This page will host the headquarters of 'How to Teach a Unified Theory of a Law'. It has been taught in some way, shape and form to seniors at Monsignor Farrell H.S. in Staten Island, New York since 1990. The lessons learned from the Farrell experience will be explained on these pages. There are a variety of mnemonic techniques that aid students in the process of understanding 'A Unified Theory of a Law'. One of these is The Upside Down Tee that Turns into a Triangle. It sounds silly, yet, it conjures up tow shapes - the upside down Tee and a Trianlge - whose lines teach the four relationships that are integral to an understanding of 'a Unified Theory of a Law'. Combining this graphic portrayal of the four key relationships with the Periodic Table of the Elements of a Law gives students a framework upon which they can hang their understanding.
As the 'Upside Down Tee that turns into a Triangle' develops from the head of the tee to a completed triangle, the four essential relationships will become visible: 1 factual and 3 legal. Demonstrating the birth of the triangle by starting with its base - which is also the head of the upside down tee - is a simple way to introduce students to the doctrine without having to plod through its details which begin at this link, Click Here.
The facts occupy the head of the upside down tee. Although there are an infinite number of facts, for the purposes of a law, only one arrangement of them is proper. Inspection of the factual part of our laws reveals that their subject is conduct. And conduct flows. It flows from a source to a recipient in circumstances. The flow of conduct from source to recipient in circumstances is the only factual relationship of the doctrine known as a Unified Theory of a Law.
The first legal relationship will be depicted on the tail of the upside down tee. In total, there are three legal relationships. The first is a relationship between a lawmaker and the factual part of a law. It is the simplest legal relationship - although the other two are not complex - because the lawmaker has not yet differentiated the facts according to the perspectives of the source and the recipient.
From her lofty perch, a lawmaker looks down upon a flow of conduct from source to recipient in circumstances and ponders:
- Do I like it?
- Am I indifferent to it?
- Do I dislike it?
A lawmaker who forms the opinion that she likes a flow of conduct from source to recipient in circumstances desires that the flow be turned on and issues a command to turn it on. A lawmaker whose opinion is dislike desires that the flow be turned off and issues a command to turn it off. An indifferent lawmaker does not care whether the flow is on or off and, hence, issues a permission allowing either. The opinion of a lawmaker, the desire ignited by the opinion and the law that is issued as a result constitute the first legal relationship in the doctrine known as a Unified Theory of a Law. The first legal relationship is known as the issuance of a law. Remember there are three legal relationships in total. With the first legal relationship, the shape of the upside down tee becomes visible.
The second legal relationship is between a lawmaker and a source. It can best be described with the word, 'weight'. Weight is about a lawmaker's attempt to turn a flow of conduct on or off at the source or the delegation of the decision to the source. Weight is either present or absent. Duty is the token that describes the presence of weight; privilege is the token that describes weight's absence. The second legal relationship is known as binding a law to a weight token holder.
The third legal relationship is between a lawmaker and a recipient. It can best be described with the word, 'standing'. Standing is about whether or not a lawmaker recognizes or refusal to recognize a recipient's interest in a flow of conduct. Standing, too, is either present or absent. Right is the token that describes the presence of standing; no-right is the token that describes standing's absence. The third legal relationship is known as binding a law to a standing token holder.
In conclusion, there are four (4) significant relationships in 'A Unified Theory of a Law'. The lines of the Upside Down Tee that Turns into a Triangle graphically depict the four relationships. The one horizontal line corresponds to the one factual relationship. It is a flow of conduct from source to recipient in circumstances. The three vertical lines correspond to the three legal relationships. They are 1) the issuance of a law 2) binding a law to a weight token holder and 3) binding a law to a standing token holder. Moreover, because the behavior of the parts of a law is regular, it can be charted on a Periodic Table of the Elements of a Law.
Organization. 'A Unified Theory of a Law' shows you how to organize the legal ideas you already have into a harmonious community of legal ideas. It does this by exposing the structure that undelies each of our laws. Words, like ornaments, adorn the structure of a law. The words change; the structure stays the same. The structure of a law consists of parts. Each part is a constant - varaible - values relationship. The issue is what constant - variable - values relationships are needed to fairly and accurately define a law. How many are there? Are there three? Are there seven? Ten? What are their names? In order to figure this out, it was decided that the bodies of individual laws from a variety of legal fields would be collected as specimen for autopsy. Using an intellectual scalpel, their innards were exposed and their anatomy eye balled. Upon inspection, it was discovered that each law regardless of the legal field from which it was taken contained the same handful of legal thoughts no matter the law. Hence, this handful of legal thoughts arranged according to a constant - variable - values motif can be thought of as the 'core' or 'genetic code' or 'skeleton' of a law. Although this handful of legal thoughts is there in plain sight, many are blind to its existence. To see it, it is necessary to shade your vision until the blinding glare of apathy, denial, ridicule and ignorance dissipates. If you doubt that this core handful of legal thoughts exists, know that the autopsies were done in accordance with the scientific method and hence their results can be reproduced. To test the hypothesis that all laws share the same 'core' or 'genetic code', or 'skeleton', it is very easy for you yourself to take a variety of laws and inspect them to see what they have in common. Like I did, you will discover that each contains the same handful of legal thoughts, i.e. a common 'core' or 'genetic code' or 'skeleton'. Each legal thought contained in the handful is equivalent to a part of a law. Assemble the parts together and, voilà, they form the structure of a law. The words of a law, like ornaments, adorn the structure of a law. The words change; the structure stays the same. It repeats itself again and again in every instance of a law. To generate a law's meaning, both its words and its structure cooperate. Anyone who wishes to push meaning into or pull meaning out of a law must be mindful of a law's structure . Any failure to respect the structure of a law generates inscrutable legalese and legal misunderstanding.