said that there was no way slaves could be considered anything but a piece of property.  But since this course is about looking at things philosophically and looking past what is just there in writing and trying to figure out what it all means, I guess I should start thinking more like a philosopher and blog more.  

Natural Law, Holmes. By Tosin Onibiyo

As confusing as this chapter was for me, I was still able to grasp a few things Holmes was trying to verbalize here. Holmes' definition of the truth was "the system of my (intellectual) limitations, what gives it objectivity is the fact that I find my fellow man to a greater or less extent (never wholly) subject to the same Can't Helps." In addition, the truth to him "was the majority vote of a nation that could lick all others," "property, friendship, and truth have a common root in time." I believe here, Holmes is laying a foundation for natural law which is 'the truth.' Under his definition of "truth" as mentioned above; as that which is useful or helpful now and here, it is beyond any lawyer's ability; as it is actually beyond the ability of anyone to point to the constitutional truth of things.

 Holmes believes "It is true that beliefs and wishes have a transcendental basis in the sense that their foundation is arbitrary." He gave an arbitrary example of human wishing to live, and to be able to do so, humans are oblige to eat and drink to stay alive. Holmes understanding of legal realism and purposes shows his relationship to the natural law and natural traditions. The society and the law to Holmes are always in a flux. 

In conclusion, this chapter on Natural law displays nothing more than a dominant opinion. Here, Holmes lays the foundation for a judicial support and seeking out of such dominant opinion, and, simultaneously, judicial adversity towards the "weaker" opinions or entities that emerges not to support the strength and growth of the social organism.

Leviathan, by Thomas Hobbes. Chapter 16; Of Persons, Authors, and Things Personated. By Tosin Onibiyo.

 Chapter 16 of Leviathan; Hobbes started with the description of a person as "He whose words or actions are considered, either as his own, or as representing the words or actions of another man....by fiction." When a man's actions are of his, then he is a natural/original person, but when his actions or words are of another, then he is considered artificial according to Hobbes. Reading along, he focuses more on what impersonation of another is: "to personate is to act or represent himself or another; and he that acteth another is said to bear his person, or act in his name." He gave example of where Cicero was personating three persons; himself, his adversary and the judge's. In addition to Hobbes analysis here, the person personating another is the actor who acted by authority or license of whom owneth the act, and the owner of the actions or words is the author. Furthermore, he emphasized on the convenant an actor and the author are both bonded by, and the consequences connected to each. When "children, fools and madmen that have no use of reason" are personate by "guardians, or curators" he said, they "can be no authors during that time of any action done by them, longer than (when they shall recover the use of reason)." Which in other word means when fools, mad people or children are being represented by guardians or curators, they cannot be authors because children, fools or madmen have got no sense of thinking whatsoever. They only do as they want without any reasoning behind it. He also indicated that "The true God may be Personated." As Moses, Jesus and the Holy Spirit did being that they came representing God and not as of themselves. Finally, he analyzed multitude of men in the odd and even number aspect, their representations, opinions, interests and consequences. He concluded describing the two types of authors; first, person that owns the action of another 'simply' and the second, a person that owns an action or convenant of another 'conditionally.' Which brings me to the conclusion of Hobbes chapter 16 analysis of the persons, authors, actors and personations. 

The Theory of Legal Interpretation - Holmes. By Tosin Onibiyo

Reading into the theory of legal interpretation, I discovered that Holmes is trying to elaborate on how a theory of "any document purpoting to be serious and to have some legal effect has one meaning and no other, because the known object is to achieve some definite result." He further explains how it is also true every word definitely have different meanings to them and how you have to be able to use each meaning of a word in the right context of any given sentences to establish and portray the true meaning of what scenario it is being displayed. And since words in every case can be translated into different languages and meanings just by ordinary man as (Holmes have said; "Even the whole document is found to have a certain play in the joints when its words are translated into things by Parol evidence, as they have to be.") There should be a normal English speaker for such words in every case. "Thereupon we ask, not what this man meant, but what those words would mean in the mouth of a normal speaker of English, using them in the circumstances in which they were used." Why? Because the normal speaker of English is a "special variety... A literary form... An external to the particular writer... And a reference to him as the criterion is simply another instance of the externality of the law." In other words, the Normal English speaker will interpret things just exactly in the circumstances they were displayed and not otherwise. 

Furthermore, he uses the theory of our language (which he believes to mean one thing and no other, be it a person's name or thing) to express "contract". Saying "there is no contract when the proper name used by one party means one ship, and that used by the other means another. The mere difference of intent as such is immaterial." And in cases of contracts, according to Holmes, the wishes of two adversaries are expressed and not one. And if by any chance, the two meant two separate things and not expressing on one mind, "the latter course not only would greatly enhance the difficulty of enforcing contracts against losing parties, but would run against a plain principle of justice." He also uses the cases of statute and will to secure his argument about contract and how contracts should have definite meaning and not to have two or more meaning during legal interpretation process. 

In conclusion, Holmes theory here for example reminds me of the United State Constitution and what the framers actually intended when they all came together. Since the establishment of constitution, it has definitely struck up so much conflicts in the pasts and now and that is why our only choice is to get them interpreted by the Justices of the Court (Judicial branch of the Country) so as to reduce conflicts in our society. And more surprisingly, even Justices have different meanings to the Constitution and have decided multiple cases differently based on the same Amendments, Articles or sessions of the Constitution due to multiple meanings to each word. As a matter of fact, I believe the United States Justices have deviated so much from the actual intent of the framers due this same issue. So Holmes argument is supported by me; it would be much easier if one word in the legal world can actually have a definite meaning and interpretation to it instead of  two or more. 

Holmes: The Theory of Legal Interpretation (By Martin Marquez Jr.)

In the Theory of Legal Interpretations, Holmes spends his time addressing what he calls the "theory of construction." Externality of the Law appears to be the largest issue with interpretation. Holmes makes reference to the "normal speaker of english"and claims that the law is interpreted accordingly. The idea may appear to be of some validity but then Holmes disects and addresses the obvious issues of what class or peoples can be deemed the "normal speaker(s) of english"? or what if the contract or law is written by higher level intellectuals, such as most laws and contracts are, how then do we interpret or choose whose interpretation of the writings will be deemed as correct? With that, Holmes states "But the normal speaker of English is merely a special variety... he is external to the particular writer...a reference to him ...is simply another instance of the externality of the law."It would appear that Holmes is stating that it is in a way, the majority or common interpretation at the time that will take precedence, rather than Constitutional dictation. The main focus of contracts should be to exemplify the intended agreement between persons. Holmes believes that rather then striving to discover the initial and actual intension of a contract, Judges, like most people tend to take the contract through their own interpretations, and in turn create a whole separate contract through misinterpretation.  

Moving further into Holmes's writing, he brings up the dubious tendencies of actual language and the clairvoyance of theoretical language. Actual language leaves multiple interpretations to words, phrases and whole sentences. Theoretical language functions much more within contextual interpretation and even though two things may be written or said exactly the same, the situation or even way they are said can cause difference in their intention. Essentially, it appears that Holmes holds language and its opaque   nature responsible for a large part of legal interpretation issues.

According to Holmes, the way people address contracts and statutes should be done so in a separate manor. Holmes states "In the case of a statute... it would be possible to say that we are dealing with the commands of the sovereign the only thing to do is to find out what the sovereign wants." It would appear that Holmes believes the only way to write and interpret a statute is by understanding exactly what the intention of it is because it will effect all of those, even those who are not directly involved in its creation. People have a common misconception and take statutes at their face value and do not attempt to find out what exactly it was created for and what its actual intended purpose is, which is what we do not do. To simplify, we act as a literal society, taking things for their literal meanings, rather than for their intended purpose(s).

Path of Law (Holmes) by Tosin Onibiyo

From the first few pages into studying the path of law (Going to be breaking the pages down most likely like this to get full and better summary of what I am summarizing), Holmes talked about the reason why Law is a profession in the society today; which he explained as "in societies like ours the command of the public force is intrusted to the judges in certain cases, and the whole power of the state will be put forth, if necessary, to carry out their judgments and decrees." 

He further explains how law has become a business because the society will do Anything to figure out what they battling against. All in all, Holmes concluded saying prediction is where it all lies. 

Furthermore, he discusses the oracle of law processes: "from a lawyer's statement of a case, eliminating as it does all the dramatic elements with which his client's story has clothed it, and retaining only the facts of legal import, up to the final analyses and abstract universals of theoretic jurisprudence" (Page 991). Here, he explained how the lawyer deals with his client after making a contract with each other, and how the lawyer "hid" his client from the public force so as to not let the public into the private situation and jeopardize the whole case. 

Reading more from this chapter, Holmes tend to describe between morality and law. He said "if you want to know law and nothing else, you must look at it as a bad man, who cares only for the material consequences which such knowledge enables him to predict, not as a good one, who finds his reasons for conduct, whether inside the law or outside of it, in the vaguer sanctions of conscience" (P 993). In addition, he explains how law talks about duties, rights, intents of things. And when explaining about morality, he demonstrated it as the law being full of "phraseology drawn from morals, and by the mere force of language continually invites us to pass from one domain to the other without perceiving it, as we are sure to do unless we have the boundary constantly before our minds" .... (To be continued) 

Holmes: The Path of the Law (By Martin Marquez Jr.)

About five pages in to his writing, Holmes attempts to rectify a common misconception as to the creation of contracts and the "true theory of contract". Holmes makes a very interesting point in stating "In my opinion no one will discuss some fundamental questions intelligently until he has understood that all contracts are formal, that making of a contract depends not on the agreement of two minds in one intention, but on the agreement of two sets of external signs, - not on the parties' having meant the same thing but on having said the same thing." So is it the case that Holmes is stating that contracts should be created not on the basis of understanding and consent but through exact duplicate language used by both parties with completely separate intentions and interpretations? Is it that the majority of contracts, if not all of them, should be based on deception and misunderstanding?

Now after reading this quote over several times and thinking it was completely false and an arrogant statement, I suddenly realized that it is very much a logical approach to contracts. When people enter into a contract and that contract becomes enforced, it is the exact language of that contract and those words stated that determine the agreement. It is not the actual intentions of those who created the contract that allow it to exist. People may enter into a contract for multiple reasons, non of which may be even a present thought in the mind of the other party. A contract can only be formed then, when two people decide on the same words to express a contractual agreement, their intentions for contracting whether the same or not, become irrelevant, so long as the terms of the contract are fulfilled. 

Hello,
 Everyone can see me?