Teens-Cancer-Informed Consent: E.G. and C.C. A Tale of Progressive & Nebulous Legal Theories

[Michelle420]

I am not talking about emancipation. All of the legal acts a 17 yr can do is not based on emancipation, it's just their legal right to do it. The only thing they seem to not have the right to do is to refuse medical treatment.

It makes no sense.

Why would they be allowed to decide all those other things I listed, some even risky decisions. If the legal argument for forcing medical treatment is because of the state worrying about liability, why isn't that true in abortion? If the legal argument is mature state of mind to understand the decision to refuse treatment, then why isn't that legal argument there when recruiters are trying to sign up 17 yr old for military (risk being they could die in war)

Anyway, you obviously have some different agenda so, I will let you get to it.
Salute

drifter sorry to say, you ARE doing what you say you are NOT doing: you are arguing about emancipation of minors:

Emancipation of minors
All states have laws dealing with the "emancipation" of minors; that is, laws that specify when and under what conditions children become independent of their parents for important legal purposes. A complete reference to statutory provisions for all 50 states, pertaining to termination of parental rights, age of majority or emancipation itself, can be found in the LII State Law pages.

Emancipation of minors Wex Legal Dictionary Encyclopedia LII Legal Information Institute
​

"It makes no sense." Yes it does.

The rest of your post is about who has custody of a minor -- before they are emancipated

Nope!

Sorry but you don't need emancipation to have an abortion, and you don't need it to join the military at 17, and you don't need it for gender reassignment surgery either.

You need a parent's consent for gender reassignment, and for marriage as a minor.

Not for abortion or military.

But you want to argue about the law in regards to minors legal choices on "low risk" medical treatments.

The key word there is low risk, I doubt there is much legal controversy on that.

I am wanting to know why the law allows minors to decide "life altering" decisions in one instance and not the other.

Since this is not what you are interested in Dante I will unwatch this thread because otherwise I would be hijacking your thread into something else you are not interested in and that is not what I want to do.

Okay, I see where you are confused. The minor gets permission from the state/adult because they have not reached the age of maturity, emancipation. This is why they "don't need emancipation to have an abortion," and why "they don't need it to join the military at 17," and why "they don't need it for gender reassignment surgery." In place of it they get a waiver that the law allows. Why does the law allow this? Because.

and there is the Age of majority which is enumerated in state laws for specific purposes. If you presented your arguments to the court, saying what you do is not a legal arguments and would change nothing. How would you frame the argument? What evidence would you present to show the advantages of granting change? Would you demand all things be consistent. too funny

Because why? (shakes my head)



Age of majority is just a fancy way to say 18 or 19 yrs old legal adult.

1. The "age of majority" is the legal age established under state law at which an individual is no longer a minor and, as a young adult, has the right and responsibility to make certain legal choices that adults make.

State Age of Majority
Alabama 19
Alaska 18
Arizona 18
Arkansas 18 or graduation from high school, whichever is later
California 18
Colorado 18
Connecticut 18
Delaware 19
District of Columbia 18

What Is the Age of Majority in My State


I am not a law student, but maybe Emily will pop in and take that on.

I simply pointed out the inconsistencies of law especially applied to the 17 yr old and wanted to know the reasons why.

The answers people gave me really don't justify the inconsistencies in the laws.

How would you frame the argument? Asserting Your Right to Give/Withhold Consent, The Right to Choose Your Treatment.

Although the right to refuse medical treatment is universally recognized as a fundamental principle of liberty, this right is not always honored. A refusal can be thwarted either because a patient is unable to competently communicate or because providers insist on continuing treatment. To help enhance the patient's right to refuse treatment, many states have enacted so-called "living will" or "natural death" statutes. We believe the time has come to move beyond these current legislative models, and we therefore propose a Model Act that clearly enunciates an individual's right to refuse treatment, does not limit its exercise to the terminally ill or to heroic measures, and provides a mechanism by which individuals can set forth their wishes in advance and designate another person to enforce them. The right to refuse treatment a model act.

What evidence would you present to show the advantages of granting change? Why does it have to show advantages, why not show the disadvantage someone is at who loses their right to their own choices?

Would you demand all things be consistent. Yes, afterall, ------> absolutist

Of course the inconsistencies are justified. You just don't agree with the justifications. The reason states differ is because of the US Constitution: powers reserved to the states.

Minors do not have the Right to Give/Withhold Consent anymore than they have the right to vote or sign legal contracts. You keep confusing minors as equal to adults. Under law, common law, that has never been so.

Then minors shouldn't be allowed to join the military opt for abortion or gender re assignment.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

drifter sorry to say, you ARE doing what you say you are NOT doing: you are arguing about emancipation of minors:

Emancipation of minors
All states have laws dealing with the "emancipation" of minors; that is, laws that specify when and under what conditions children become independent of their parents for important legal purposes. A complete reference to statutory provisions for all 50 states, pertaining to termination of parental rights, age of majority or emancipation itself, can be found in the LII State Law pages.

Emancipation of minors Wex Legal Dictionary Encyclopedia LII Legal Information Institute
​

"It makes no sense." Yes it does.

The rest of your post is about who has custody of a minor -- before they are emancipated

Nope!

Sorry but you don't need emancipation to have an abortion, and you don't need it to join the military at 17, and you don't need it for gender reassignment surgery either.

You need a parent's consent for gender reassignment, and for marriage as a minor.

Not for abortion or military.

But you want to argue about the law in regards to minors legal choices on "low risk" medical treatments.

The key word there is low risk, I doubt there is much legal controversy on that.

I am wanting to know why the law allows minors to decide "life altering" decisions in one instance and not the other.

Since this is not what you are interested in Dante I will unwatch this thread because otherwise I would be hijacking your thread into something else you are not interested in and that is not what I want to do.

Okay, I see where you are confused. The minor gets permission from the state/adult because they have not reached the age of maturity, emancipation. This is why they "don't need emancipation to have an abortion," and why "they don't need it to join the military at 17," and why "they don't need it for gender reassignment surgery." In place of it they get a waiver that the law allows. Why does the law allow this? Because.

and there is the Age of majority which is enumerated in state laws for specific purposes. If you presented your arguments to the court, saying what you do is not a legal arguments and would change nothing. How would you frame the argument? What evidence would you present to show the advantages of granting change? Would you demand all things be consistent. too funny

Because why? (shakes my head)



Age of majority is just a fancy way to say 18 or 19 yrs old legal adult.

1. The "age of majority" is the legal age established under state law at which an individual is no longer a minor and, as a young adult, has the right and responsibility to make certain legal choices that adults make.

State Age of Majority
Alabama 19
Alaska 18
Arizona 18
Arkansas 18 or graduation from high school, whichever is later
California 18
Colorado 18
Connecticut 18
Delaware 19
District of Columbia 18

What Is the Age of Majority in My State


I am not a law student, but maybe Emily will pop in and take that on.

I simply pointed out the inconsistencies of law especially applied to the 17 yr old and wanted to know the reasons why.

The answers people gave me really don't justify the inconsistencies in the laws.

How would you frame the argument? Asserting Your Right to Give/Withhold Consent, The Right to Choose Your Treatment.

Although the right to refuse medical treatment is universally recognized as a fundamental principle of liberty, this right is not always honored. A refusal can be thwarted either because a patient is unable to competently communicate or because providers insist on continuing treatment. To help enhance the patient's right to refuse treatment, many states have enacted so-called "living will" or "natural death" statutes. We believe the time has come to move beyond these current legislative models, and we therefore propose a Model Act that clearly enunciates an individual's right to refuse treatment, does not limit its exercise to the terminally ill or to heroic measures, and provides a mechanism by which individuals can set forth their wishes in advance and designate another person to enforce them. The right to refuse treatment a model act.

What evidence would you present to show the advantages of granting change? Why does it have to show advantages, why not show the disadvantage someone is at who loses their right to their own choices?

Would you demand all things be consistent. Yes, afterall, ------> absolutist

Of course the inconsistencies are justified. You just don't agree with the justifications. The reason states differ is because of the US Constitution: powers reserved to the states.

Minors do not have the Right to Give/Withhold Consent anymore than they have the right to vote or sign legal contracts. You keep confusing minors as equal to adults. Under law, common law, that has never been so.

Then minors shouldn't be allowed to join the military opt for abortion or gender re assignment.

you keep trying to tie in all things in life. It doesn't work that way. never has and never will.

 

[Michelle420]

there may be special circumstances that will make looking for the headline the best strategy. For example, if the court in which your case is pending has shown a predilection for bold, sweeping pronouncements (because of its philosophy, politics or personality) or has suggested that it would be open to doing so if faced with the issue presented in your case, you may want to give the court a reason to do something dramatic. And there may be extra incentive for your client to gamble on an aggressive stance (perhaps arguing in the alternative for a more cautious approach) if the client is likely to face the same question in future cases. Ordinarily, however, arguing for an incremental change in the law will be the better course.


In fact, this is how legal evolution generally occurs. The law has evolved over hundreds of years — occasionally in leaps and bounds, but far more frequently in gradual, sometimes almost imperceptible, shifts. As Justice Cardozo observed, changes in the law typically occur "inch by inch." Benjamin N. Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process at 25 (1921). Although the changes, "as they were made in this case or that, may not have seemed momentous in the making," the result years later often "has been not merely to supplement or modify; it has been to revolutionize and transform." Id. at 27-28.

For these reasons, if the court has not considered the precise question that your case presents, search for a close analogy from which the court can push the law a bit along the path that you prefer, yet still feel tethered in some sense to its own precedents. As the second Justice, Harlan explained, "[t]he decision of an apparently novel claim must depend on grounds which follow closely on well-accepted principles and criteria. The new decision must take its place in relation to what went before and further [cut] a channel for what is to come." Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 544 (1961) (Harlan, J., dissenting). Similarly, if the position that you have staked out is not too outlandish, look for out-of-state decisions or scholarly commentary supporting it. You may find support for your position in traditional sources of law with which the court will be familiar.
Appellate.net

 

[whitehall]

In a year (or less) the poor kid will be able to make her own decision if the treatment doesn't kill her first or impede her mental ability to make a decision.

 

[Michelle420]

Nope!

Sorry but you don't need emancipation to have an abortion, and you don't need it to join the military at 17, and you don't need it for gender reassignment surgery either.

You need a parent's consent for gender reassignment, and for marriage as a minor.

Not for abortion or military.

But you want to argue about the law in regards to minors legal choices on "low risk" medical treatments.

The key word there is low risk, I doubt there is much legal controversy on that.

I am wanting to know why the law allows minors to decide "life altering" decisions in one instance and not the other.

Since this is not what you are interested in Dante I will unwatch this thread because otherwise I would be hijacking your thread into something else you are not interested in and that is not what I want to do.

Okay, I see where you are confused. The minor gets permission from the state/adult because they have not reached the age of maturity, emancipation. This is why they "don't need emancipation to have an abortion," and why "they don't need it to join the military at 17," and why "they don't need it for gender reassignment surgery." In place of it they get a waiver that the law allows. Why does the law allow this? Because.

and there is the Age of majority which is enumerated in state laws for specific purposes. If you presented your arguments to the court, saying what you do is not a legal arguments and would change nothing. How would you frame the argument? What evidence would you present to show the advantages of granting change? Would you demand all things be consistent. too funny

Because why? (shakes my head)



Age of majority is just a fancy way to say 18 or 19 yrs old legal adult.

1. The "age of majority" is the legal age established under state law at which an individual is no longer a minor and, as a young adult, has the right and responsibility to make certain legal choices that adults make.

State Age of Majority
Alabama 19
Alaska 18
Arizona 18
Arkansas 18 or graduation from high school, whichever is later
California 18
Colorado 18
Connecticut 18
Delaware 19
District of Columbia 18

What Is the Age of Majority in My State


I am not a law student, but maybe Emily will pop in and take that on.

I simply pointed out the inconsistencies of law especially applied to the 17 yr old and wanted to know the reasons why.

The answers people gave me really don't justify the inconsistencies in the laws.

How would you frame the argument? Asserting Your Right to Give/Withhold Consent, The Right to Choose Your Treatment.

Although the right to refuse medical treatment is universally recognized as a fundamental principle of liberty, this right is not always honored. A refusal can be thwarted either because a patient is unable to competently communicate or because providers insist on continuing treatment. To help enhance the patient's right to refuse treatment, many states have enacted so-called "living will" or "natural death" statutes. We believe the time has come to move beyond these current legislative models, and we therefore propose a Model Act that clearly enunciates an individual's right to refuse treatment, does not limit its exercise to the terminally ill or to heroic measures, and provides a mechanism by which individuals can set forth their wishes in advance and designate another person to enforce them. The right to refuse treatment a model act.

What evidence would you present to show the advantages of granting change? Why does it have to show advantages, why not show the disadvantage someone is at who loses their right to their own choices?

Would you demand all things be consistent. Yes, afterall, ------> absolutist

Of course the inconsistencies are justified. You just don't agree with the justifications. The reason states differ is because of the US Constitution: powers reserved to the states.

Minors do not have the Right to Give/Withhold Consent anymore than they have the right to vote or sign legal contracts. You keep confusing minors as equal to adults. Under law, common law, that has never been so.

Then minors shouldn't be allowed to join the military opt for abortion or gender re assignment.

you keep trying to tie in all things in life. It doesn't work that way. never has and never will.

Incorrect, it actually does work that way, this is why law firms on high interest cases will hire jury consultants to profile the jury pull.

Lawyers use emotional rhetoric all the time to win a case and in taking a case to higher court, there is also statutory interpretation and lawyers use both logical and emotional arguments to persuade the courts.

 

[Michelle420]

In a year (or less) the poor kid will be able to make her own decision if the treatment doesn't kill her first or impede her mental ability to make a decision.

I hope she opts for treatment.

Still, it should be her choice, it's her body.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

there may be special circumstances that will make looking for the headline the best strategy. For example, if the court in which your case is pending has shown a predilection for bold, sweeping pronouncements (because of its philosophy, politics or personality) or has suggested that it would be open to doing so if faced with the issue presented in your case, you may want to give the court a reason to do something dramatic. And there may be extra incentive for your client to gamble on an aggressive stance (perhaps arguing in the alternative for a more cautious approach) if the client is likely to face the same question in future cases. Ordinarily, however, arguing for an incremental change in the law will be the better course.


In fact, this is how legal evolution generally occurs. The law has evolved over hundreds of years — occasionally in leaps and bounds, but far more frequently in gradual, sometimes almost imperceptible, shifts. As Justice Cardozo observed, changes in the law typically occur "inch by inch." Benjamin N. Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process at 25 (1921). Although the changes, "as they were made in this case or that, may not have seemed momentous in the making," the result years later often "has been not merely to supplement or modify; it has been to revolutionize and transform." Id. at 27-28.

For these reasons, if the court has not considered the precise question that your case presents, search for a close analogy from which the court can push the law a bit along the path that you prefer, yet still feel tethered in some sense to its own precedents. As the second Justice, Harlan explained, "[t]he decision of an apparently novel claim must depend on grounds which follow closely on well-accepted principles and criteria. The new decision must take its place in relation to what went before and further [cut] a channel for what is to come." Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 544 (1961) (Harlan, J., dissenting). Similarly, if the position that you have staked out is not too outlandish, look for out-of-state decisions or scholarly commentary supporting it. You may find support for your position in traditional sources of law with which the court will be familiar.
Appellate.net

I know all of this and have continually wondered whether you could present a credible argument for your position that was not based on feelings alone.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

In a year (or less) the poor kid will be able to make her own decision if the treatment doesn't kill her first or impede her mental ability to make a decision.

It's usually religious folks who think their imaginary god will save them or welcome them for being heroic in death.

sad

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Okay, I see where you are confused. The minor gets permission from the state/adult because they have not reached the age of maturity, emancipation. This is why they "don't need emancipation to have an abortion," and why "they don't need it to join the military at 17," and why "they don't need it for gender reassignment surgery." In place of it they get a waiver that the law allows. Why does the law allow this? Because.

and there is the Age of majority which is enumerated in state laws for specific purposes. If you presented your arguments to the court, saying what you do is not a legal arguments and would change nothing. How would you frame the argument? What evidence would you present to show the advantages of granting change? Would you demand all things be consistent. too funny

Because why? (shakes my head)



Age of majority is just a fancy way to say 18 or 19 yrs old legal adult.

1. The "age of majority" is the legal age established under state law at which an individual is no longer a minor and, as a young adult, has the right and responsibility to make certain legal choices that adults make.

State Age of Majority
Alabama 19
Alaska 18
Arizona 18
Arkansas 18 or graduation from high school, whichever is later
California 18
Colorado 18
Connecticut 18
Delaware 19
District of Columbia 18

What Is the Age of Majority in My State


I am not a law student, but maybe Emily will pop in and take that on.

I simply pointed out the inconsistencies of law especially applied to the 17 yr old and wanted to know the reasons why.

The answers people gave me really don't justify the inconsistencies in the laws.

How would you frame the argument? Asserting Your Right to Give/Withhold Consent, The Right to Choose Your Treatment.

Although the right to refuse medical treatment is universally recognized as a fundamental principle of liberty, this right is not always honored. A refusal can be thwarted either because a patient is unable to competently communicate or because providers insist on continuing treatment. To help enhance the patient's right to refuse treatment, many states have enacted so-called "living will" or "natural death" statutes. We believe the time has come to move beyond these current legislative models, and we therefore propose a Model Act that clearly enunciates an individual's right to refuse treatment, does not limit its exercise to the terminally ill or to heroic measures, and provides a mechanism by which individuals can set forth their wishes in advance and designate another person to enforce them. The right to refuse treatment a model act.

What evidence would you present to show the advantages of granting change? Why does it have to show advantages, why not show the disadvantage someone is at who loses their right to their own choices?

Would you demand all things be consistent. Yes, afterall, ------> absolutist

Of course the inconsistencies are justified. You just don't agree with the justifications. The reason states differ is because of the US Constitution: powers reserved to the states.

Minors do not have the Right to Give/Withhold Consent anymore than they have the right to vote or sign legal contracts. You keep confusing minors as equal to adults. Under law, common law, that has never been so.

Then minors shouldn't be allowed to join the military opt for abortion or gender re assignment.

you keep trying to tie in all things in life. It doesn't work that way. never has and never will.

Incorrect, it actually does work that way, this is why law firms on high interest cases will hire jury consultants to profile the jury pull.

Lawyers use emotional rhetoric all the time to win a case and in taking a case to higher court, there is also statutory interpretation and lawyers use both logical and emotional arguments to persuade the courts.

Supreme Court cases do NOT involve juries. Juries do NOT get to decide constitutional issues.

 

[Michelle420]

there may be special circumstances that will make looking for the headline the best strategy. For example, if the court in which your case is pending has shown a predilection for bold, sweeping pronouncements (because of its philosophy, politics or personality) or has suggested that it would be open to doing so if faced with the issue presented in your case, you may want to give the court a reason to do something dramatic. And there may be extra incentive for your client to gamble on an aggressive stance (perhaps arguing in the alternative for a more cautious approach) if the client is likely to face the same question in future cases. Ordinarily, however, arguing for an incremental change in the law will be the better course.


In fact, this is how legal evolution generally occurs. The law has evolved over hundreds of years — occasionally in leaps and bounds, but far more frequently in gradual, sometimes almost imperceptible, shifts. As Justice Cardozo observed, changes in the law typically occur "inch by inch." Benjamin N. Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process at 25 (1921). Although the changes, "as they were made in this case or that, may not have seemed momentous in the making," the result years later often "has been not merely to supplement or modify; it has been to revolutionize and transform." Id. at 27-28.

For these reasons, if the court has not considered the precise question that your case presents, search for a close analogy from which the court can push the law a bit along the path that you prefer, yet still feel tethered in some sense to its own precedents. As the second Justice, Harlan explained, "[t]he decision of an apparently novel claim must depend on grounds which follow closely on well-accepted principles and criteria. The new decision must take its place in relation to what went before and further [cut] a channel for what is to come." Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 544 (1961) (Harlan, J., dissenting). Similarly, if the position that you have staked out is not too outlandish, look for out-of-state decisions or scholarly commentary supporting it. You may find support for your position in traditional sources of law with which the court will be familiar.
Appellate.net

I know all of this and have continually wondered whether you could present a credible argument for your position that was not based on feelings alone.

I would have to do research and then I would have to decide on what I wanted to argue.

Is it to reduce the age of right to refuse medicine?

Is it to raise the age that minors can make any legal choices for themselves?

etc etc.....

This is why I am not on a debate team or in law school.

If this was an assignment and you were giving me a grade, I would put the work into it

But as such mine was just a discussion thread and in that light, discussing how I see laws as inconsistent in reference to 17 yr olds on several issues, really doesn't require me to make a legal argument, and it is also ok to present it in the legal section because I am talking about inconsisties and asking others to explain the reasons behind them.


This is why at the very start of your thread I told you I should bail out because, your intentions of this thread were different then my intentions n the original thread.

Lastly, you are way more intelligent than me Dante, there is no way I could ever argue to convince you of anything because you are many steps ahead of me in all our discussions.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

there may be special circumstances that will make looking for the headline the best strategy. For example, if the court in which your case is pending has shown a predilection for bold, sweeping pronouncements (because of its philosophy, politics or personality) or has suggested that it would be open to doing so if faced with the issue presented in your case, you may want to give the court a reason to do something dramatic. And there may be extra incentive for your client to gamble on an aggressive stance (perhaps arguing in the alternative for a more cautious approach) if the client is likely to face the same question in future cases. Ordinarily, however, arguing for an incremental change in the law will be the better course.


In fact, this is how legal evolution generally occurs. The law has evolved over hundreds of years — occasionally in leaps and bounds, but far more frequently in gradual, sometimes almost imperceptible, shifts. As Justice Cardozo observed, changes in the law typically occur "inch by inch." Benjamin N. Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process at 25 (1921). Although the changes, "as they were made in this case or that, may not have seemed momentous in the making," the result years later often "has been not merely to supplement or modify; it has been to revolutionize and transform." Id. at 27-28.

For these reasons, if the court has not considered the precise question that your case presents, search for a close analogy from which the court can push the law a bit along the path that you prefer, yet still feel tethered in some sense to its own precedents. As the second Justice, Harlan explained, "[t]he decision of an apparently novel claim must depend on grounds which follow closely on well-accepted principles and criteria. The new decision must take its place in relation to what went before and further [cut] a channel for what is to come." Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 544 (1961) (Harlan, J., dissenting). Similarly, if the position that you have staked out is not too outlandish, look for out-of-state decisions or scholarly commentary supporting it. You may find support for your position in traditional sources of law with which the court will be familiar.
Appellate.net

I know all of this and have continually wondered whether you could present a credible argument for your position that was not based on feelings alone.

I would have to do research and then I would have to decide on what I wanted to argue.

Is it to reduce the age of right to refuse medicine?

Is it to raise the age that minors can make any legal choices for themselves?

etc etc.....

This is why I am not on a debate team or in law school.

If this was an assignment and you were giving me a grade, I would put the work into it

But as such mine was just a discussion thread and in that light, discussing how I see laws as inconsistent in reference to 17 yr olds on several issues, really doesn't require me to make a legal argument, and it is also ok to present it in the legal section because I am talking about inconsisties and asking others to explain the reasons behind them.


This is why at the very start of your thread I told you I should bail out because, your intentions of this thread were different then my intentions n the original thread.

Lastly, you are way more intelligent than me Dante, there is no way I could ever argue to convince you of anything because you are many steps ahead of me in all our discussions.

laws are not inconsistent. they are all separate laws with exceptions within laws and...

nothing is as simple as you drifter, would have it be

 

[Michelle420]

there may be special circumstances that will make looking for the headline the best strategy. For example, if the court in which your case is pending has shown a predilection for bold, sweeping pronouncements (because of its philosophy, politics or personality) or has suggested that it would be open to doing so if faced with the issue presented in your case, you may want to give the court a reason to do something dramatic. And there may be extra incentive for your client to gamble on an aggressive stance (perhaps arguing in the alternative for a more cautious approach) if the client is likely to face the same question in future cases. Ordinarily, however, arguing for an incremental change in the law will be the better course.


In fact, this is how legal evolution generally occurs. The law has evolved over hundreds of years — occasionally in leaps and bounds, but far more frequently in gradual, sometimes almost imperceptible, shifts. As Justice Cardozo observed, changes in the law typically occur "inch by inch." Benjamin N. Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process at 25 (1921). Although the changes, "as they were made in this case or that, may not have seemed momentous in the making," the result years later often "has been not merely to supplement or modify; it has been to revolutionize and transform." Id. at 27-28.

For these reasons, if the court has not considered the precise question that your case presents, search for a close analogy from which the court can push the law a bit along the path that you prefer, yet still feel tethered in some sense to its own precedents. As the second Justice, Harlan explained, "[t]he decision of an apparently novel claim must depend on grounds which follow closely on well-accepted principles and criteria. The new decision must take its place in relation to what went before and further [cut] a channel for what is to come." Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 544 (1961) (Harlan, J., dissenting). Similarly, if the position that you have staked out is not too outlandish, look for out-of-state decisions or scholarly commentary supporting it. You may find support for your position in traditional sources of law with which the court will be familiar.
Appellate.net

I know all of this and have continually wondered whether you could present a credible argument for your position that was not based on feelings alone.

I would have to do research and then I would have to decide on what I wanted to argue.

Is it to reduce the age of right to refuse medicine?

Is it to raise the age that minors can make any legal choices for themselves?

etc etc.....

This is why I am not on a debate team or in law school.

If this was an assignment and you were giving me a grade, I would put the work into it

But as such mine was just a discussion thread and in that light, discussing how I see laws as inconsistent in reference to 17 yr olds on several issues, really doesn't require me to make a legal argument, and it is also ok to present it in the legal section because I am talking about inconsisties and asking others to explain the reasons behind them.


This is why at the very start of your thread I told you I should bail out because, your intentions of this thread were different then my intentions n the original thread.

Lastly, you are way more intelligent than me Dante, there is no way I could ever argue to convince you of anything because you are many steps ahead of me in all our discussions.

laws are not inconsistent. they are all separate laws with exceptions within laws and...

nothing is as simple as you drifter, would have it be

I don't think it's simple, but in this line of thinking:

biopower
Foucault argues that biopower is a technology which appeared in the late eighteenth century for managing populations. It incorporates certain aspects of disciplinary power. If disciplinary power is about training the actions of bodies, biopower is about managing the births, deaths, reproduction and illnesses of a population.

body
Foucault is particularly concerned with the relations between political power and the body, and describes various historical ways of training the body to make it socially productive. The body is an element to be managed in relation to strategies of the economic and social management of populations.

I don't think the government should be involved in the commodity of medicine or the regulation of bodies.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

there may be special circumstances that will make looking for the headline the best strategy. For example, if the court in which your case is pending has shown a predilection for bold, sweeping pronouncements (because of its philosophy, politics or personality) or has suggested that it would be open to doing so if faced with the issue presented in your case, you may want to give the court a reason to do something dramatic. And there may be extra incentive for your client to gamble on an aggressive stance (perhaps arguing in the alternative for a more cautious approach) if the client is likely to face the same question in future cases. Ordinarily, however, arguing for an incremental change in the law will be the better course.


In fact, this is how legal evolution generally occurs. The law has evolved over hundreds of years — occasionally in leaps and bounds, but far more frequently in gradual, sometimes almost imperceptible, shifts. As Justice Cardozo observed, changes in the law typically occur "inch by inch." Benjamin N. Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process at 25 (1921). Although the changes, "as they were made in this case or that, may not have seemed momentous in the making," the result years later often "has been not merely to supplement or modify; it has been to revolutionize and transform." Id. at 27-28.

For these reasons, if the court has not considered the precise question that your case presents, search for a close analogy from which the court can push the law a bit along the path that you prefer, yet still feel tethered in some sense to its own precedents. As the second Justice, Harlan explained, "[t]he decision of an apparently novel claim must depend on grounds which follow closely on well-accepted principles and criteria. The new decision must take its place in relation to what went before and further [cut] a channel for what is to come." Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 544 (1961) (Harlan, J., dissenting). Similarly, if the position that you have staked out is not too outlandish, look for out-of-state decisions or scholarly commentary supporting it. You may find support for your position in traditional sources of law with which the court will be familiar.
Appellate.net

I know all of this and have continually wondered whether you could present a credible argument for your position that was not based on feelings alone.

I would have to do research and then I would have to decide on what I wanted to argue.

Is it to reduce the age of right to refuse medicine?

Is it to raise the age that minors can make any legal choices for themselves?

etc etc.....

This is why I am not on a debate team or in law school.

If this was an assignment and you were giving me a grade, I would put the work into it

But as such mine was just a discussion thread and in that light, discussing how I see laws as inconsistent in reference to 17 yr olds on several issues, really doesn't require me to make a legal argument, and it is also ok to present it in the legal section because I am talking about inconsisties and asking others to explain the reasons behind them.


This is why at the very start of your thread I told you I should bail out because, your intentions of this thread were different then my intentions n the original thread.

Lastly, you are way more intelligent than me Dante, there is no way I could ever argue to convince you of anything because you are many steps ahead of me in all our discussions.

laws are not inconsistent. they are all separate laws with exceptions within laws and...

nothing is as simple as you drifter, would have it be

I don't think it's simple, but in this line of thinking:

biopower
Foucault argues that biopower is a technology which appeared in the late eighteenth century for managing populations. It incorporates certain aspects of disciplinary power. If disciplinary power is about training the actions of bodies, biopower is about managing the births, deaths, reproduction and illnesses of a population.

body
Foucault is particularly concerned with the relations between political power and the body, and describes various historical ways of training the body to make it socially productive. The body is an element to be managed in relation to strategies of the economic and social management of populations.

I don't think the government should be involved in the commodity of medicine or the regulation of bodies.

then you are at odds with society

 

[Michelle420]

there may be special circumstances that will make looking for the headline the best strategy. For example, if the court in which your case is pending has shown a predilection for bold, sweeping pronouncements (because of its philosophy, politics or personality) or has suggested that it would be open to doing so if faced with the issue presented in your case, you may want to give the court a reason to do something dramatic. And there may be extra incentive for your client to gamble on an aggressive stance (perhaps arguing in the alternative for a more cautious approach) if the client is likely to face the same question in future cases. Ordinarily, however, arguing for an incremental change in the law will be the better course.


In fact, this is how legal evolution generally occurs. The law has evolved over hundreds of years — occasionally in leaps and bounds, but far more frequently in gradual, sometimes almost imperceptible, shifts. As Justice Cardozo observed, changes in the law typically occur "inch by inch." Benjamin N. Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process at 25 (1921). Although the changes, "as they were made in this case or that, may not have seemed momentous in the making," the result years later often "has been not merely to supplement or modify; it has been to revolutionize and transform." Id. at 27-28.

For these reasons, if the court has not considered the precise question that your case presents, search for a close analogy from which the court can push the law a bit along the path that you prefer, yet still feel tethered in some sense to its own precedents. As the second Justice, Harlan explained, "[t]he decision of an apparently novel claim must depend on grounds which follow closely on well-accepted principles and criteria. The new decision must take its place in relation to what went before and further [cut] a channel for what is to come." Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 544 (1961) (Harlan, J., dissenting). Similarly, if the position that you have staked out is not too outlandish, look for out-of-state decisions or scholarly commentary supporting it. You may find support for your position in traditional sources of law with which the court will be familiar.
Appellate.net

I know all of this and have continually wondered whether you could present a credible argument for your position that was not based on feelings alone.

I would have to do research and then I would have to decide on what I wanted to argue.

Is it to reduce the age of right to refuse medicine?

Is it to raise the age that minors can make any legal choices for themselves?

etc etc.....

This is why I am not on a debate team or in law school.

If this was an assignment and you were giving me a grade, I would put the work into it

But as such mine was just a discussion thread and in that light, discussing how I see laws as inconsistent in reference to 17 yr olds on several issues, really doesn't require me to make a legal argument, and it is also ok to present it in the legal section because I am talking about inconsisties and asking others to explain the reasons behind them.


This is why at the very start of your thread I told you I should bail out because, your intentions of this thread were different then my intentions n the original thread.

Lastly, you are way more intelligent than me Dante, there is no way I could ever argue to convince you of anything because you are many steps ahead of me in all our discussions.

laws are not inconsistent. they are all separate laws with exceptions within laws and...

nothing is as simple as you drifter, would have it be

I don't think it's simple, but in this line of thinking:

biopower
Foucault argues that biopower is a technology which appeared in the late eighteenth century for managing populations. It incorporates certain aspects of disciplinary power. If disciplinary power is about training the actions of bodies, biopower is about managing the births, deaths, reproduction and illnesses of a population.

body
Foucault is particularly concerned with the relations between political power and the body, and describes various historical ways of training the body to make it socially productive. The body is an element to be managed in relation to strategies of the economic and social management of populations.

I don't think the government should be involved in the commodity of medicine or the regulation of bodies.

then you are at odds with society

I am at times , but I am also law abiding to my culture.

 

[Moonglow]

I know all of this and have continually wondered whether you could present a credible argument for your position that was not based on feelings alone.

I would have to do research and then I would have to decide on what I wanted to argue.

Is it to reduce the age of right to refuse medicine?

Is it to raise the age that minors can make any legal choices for themselves?

etc etc.....

This is why I am not on a debate team or in law school.

If this was an assignment and you were giving me a grade, I would put the work into it

But as such mine was just a discussion thread and in that light, discussing how I see laws as inconsistent in reference to 17 yr olds on several issues, really doesn't require me to make a legal argument, and it is also ok to present it in the legal section because I am talking about inconsisties and asking others to explain the reasons behind them.


This is why at the very start of your thread I told you I should bail out because, your intentions of this thread were different then my intentions n the original thread.

Lastly, you are way more intelligent than me Dante, there is no way I could ever argue to convince you of anything because you are many steps ahead of me in all our discussions.

laws are not inconsistent. they are all separate laws with exceptions within laws and...

nothing is as simple as you drifter, would have it be

I don't think it's simple, but in this line of thinking:

biopower
Foucault argues that biopower is a technology which appeared in the late eighteenth century for managing populations. It incorporates certain aspects of disciplinary power. If disciplinary power is about training the actions of bodies, biopower is about managing the births, deaths, reproduction and illnesses of a population.

body
Foucault is particularly concerned with the relations between political power and the body, and describes various historical ways of training the body to make it socially productive. The body is an element to be managed in relation to strategies of the economic and social management of populations.

I don't think the government should be involved in the commodity of medicine or the regulation of bodies.

then you are at odds with society

I am at times , yes but I am also law abiding to my culture.

Almost all states have made laws pertaining to medical care of the senior and children...If someone does not look out for the best interest the state will take over..Elderly can be put into nursing homes if they have no one to live with them that is able to help take care of the senior..

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I know all of this and have continually wondered whether you could present a credible argument for your position that was not based on feelings alone.

I would have to do research and then I would have to decide on what I wanted to argue.

Is it to reduce the age of right to refuse medicine?

Is it to raise the age that minors can make any legal choices for themselves?

etc etc.....

This is why I am not on a debate team or in law school.

If this was an assignment and you were giving me a grade, I would put the work into it

But as such mine was just a discussion thread and in that light, discussing how I see laws as inconsistent in reference to 17 yr olds on several issues, really doesn't require me to make a legal argument, and it is also ok to present it in the legal section because I am talking about inconsisties and asking others to explain the reasons behind them.


This is why at the very start of your thread I told you I should bail out because, your intentions of this thread were different then my intentions n the original thread.

Lastly, you are way more intelligent than me Dante, there is no way I could ever argue to convince you of anything because you are many steps ahead of me in all our discussions.

laws are not inconsistent. they are all separate laws with exceptions within laws and...

nothing is as simple as you drifter, would have it be

I don't think it's simple, but in this line of thinking:

biopower
Foucault argues that biopower is a technology which appeared in the late eighteenth century for managing populations. It incorporates certain aspects of disciplinary power. If disciplinary power is about training the actions of bodies, biopower is about managing the births, deaths, reproduction and illnesses of a population.

body
Foucault is particularly concerned with the relations between political power and the body, and describes various historical ways of training the body to make it socially productive. The body is an element to be managed in relation to strategies of the economic and social management of populations.

I don't think the government should be involved in the commodity of medicine or the regulation of bodies.

then you are at odds with society

I am at times , but I am also law abiding to my culture.

what culture would that be?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I would have to do research and then I would have to decide on what I wanted to argue.

Is it to reduce the age of right to refuse medicine?

Is it to raise the age that minors can make any legal choices for themselves?

etc etc.....

This is why I am not on a debate team or in law school.

If this was an assignment and you were giving me a grade, I would put the work into it

But as such mine was just a discussion thread and in that light, discussing how I see laws as inconsistent in reference to 17 yr olds on several issues, really doesn't require me to make a legal argument, and it is also ok to present it in the legal section because I am talking about inconsisties and asking others to explain the reasons behind them.


This is why at the very start of your thread I told you I should bail out because, your intentions of this thread were different then my intentions n the original thread.

Lastly, you are way more intelligent than me Dante, there is no way I could ever argue to convince you of anything because you are many steps ahead of me in all our discussions.

laws are not inconsistent. they are all separate laws with exceptions within laws and...

nothing is as simple as you drifter, would have it be

I don't think it's simple, but in this line of thinking:

biopower
Foucault argues that biopower is a technology which appeared in the late eighteenth century for managing populations. It incorporates certain aspects of disciplinary power. If disciplinary power is about training the actions of bodies, biopower is about managing the births, deaths, reproduction and illnesses of a population.

body
Foucault is particularly concerned with the relations between political power and the body, and describes various historical ways of training the body to make it socially productive. The body is an element to be managed in relation to strategies of the economic and social management of populations.

I don't think the government should be involved in the commodity of medicine or the regulation of bodies.

then you are at odds with society

I am at times , yes but I am also law abiding to my culture.

Almost all states have made laws pertaining to medical care of the senior and children...If someone does not look out for the best interest the state will take over..Elderly can be put into nursing homes if they have no one to live with them that is able to help take care of the senior..

damn it! society ought to let them rot in their own feces in cold water flats if that is what they want.

 

[Michelle420]

I would have to do research and then I would have to decide on what I wanted to argue.

Is it to reduce the age of right to refuse medicine?

Is it to raise the age that minors can make any legal choices for themselves?

etc etc.....

This is why I am not on a debate team or in law school.

If this was an assignment and you were giving me a grade, I would put the work into it

But as such mine was just a discussion thread and in that light, discussing how I see laws as inconsistent in reference to 17 yr olds on several issues, really doesn't require me to make a legal argument, and it is also ok to present it in the legal section because I am talking about inconsisties and asking others to explain the reasons behind them.


This is why at the very start of your thread I told you I should bail out because, your intentions of this thread were different then my intentions n the original thread.

Lastly, you are way more intelligent than me Dante, there is no way I could ever argue to convince you of anything because you are many steps ahead of me in all our discussions.

laws are not inconsistent. they are all separate laws with exceptions within laws and...

nothing is as simple as you drifter, would have it be

I don't think it's simple, but in this line of thinking:

biopower
Foucault argues that biopower is a technology which appeared in the late eighteenth century for managing populations. It incorporates certain aspects of disciplinary power. If disciplinary power is about training the actions of bodies, biopower is about managing the births, deaths, reproduction and illnesses of a population.

body
Foucault is particularly concerned with the relations between political power and the body, and describes various historical ways of training the body to make it socially productive. The body is an element to be managed in relation to strategies of the economic and social management of populations.

I don't think the government should be involved in the commodity of medicine or the regulation of bodies.

then you are at odds with society

I am at times , but I am also law abiding to my culture.

what culture would that be?

American

 

[Michelle420]

I would have to do research and then I would have to decide on what I wanted to argue.

Is it to reduce the age of right to refuse medicine?

Is it to raise the age that minors can make any legal choices for themselves?

etc etc.....

This is why I am not on a debate team or in law school.

If this was an assignment and you were giving me a grade, I would put the work into it

But as such mine was just a discussion thread and in that light, discussing how I see laws as inconsistent in reference to 17 yr olds on several issues, really doesn't require me to make a legal argument, and it is also ok to present it in the legal section because I am talking about inconsisties and asking others to explain the reasons behind them.


This is why at the very start of your thread I told you I should bail out because, your intentions of this thread were different then my intentions n the original thread.

Lastly, you are way more intelligent than me Dante, there is no way I could ever argue to convince you of anything because you are many steps ahead of me in all our discussions.

laws are not inconsistent. they are all separate laws with exceptions within laws and...

nothing is as simple as you drifter, would have it be

I don't think it's simple, but in this line of thinking:

biopower
Foucault argues that biopower is a technology which appeared in the late eighteenth century for managing populations. It incorporates certain aspects of disciplinary power. If disciplinary power is about training the actions of bodies, biopower is about managing the births, deaths, reproduction and illnesses of a population.

body
Foucault is particularly concerned with the relations between political power and the body, and describes various historical ways of training the body to make it socially productive. The body is an element to be managed in relation to strategies of the economic and social management of populations.

I don't think the government should be involved in the commodity of medicine or the regulation of bodies.

then you are at odds with society

I am at times , yes but I am also law abiding to my culture.

Almost all states have made laws pertaining to medical care of the senior and children...If someone does not look out for the best interest the state will take over..Elderly can be put into nursing homes if they have no one to live with them that is able to help take care of the senior..

I think people should have a right to choose what they want done.

 

[Moonglow]

laws are not inconsistent. they are all separate laws with exceptions within laws and...

nothing is as simple as you drifter, would have it be

I don't think it's simple, but in this line of thinking:

biopower
Foucault argues that biopower is a technology which appeared in the late eighteenth century for managing populations. It incorporates certain aspects of disciplinary power. If disciplinary power is about training the actions of bodies, biopower is about managing the births, deaths, reproduction and illnesses of a population.

body
Foucault is particularly concerned with the relations between political power and the body, and describes various historical ways of training the body to make it socially productive. The body is an element to be managed in relation to strategies of the economic and social management of populations.

I don't think the government should be involved in the commodity of medicine or the regulation of bodies.

then you are at odds with society

I am at times , yes but I am also law abiding to my culture.

Almost all states have made laws pertaining to medical care of the senior and children...If someone does not look out for the best interest the state will take over..Elderly can be put into nursing homes if they have no one to live with them that is able to help take care of the senior..

damn it! society ought to let them rot in their own feces in cold water flats if that is what they want.

They used to, but those old meanies died out, except the small minority on USMB...