Foundations of Legal Studies Course Miller, Primer ch 4 (pp 85 114), Sarat Ch 11 (J B White, Law as Rhetoric ), Sarat Ch 14 (Cover, Violence and the Word ) Miller's chapter is purely descriptive, but it is material people should know What sorts of cases go to federal Article III courts How about state courts What routes are there to the U S Supreme Court and what steps are involved (see esp p 87) If you had to explain the logic of the U S court system to a friend who was totally unfamiliar with the structure of the courts in four sentences or less, how would you do it Consider the three alternative purposes of law we discussed last week and how they relate to the metaphor of law as language Does saying that law is rhetoric leave out any important aspects of what we normally consider law to be How could you (or anyone else) make use of the law in its role as a language What model of law does law as rhetoric fit into How does Cover argue against the view of law as rhetoric What role does law play in the state's management of its monopoly over the legitimate use of violence, according to Cover (see his discussion on p 85we will come back to that idea) Why, exactly, do we need law in its role as a form of language

The Answer is in the image, click to view ...

Answered step by step

Verified Expert Solution

Link Copied!

Question

1 Approved Answer

Posted on Jun 24, 2024

Foundations of Legal Studies Course

Miller, Primer ch. 4 (pp. 85-114), Sarat Ch. 11 (J.B. White, "Law as Rhetoric"), Sarat Ch. 14 (Cover, "Violence and the Word")

Miller's chapter is purely descriptive, but it is material people should know. What sorts of cases go to federal Article III courts? How about state courts? What routes are there to the U.S. Supreme Court and what steps are involved (see esp. p. 87)? If you had to explain the logic of the U.S. court system to a friend who was totally unfamiliar with the structure of the courts in four sentences or less, how would you do it?
Consider the three alternative purposes of law we discussed last week and how they relate to the metaphor of law as language. Does saying that law is "rhetoric" leave out any important aspects of what we normally consider law to be? How could you (or anyone else) make use of the law in its role as a language? What model of law does "law as rhetoric" fit into?
How does Cover argue against the view of "law as rhetoric"? What role does law play in the state's management of its monopoly over the legitimate use of violence, according to Cover (see his discussion on p. 85we will come back to that idea)? Why, exactly, do we need law in its role as a form of language?