Live Not By Lies

 

 

 Today, we are often pressured by friends, by employers, even by government, to affirm ideas that we do not believe are true. What should we do when someone with power over us asks us to affirm or endorse an idea we believe to be false. Alexander Solzhenitsyn, a dissident imprisoned for his activism by the totalitarian regime of the former Soviet Union, told us the key is simply to "refuse to say that which we do not think." Here is what he said in context in his essay entitled Live Not By Lies:

 

"And the simplest and most accessible key to our self-neglected liberation lies right here: Personal non-participation in lies. Though lies conceal everything, though lies embrace everything - not with any help from me. This opens a breech in the imaginary encirclement caused by our inaction. It is the  easiest thing to do for us but the most devastating for the lies. Because when people renounce lies it  simply cuts short their existence. Like an infection, they can exist only in a living organism.

We do not exhort ourselves. We have not sufficiently matured to march into the squares and shout the truth out loud or to express aloud what we think. It’s not necessary. It’s dangerous. But let us refuse to say that which we do not think. This is our path, the easiest and most accessible one, which takes into account our inherent cowardice, already well rooted. And it is much easier - it’s dangerous even to say this - than the sort of civil disobedience which Gandhi advocated.

So in our timidity, let each of us make a choice: Whether to remain a conscious servant of falsehood (of  course, it is not out of inclination, but to feed one’s family, that one raises his children in the spirit of  lies). Or to shrug off the lies and become an honest man worthy of respect both by one’s children and contemporaries.

And from that day onward he:

- Will not henceforth write, sign, or print in any way a single phrase which in his opinion distorts the  truth.

- Will utter such a phrase neither in private conversation nor in the presence of many people, neither on  his own behalf nor at the prompting of someone else, neither in the role of agitator, teacher or  education nor in a theatrical role.

- Will not depict foster or broadcast a single idea which he can see is false or a distortion of the truth  whether it be in painting, sculpture, photography technical science or music.

- Will not cite out of context, either orally or a written, a single quotation so as to please someone, to  feather his own nest, to achieve success in his work, if he does not share completely the idea which is  quoted, or if it does not accurately reflect the matter at issue.

- Will not allow himself to be compelled to attend demonstrations or meetings if they are contrary to his desire or will, will neither take into hand nor raise into the air a poster or slogan which he does not  completely accept.

- Will not raise hand to vote for a proposal with which he does not sincerely sympathize." 

  

So, my advice to you, as you prepare for a life in the law,  is to live in the truth and never allow yourself to be pressured to say that which you do not think.

Redistribution and Property

 R.C. Sproul has written something important about redistribution by law: "[I]n order for the government to put money in people's pockets, the money first has to be taken from other citizens in order for them to receive it. The government does not produce anything; in other words, the government cannot give to someone what it does not first take away from someone else. When you vote for [redistribution], you are asking the government to take from your brother and sister their private property and give it to you."

Important thoughts about how redistribution through law is an attack on property rights. Powerful fodder for inclusive lawyers pursuing justice.

Dostoevsky from The Brothers Karamazov: Still Relevant Today

Above all, don't lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to such a pass that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others. And having no respect he ceases to love, and in order to occupy and distract himself without love he gives way to passions and coarse pleasures, and sinks to bestiality in his vices, all from continual lying to other men and to himself. The man who lies to himself can be more easily offended than any one. You know it is sometimes very pleasant to take offense, isn’t it? A man may know that nobody  has insulted him, but that he has invented the insult for himself, has lied and exaggerated to make it picturesque, has caught at a word and made a mountain out of a molehill—he knows that himself, yet he will be the first to take offense, and will revel in his resentment till he feels great pleasure in it, and so pass to genuine vindictiveness.

Book II, Chapter I (p. 31)

How is this relevant to our times?

 

Thomas Sowell Wisdom

 “When people get used to preferential treatment, equal treatment seems like discrimination.” - Thomas Sowell

Laughcrimes

"I wonder who the first person to be detained for chuckling at the wrong thing will be? Because you know it’s coming. Laughcrime." --Walter Kirn

Important Article by Bari Weiss

 This is one of the most important articles I have read about law, culture, and what higher education should be. Here is a link.

Strongly recommended!

Tolerance Means Real Diversity and Real Inclusion

Here is a great quotation I came across recently:

 "Tolerance is not approving an opinion you do not hold. It's about treating the person --who's saying what you can powerfully disagree with--with respect, humility, and love." --Tim Keller

Or, as I like to put it: Inclusion means inclusion not exclusion. Diversity means diversity--not orthodoxy--of ideas and values. Powerful (and respectful) disagreements--between learned friends in the law--is what an inclusive law school seeks to attain.

What I Am Reading This Summer

 Ryan T. Anderson and Alexandra DeSanctis, Tearing Us Apart: How Abortion Harms Everything and Solves Nothing.

This book has my highest rating! Here is a link to Amazon.

Right to Carry Case, Bruen, Decided

 

                                                     Two Lions in Winter

 Great victory for property rights, for the right to keep, bear, and carry arms!

 Justice Thomas writes for a 6 to 3 majority!

SCOTUSblog: "The court holds that New York's "proper-cause" requirement to obtain a concealed-carry license violates the Constitution by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense. The New York "proper cause" requirement violates the Constitution, Thomas explains, because it only allows public-carry licenses when an applicant shows a special need for self-defense. This test, Thomas adds, "accords with how we protect other constitutional rights.""

 Here's the link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

First Come Rights, Then Comes Government to Secure These Rights

I recommend Prof. Randy Barnett's excellent article,

“The Declaration of Independence and the American Theory of Government: ‘First Come Rights, and Then Comes Government’: Link Here

 Government exists not to take our property and economic liberties, but to secure our property and economic liberties.

Kermit Gosnell and The Masks of the Law: Persons as Property From Slavery to Abortion

 Here is a link to a CLE I did for the Christian Legal Society for the 2020 virtual Nebraska State Bar Annual Meeting:

https://use.vg/jQuD5e

I am not assigning this for any of my courses at this time. It is just something I was privileged to have the opportunity to do, and I share it for those who might be interested

Exam Instructions: Read Them Carefully

 Read the exam instructions carefully. They will provide some default rules for answering questions.

Property in The Comics: Pre-historic H.O.A. Tyranny

 

Exam Q & A Session May 9 at 6 PM Room 113

 I have scheduled an exam Q & A session for Monday May 9 at 6 PM in Room 113

By the way, if you need a good rom/com set in law school to relax after a long day of studying, the movie I mentioned yesterday (love is never having to say you're sorry), Love Story, is an oldie but a goodie. Neither law school nor love has changed very much since 1970. It is available to rent on Amazon Prime:

here

 

Q & A Next Thursday

 As per your vote today, next Thursday (April 28) we will have an optional Q & A session (regular class time in room 113). 

I will also try to schedule a Q & A session a couple of days before the exam if I can schedule a room.

Final Exam Format

 The Final exam will be 3 hours and a combination of multiple choice and essay (two substantive essays, one medium length and one shorter). The exam itself will count for 300 points plus 25 points for the class attendance question. The coverage will be cumulative (i.e. the entire course, both Fall and Spring semester will be fair game).

It will be completely closed book--no books, notes, or written materials of any kind. Just bring your well-prepared minds!

Assignments for Our (sigh) Last Week April 20 and 22

 No class on Thursday April 21 (Judge Grasz's lecture at noon: encouraged but not required)

--Casebook p. 628-640

--Casebook p. 91-98; Re-read Moore case (casebook p. 894-896)

Moore as a Covenant Case

I would like you to focus on Moore, not as a zoning case, but as a covenant case. In other words, suppose the zoning laws did not pose a problem for Mrs. Moore, but that she took Blackacre subject to a "single family residential use only" covenant that defined "single family" in such a way as to forbid her from allowing both grandsons to live with her. Here are some questions to ponder:

1. Would such a covenant run as either a real covenant or an equitable servitude? What are the arguments that such a covenant would not run?

2. Assuming the covenant would run under state law, would it be unconstitutional for the courts to enforce it against Mrs. Moore? Why or why not?

Next Thursday: Judge Grasz Event

Circuit Judge Stephen Grasz of the 8th Circuit will give a lecture titled, "400 Years in the Promised Land: The Fight for Free Speech and Free Exercise of Religion in America.” The lecture will be on Thursday, April 21 from Noon-1pm in the auditorium (room 115). 

I am encouraging--but not requiring-- you to attend this lecture from one of our most distinguished alumni (and a student of mine as well). As an inducement for you to attend, will not have class next Thursday.

 If you want free pizza, be sure to RSVP.

Evaluations Today April 14

 The first 15 minutes of class are reserved for you to fill out evaluations for the course.

I will stay away until 1:30 PM. See you then.

Assignments for Week 12 April 13 and 14

--Casebook p. 617-628 

--Casebook p. 628-640

 Notice: We won't be taking a deep dive into some of these cases. Instead, I will use hypos simplifying the facts of some of these cases so we can focus on the doctrine you need to know.

No class (per your vote) on Friday April 15

Property Is Nearing Its End

 Maybe a little Shakespeare is in order:

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, 
As I foretold you, were all spirits and 
Are melted into air, into thin air: 
And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, 
The cloud-capp'd towers, the gorgeous palaces, 
The solemn temples, the great globe itself, 
Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve 
And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, 
Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff 
As dreams are made on, and our little life 
Is rounded with a sleep. 

William Shakespeare 
From The Tempest, Act 4 Scene 1 

See y'all next week! 

And now, Delaney eating watermelon Friday April 8, 2022!

Assignments For Week 11 April 6-8

UPDATE: I corrected the page assignment for the Hornbook

 

Adverse Possession

-- Casebook p.168-191; Hornbook p.747-764

Covenants Running With the Land

-- Casebook p. 617-628