100%(3)3 out of 3 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 15 - 17 out of 19 pages.
Formally Rational Law because, the decisions makers follow procedures in presenting and deciding the case, which is decided upon rules rather than intuition. Contrastingly, Common law legal systems would be classified under Substantively Rational Lw, because the rules are developed with reference to the desired outcome, and the rules are still followed, but they aimfor internal consistency and generality. Basically the civil law would be formally rational because there is no reference to how the outcome of a case will affect other cases, whereas common law legal systems are substantively rational because the decisions are made with the idea that they will affect future cases- as well as other things such as political and religious values or goals- in mind.Max Weber identifies four ideal typical approaches to legal reasoning. Name, explain, and provide an example for each of them. Webers four approaches to legal reasoning are formally irrational, substantively irrational, formally rational, and substantively rational. Formally irrational law is when the outcome is dependent on how precisely procedures are followed, but the judgement is arrived at in an intuitive, visceral way in response to concrete “signs”, an example of this is the Oracles. Substantively irrational law is when the outcome is driven by considerations external to “law”(religious principles, the need for peace) and there are no rules followed or consulted in the decision making process, an example of this is the Kodi justice. Formally rational law is when decision makes follow procedures in
presenting and deciding the case, and the case is decided upon rules rather than intuition, this is the approach applied in a civil law legal system. Substantively rational law is when rules are developed with reference to a desired outcome(the advancement of political, religious values or goals), but these rules are followed with an aim for internal consistency and generality, this is the approach used in a common law legal system.What is the military deference doctrine? Why is the military treated differently by the Supreme Court? Name and summarize two cases that illustrate its principle. The military defense doctrine is a doctrine of respect for the codified legal system of the military and the administrative boards, often excluding them from constitutional requirements. In Goldman v Weinberger(1986), an Air Force regulation restricting the wearing of headgear while indoors was applied to Goldman for wearing a yarmulke, he then challenged that this was an encroachment on his religious freedom guaranteed under the 1st Amendment, however it was found that the regulation did not violate his rights- had the regulation been from a company and not the military, the outcome might have been in favor of Goldman. In the 1983 case, Chappell v Wallace, 5 naval officers charged their commanding officer with racial discrimination, but it was found that they are not even permitted to sue on these allegations of civil rights violations. Both of these cases illustrate the