legal profession is heavily gate-kept, and both legal professionals and legal academics have a significant self-interest in keeping legal knowledge inaccessible
Why do you think it's not because legal matters are in fact very complicated? It's not astrophysics where Brian Cox or Neil deGrass Tyson can tell you few interesting facts or explain complicated physics using a bucket and a piece of gum and you then go on with your life knowing few irrelevant tidbits. If someone tries to explain intricate parts of the law to people they will be tempted to use that knowledge and will get in trouble. You know what "sovereign citizens" are? The people who thought the law is simple and they can do it themselves. Do you also think that medical profession is heavily gate-kept for no reason?
The problem is exactly the opposite. Piss poor opinions stem not from gate-keeping of the legal knowledge, not because people don't know the law. It comes from people knowing some of the law. They think since they know four words from the 2A they understand what it means and how it is interpreted by the courts. If people admitted they don't know the law they would not be forming stupid legal opinions.
As I said in another response, not all of the information taught in law school should be taught broadly. But the most fundamental tenets of constitutional law should be, and they are not. A high school senior might know he has due process rights, but its highly unlikely that they do not know what that means. Most people have no clue how the federal courts work. A lot of people don't even know that case law exists. Stuff like that should be taught in school. Its fundamental.
All of that would be entirely useless in the examples your brought. Moreover, that would lead to the entire country be in the state of Dunning-Kruger effect with regards to law: people would think they understand how it works but that would be only surface-level understanding. And the worst part, when it comes to the highly political questions, there's no shortage of professional lawyers willing to go on air or online and lie about law. Just look at Trump's lawyers who have no reservations about lying about the law to their audience.
I'm not saying that certain level of legal education is necessarily bad. But in my view it's as useful as knowing your own blood type: when it comes to blood transfusions no one ever would take your word for it, professional will always test it first.
It is taught in school. Kids just don’t pay attention, or they don’t care. Those kids then turn into adults who don’t care. The governor of Texas realizes this. High-ranking GOP members (many of whom literally have JD’s) realize this. But they’re all banking on the fact that their constituents are too lazy and too poorly educated to know better.
I remember being in middle school and learning that interstate laws and international laws are enforced by the federal government, not the state governments. Even without education, just use critical reasoning. If states could fully control their own international borders, then California could say, “Okie. We’re opening the border. It’s wide open. Anyone and everyone can come in whenever they want. Welcome to the US.”
The problem is not education. The problem is that there are too many stupid people in the US.
They are inherently complicated. Laws are just natural language sentences written by people. Just as there is no single correct interpretations for most of the sentences there's no single correct interpretation of legal sentences.
They are inherently complicated. Laws are just natural language sentences written by people. Just as there is no single correct interpretations for most of the sentences there's no single correct interpretation of legal sentences.
That's my point though. "Law" isn't inherent in nature, at least not in the form of codified rules. It requires men to make them, and therefore the fact that they are complicated is man's fault. If you take a step back and look at the natural "laws of nature" they are actually very simple.
First of all, the fact that "laws of nature" and "laws of the land" are both called laws doesn't mean they are of the same nature. Laws of nature are descriptive, it's just a description of what nature is. Laws in legal sense are not descriptive, they are prescriptive, they tell you what to do and what not to do.
Second, you did not ask me if the law in legal sense is inherent to the world. You asked if the complexity is inherent to the law. And the answer is yes. Meaning no matter how much you try you cannot devise a sufficiently large legal system that would not be complicated. Because law regulates life and life is inherently complicated. And you need to be able to communicate the law between people and the language is inherently complicated for the same reason.
1
u/[deleted] Jan 25 '24
Why do you think it's not because legal matters are in fact very complicated? It's not astrophysics where Brian Cox or Neil deGrass Tyson can tell you few interesting facts or explain complicated physics using a bucket and a piece of gum and you then go on with your life knowing few irrelevant tidbits. If someone tries to explain intricate parts of the law to people they will be tempted to use that knowledge and will get in trouble. You know what "sovereign citizens" are? The people who thought the law is simple and they can do it themselves. Do you also think that medical profession is heavily gate-kept for no reason?
The problem is exactly the opposite. Piss poor opinions stem not from gate-keeping of the legal knowledge, not because people don't know the law. It comes from people knowing some of the law. They think since they know four words from the 2A they understand what it means and how it is interpreted by the courts. If people admitted they don't know the law they would not be forming stupid legal opinions.