I know the story about Nino and Jack Bauer is stale, given our 36-hour news cycle, but when I first saw it I was struck by the notion that the Constitution should bend to accommodate a fictional, Hollywood creation, yet it would be high crime (not misdemeanor) for it to be illuminated even somewhat by reference to foreign sources of law. Just to put a finer point on it: Justice Jowls-Scratcher (pictured) is saying the coke-addled brain of some writer in a Universal backlot is a more worthy source of law than, say, an opinion from the European Court of Human Rights. Yay, Article III. Now, back to the law of contracts, which befuddles me similarly.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Fake v. Foreign
I know the story about Nino and Jack Bauer is stale, given our 36-hour news cycle, but when I first saw it I was struck by the notion that the Constitution should bend to accommodate a fictional, Hollywood creation, yet it would be high crime (not misdemeanor) for it to be illuminated even somewhat by reference to foreign sources of law. Just to put a finer point on it: Justice Jowls-Scratcher (pictured) is saying the coke-addled brain of some writer in a Universal backlot is a more worthy source of law than, say, an opinion from the European Court of Human Rights. Yay, Article III. Now, back to the law of contracts, which befuddles me similarly.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment