Skip to content Skip to navigation Skip to collection information
Inside Collection (Course): A Unified Theory of a Law
At this juncture, an example showing the nitty gritty of making a law may be helpful. Let us examine the making of a law of evidence.
Four objects need to be kept in mind in the process of making a law. The one factual object which is a flow of conduct from Source to Recipient through circumstances and the three legal objects which are the three permutations of a law.
A Unified Theory of a Law recommends that the legal thinker begin an acquisition of the meaning of a law with the three core permutations of a Law in mind:
Moreover, identify both polarities of a flow of conduct from Source to Recipient in circumstances, that is, the affirmative conduct and the negative conduct. Do not work with just one polarity alone.
Onto the stage let us meet three characters:
Let us identify the conduct to be the rulings of a Trial Judge. The affirmative conduct is the admission of an item into evidence and the negative conduct is the exclusion of an item from evidence. The Source doing conduct is, obviously, a Trial Judge.
A Unified Theory of a Law teaches that the three core permutations of a Law available for application to this flow of conduct from Source to Recipient in the circumstances are the following.
For those keeping track of our location within A Unified Theory of a Law, the three core permutations of a law above are expressed as opinions not vehicles when the focus of the Lawmaker is broad spanning the entire flow of conduct from Source to Recipient in circumstances. The three core permutations of a law could alternately be expressed using vehicles not opinions and from the other two focuses (foci) of the Lawmaker.
The hypothesis advocated by the proponent is that the trial judge has a duty to admit an item into evidence (affirmative regulation).
A Proponent must prove his hypothesis by citation to Statutes, Judicial Opinions and other precedents.
For those keeping track of our location within A Unified Theory of a Law, we have been using vehicles not opinions of a Lawmaker whose focus is upon the Source of conduct.
The hypothesis of the opponent is that the trial judge has a duty to exclude an item from evidence (negative regulation).
An Opponent must prove his hypothesis by citation to Statutes, Judicial Opinions and other precedents.
For those keeping track of our location within A Unified Theory of a Law, we have been using vehicles not opinions of a Lawmaker whose focus is upon the Source of conduct.
To prevent the abuse of power, we enmesh our trial judges within a web of laws. In other words, we fetter their discretion. We prefer the rule of laws rather than the rule of a tyrant. The law of evidence informs a trial judge with regard to her rulings on the admission and exclusion of evidence.
The Trial Judge, like a scientist, will test the hypothesis of the proponent and the opponent of an item of evidence. Then the Trial Judge will pick one permutation of a law and reject the other.
Notice that neither the proponent nor the opponent advocate Deregulation. Leaving the ruling on the admission and exclusion of an item of evidence to the discretion of the Trial Judge would be absurd. There would be no certainty in the law of evidence. Without certainty, the proponent, the opponent, future litigants and trial judges would be lost. The trial judges would have absolute power. Lord Acton would not be pleased.
John Bosco
Project Director
The Legal Literacy Project
More about this module: Metadata | Downloads | Version History
This work is licensed by John Bosco under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY 3.0), and is an Open Educational Resource.
Last edited by John Bosco on Mar 5, 2011 11:01 am -0600.
