states rights/language meaning
rs at robertsheridan.com
Tue Mar 17 00:59:35 PDT 2009
I see a legal right as being a legally enforceable claim, whether it's
moral or not. Some claims are enforceable, and some aren't. The ones
that aren't are sometimes called moral rights, or claims, i.e. claims
that are morally but not necessarily legally supportable. Many legal
rights eventually go by the boards as morally insupportable. Conlaw is
replete with examples, slavery and Jim Crow being two of the most
Volokh, Eugene wrote:
> It is certainly possible for words to change their meaning. It's also possible to try to deliberately change the meaning of words, though it's very difficult to do, since it requires broad acceptance of the proposal among a vast body of speakers (vast even if the word is chiefly of interest to lawyers).
> But my sense is that Hohfeld's scholarship, while much admired and perhaps influential in some ways, has not changed the meaning of "right," nor have most of Hohfeld's other redefinitions and neologisms have been adopted. In particular, the word "right" seems to retain, as one of its meanings, the same meaning that I pointed out from the late 1700s (and before): A legal or moral entitlement, whether of individuals, organizations, states, nations, or other collectives.
> Bob Sheridan writes:
>> I guess Madison and Jefferson pre-date Yale's Prof. Hohfeld (1879-1918)
>> , who divided the world into neat parts:
>> Jural Opposites:
>> 1. Right/No-Right 2. Privilege/Duty 3. Power/Disability 4.
>> Jural Corelatives:
>> 1. Right/Duty 2. Privilege/No-Right 3. Power/Liability 4.
>> The above from Wikipedia, at:
>> Fundamental Legal Conceptions is his neat booklet on this.
>> Maybe the words have changed their meaning. Is that possible in this
>> world of ours?
> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
More information about the Conlawprof