Santos Rodriguez Because in today’s political culture, Constitutional issues should not be influenced by political beliefs through TV. Doing so we would open our world the the judicial branch which requires a lot of understanding and history on how laws work and why they’re placed, and argued upon. Plus it is said almost all justices do not support televising their hearings. They are rather boring since the judges just sit there and listen mainly and ask questions now and then. Constitutional issues should be decided by justices who follow judicial precedent. As their job is to only interpret law.
@@Reply_if_you_r_homosexual lmao get a life. Why do u care about him commenting his ORIGINAL comment on videos? Does he bother u? Oh well, get over yourself,your highness.
Olive Jake lol get a life. Why do you care about me commenting about him making his comments on videos? Does it bother you? Oh well, get over yourself, your highness.
@@Reply_if_you_r_homosexual lmao feeling smart now roasting people who did nothing to u? And BTW I just attacked u back as what he is supposed to do. U have a million ways to say it nicely but oh well, i guess your princess-ness won't allow u to do that.
I like how simple the topic was tbh... made this case a lot easier to follow for us who aren’t in law school/ who aren’t practicing attorneys. Mostly understandable overall
And I loved participating in moot courts at law school. It is scary, but thrilling and it is perhaps the best experience any law student can gain to prepare him/her for real life practice. The research and the requirement of knowledge about the topic/law is challenging, but that's how real life cases work :)
i even can't understand anything about what they said because i'm a Vietnamese trying to learn English right now. But i really impressive and admire all of them. They really talent, think fast and talk smart !
Do you find it amazing that a woman born in a generation so technologically inferior to our's is able to explain, comprehend, and rule on a topic as complex as 3D printed firearms??! My father is around her age still doesn't know how to compose an iMessage lol. It is reassuring to see people as intelligent as her on the Supreme Court :)
Dave Mahler that’s why she’s on the Supreme Court. All judges need to be like Sotomayor in terms of understanding that our society is rapidly changing and making sure the Constitution will be adaptable to today.
Justice Sotomayor's pauses are so funny to me. Unintentional of course... she pauses in contemplation then they feel they have space to respond but nope lolol. Hats off to these brilliant students
Shows us how big of an imbecile Sotomayor truly is. She willfully ignores hundreds of years precedent and even the very language of the Constitution itself. Instead of asking for the legal reasoning behind the petitioner's points, she instead argued her own personal opinion as if she were a Congresswoman, not a judge.
The oralists didn't research CAD files and how they work, and neither did the judges. A CAD file usually uses G-code or another, this is written by the programmer as their free speech, as it is simply a list of coordinates and direction codes that the machine understands and carries out. It is not simply something that just happens because a person made a drawing on a computer, or had the Idea to make a gun. This individual had to program through a computer to create the Nessassary instructions that the machine can understand. It is the same as using any type of printer to print, an individual writes what is desired to be printed, and transfers the knowledge into the printer through different methods for the printer to carry out and transfer their written text onto paper. The simple difference is that the written code is transferred into a physical object.
ames 2019 15 mins lmao a girl DID. and literally SAME i have to get through to myself that i wont agree with everything im arguing and i will have to see how i can agree and argue it is right lmao
I believe that "best" calls for the highest excellence in a group. Therefore, a group of two can have a best. A group of three can have a "good," and "better," and "best." However, a group of one cannot have a "best" since there is nothing/no one to compare.
@@awilson8521 Correct. "Best" is better than all the rest; since "all the rest" here is just one other team, then "best" is correct. "Better" is also technically correct, since "best" includes better; but I believe it's insufficiently clear, since "better" per se does not imply "best."
The argument that applying restrictions through the State's police power to prevent crime somehow sets the Second Amendment apart from the First Amendment is bogus because that same State police power wielded to prevent crime is also applied to the First Amendment (See "fighting words" statutes, "criminal threat" statutes, etc. )
I’m Not a lawyer or law student (yet), but, If l were arguing that the ban on the diagrams was constitutional- I would argue against the definition of the diagrams as blueprints or communication. Blueprints are instructions on how to make something- and, because they exist as nothing more than expression of instructions- they are considered speech, and are protected. However, that is not what the diagram is doing. The diagram- when given to the machine-makes the machine do the work of making the gun. It is not a text that the machine uses to build the gun- it directly implements knowledge into the machine and directly gives it the ability to do the work of making a gun- (a part from some minor actions and adjustments that the user would need to do to allow it to be made, however, these do not encompass the labor of making the gun- but rather a very small portion) Therefore, I would argue that the court can not consider the program to be written speech, but rather, a service- an active duty- in this case, of directly implementing knowledge. Since the diagram is not speech- an expression of thought, but rather a program- the implementation of thought, it is not speech. Consequently, the illegalization of the program does not violate first amendment doctrines.
CAD files use what is called g-code, as someone who codes a g-code is a written speech that is understood by the machine. The programmer wrote this speech it is not a direct implementation of knowledge. It is the same as someone who WRITES a code on a computer for a program, it is their free speech to have the computer carry out the code thus written.
@@sharmanitascos the point still stands though with code, that it isn’t just speech. Sure, someone wrote the code, difference is that code (in this context) is not just an expression, like bombmaking instructions. with bomb instructions the human reader still has to _choose_ to follow the instructions using their own mind. The 3D printer can’t. The reader has to independently understand, and complete the mental and physical labor of building a bomb- something again that they do out of their free will. The instructions aren’t an end in themself. In contrast, commanding computer programming-particularly this cad file, although a written piece, does more than express thought. It takes over the mental labor process of building a gun, by commanding the 3D printer to do its work. There is no ability for the printer to individually interpret the file, or decide whether to use it or not, because it has no free will and it has no mind. It has no ability to choose whether or not it wants to carry out the labor of making the gun, because it has no free will. It is _under the control_ of the programming. The programming acts as a surrogate mind for the 3D printer. Therefore, the CAD file is a service, not speech.
Here i would able to see that how to represent before the honourable court and the main thing moot court it can be improve my fluency in argument thanks a lot
the second speaker counsel of the petitioner certainly could draw to the main point rather than beating AROUND THE BUSh , Judges do not like that.. by ipso facto of historical eveidences to the point of law per se could be precise .
Is it really okay to begin every other statement with the words ‘I think’ or ‘we think’. Isn’t the point of a legal proceeding to provide both the sides with an opportunity to make clear cut statements trying to prove their point of view is the right one, beginning with having a sound belief in oneself and what one is saying.
Saying "I think" or "we think" doesn't imply they don't have a sound belief in what they're saying....It's not about a lack of confidence, and it doesn't really matter what they preface their statements with, the judges still examine the statement itself. You think saying "I know....X" instead of "I think...X" has anything really to do with evaluating X?
Bdbs makes a point in saying that what is really evaluated is the substance of the proposition. Also saying I think is just basically saying “our position is “ except not rendered in absolute terms because in these type of contested cases, i think it’s just not adequate to frame your argument in that absolutist manner.
I thought about the same question. Doing so, I believe, encourages more questioning against the argument and somewhat weakens the foundation by creating rambling... which brings questions that are most likely outside of the studied spectrum.
Our professor told us, "Get used to saying "In my opinion" because that's what you're getting paid for." Here, they are expressing that in different terms and it doesn't take away from their argument in any way. If you watch other moots or even Supreme Court hearings, you will see the same thing. Part of it is because lawyers are interpreting the law and trying to justify it, so it's totally fair to say "we think". I think it allows for a more open discussion rather than a completely adversarial one in which everyone is arrogant and a metaphorical wall.
@@kevinnapier1014 Judges will ask regardless of how you phrase your question. They can't be complacent because (in common law jurisdictions - I can't speak to civil law) there is a lot on the line due to stare decisis, equity, etc.
Great job overall. I agree with the judges' decision, though it was close. It is hard to justify a 2nd amendment ban on a technology that parallels with a blueprint of a gun, though restrictions indeed do apply, a delayed releasement of rights is too nuanced to uphold. Great job to all.
@23:05-11 I must correct Justice Sotomayor on the background of Third Amendment to the Constitution- Quartering soliders in private homes. This was added to the Bill of Rights not because of what was happening in Britain, but rather what had happened in the colonies on many occasions before and during the Revolutionary War.
One of the highest key word that appears on this competition is "Constitutional right". Has anyone noticed that we are signing off a lot of constitutional right in a lot of circumstances? Such as when you sign contract with your employer, sign lease agreement with your landlord, sign CC&R agreement when you buy into an HOA, clicking "agree" when your cell phone prompt some app upgrades... May anyone suggest how strong those agreement can bind you?
prosím rozoberte celi film ako sa začalo zatvárať obchody v Vojne a výklad dnes opačný kde sa dá predpokladať že by dnes to trochu zmenené ale podstata myšlienka zostáva stejna Dne pred tým s dnes je to opačne kde štáty izoluje od všetkého a stále niekto bude tvrdiť o biznise a kupovanie generálov
This brings up an argument that felons who have served their time should have all their right reinstated at termination of imprisonment. Law does not inhibit someone from committing a crime but allows punishment for breaking the law post-fact. A law prohibiting a felon from possessing a firearm will not stop the felon who wants to commit a crime. The only thing the law is accomplishing is prohibiting felons who abide by the law (post confinement) the ability to possess a firearm. In essence repealing the law of barring felons firearms will not change any criminal statistic. My suggestion would be to give violent offenders maximum sentences without possibility of parole. The court should also maintain graduated sentencing for repeat offenders respectively.
Commenters saying "So much legal jargon can be replaced by layman terms". Well, many words can be replaced by a single emoji. What's lost is the depth of meaning. The law has nuance and words have more particular meaning than you appear to realize, and that's why you're a layman and not a lawyer. So sit down and shut up, and try listening for once.
As a Norwegian, I find it absolutely shocking that a lot of the constitutional analyses in American courts look at what "the founding fathers" would've thought a long long time ago. Your constitution isn't a religious document, and even if it was, it would be subject to scrutiny in the context of today's world and societal values just as much as the Quran is.
The constitution is under scrutiny, hence the SCOTUS has interpreted constitutional rights differently than how constitutional rights were interpreted by the founding fathers. Many a times the court has addressed the fact that oftentimes the founding fathers could not have been able to predict what circumstances the long distant future would hold and hence interpreted, expanded or narrowed definitions of certain rights. However, certain rights are sacred to American citizens and hence the heavy reliance on the constitution. There is a real fear amongst a large portion of the population regarding the power of the government so perhaps that is the reason for the heavy reliance on the founding fathers too, perhaps a cultural trait of sorts. I am not a lawyer nor a college graduate so forgive me if my is answer is not clear or true.
The Constitution was voted on and passed by delegates of the several states before it was ratified… it is therefore a democratic document. It is anti-democratic to read into the Constitution meanings which it did not have at the time it was passed. If the people want to change something in the Constitution, they can pass an amendment, and if they want something that the Constitution allows the Congress to do pursuant to Art I. S8., all they have to do is pass a law. But it is not the purview of the 9 unelected Justices to read their meaning into the Constitution, contrary to what it meant when it was ratified.
It amazes me too, its like they have a philosophy that says law is only limited to communication, that the meaning of words at the founding is the law and the only law of a written text. This approach is very strange for outsiders as most people take law to include values, principles existing and acquired overtime to constitute the legal content including the purpose of such laws since law is by its very nature inacted for a determinable purpose.
No one is saying it's a religious document; in fact, they refer to it as a "living document". A living document is in stark contrast to a religious one; the former changes, the latter never does. However, the philosophies behind it are so sound that not many changes are needed. There is a right to free speech. There is a right to self defence. There is a right to be free from unreasonable searches. There is a right to a trial. What is it you think needs changing?
Not a good ruling. The best oralist was State counsellor no.1 and best arguments were presented by the state side. He was composed and poised. Petitioner side's girl was a bit bamboozled at times and composed on the others but not as much to be the best at it. The petitioner side guy was NOT the best oralist. Not only was he repeating his answers, i couldn't see him surpassing state counsels in any way. I still wonder why the last speaker couldn't even secure a special mention. He was retorting as much good as one can and was expressing side knowledge as well while replying to the random questions of the hon'ble justices. He was persuasive no doubt. That doesn't seem to be a good distribution of accomplishments.
hammad raza I actually thought he state had some stronger arguments but ideology plays a role as well and I think when it comes to free speech it’s always an uphill battle to argue against it in any sort of way.
I actually disagree I think the petitioner's first oralist was very solid mainly in light of the multitude of questions that he was asked. Many people think questions indicate doubt on the part of the justices but they usually don't. Just because his performance was questioned doesn't make it weaker, but rather stronger.
It seems that the fundamental problem arises from a public safety need to somehow control firearms. The control is possible because metal detectors can detect metal, and therefore a search can be done based on a probable cause that the metal could be used in a dangerous way. If the firearm is plastic, that bit of public safety may be reduced to zero. Therefore, the facilitated ability to make such plastic guns should be controlled. It does not seem that regulating such files is a violation of the 1st amendment.
Hmmmm... I think Justice Sotomayor pushed a little too hard in one direction early on. I like this model for coaching associates (even in the domain of "technology"), but the evaluator/coach might have to put some distance between the role play and personal opinions. (Yeah, I actually agree with the position on regulating firearms that her words suggest... But still...)
4th orator really should've went with the content restriction/ strict scrutiny approach... the content-neutral approach doesn't make sense. He's making an almost strict scrutiny argument but failing to commit to it.
okay so no one faints here :)
😂😂😂😂
Lmao 😭🤣🤣
OMFG THIS COMMENT LOLOLLOL
THIS COMMENT IS 💯
I was expecting 😂😂😂😂😂😂
I'm glad they put these hearings on the internet.
This is a fictitious hearing and case. A competition for law students. The court still and should never televise their hearings.
@@RYAN-xm6bn
listening to SCOTUS oral arguments is a great pasttime.
@@RYAN-xm6bn i wish scotus did televise them. why say you different?
Santos Rodriguez
Because in today’s political culture, Constitutional issues should not be influenced by political beliefs through TV. Doing so we would open our world the the judicial branch which requires a lot of understanding and history on how laws work and why they’re placed, and argued upon. Plus it is said almost all justices do not support televising their hearings. They are rather boring since the judges just sit there and listen mainly and ask questions now and then. Constitutional issues should be decided by justices who follow judicial precedent. As their job is to only interpret law.
@@poetryallday look at the state of congress. you have people grandstanding for the cameras 24/7. lets keep that out of SCOTUS
I understand the words but not the sentences.
You can't write the same comment on every Moot Court Competition. Not cool...
Lmaoooo get a fucking life. Going on to every moot court video and commenting the exact same comment just for likes.
@@Reply_if_you_r_homosexual lmao get a life. Why do u care about him commenting his ORIGINAL comment on videos? Does he bother u? Oh well, get over yourself,your highness.
Olive Jake lol get a life. Why do you care about me commenting about him making his comments on videos? Does it bother you? Oh well, get over yourself, your highness.
@@Reply_if_you_r_homosexual lmao feeling smart now roasting people who did nothing to u? And BTW I just attacked u back as what he is supposed to do. U have a million ways to say it nicely but oh well, i guess your princess-ness won't allow u to do that.
just by watching., this scares the hell out of me...
Yeoooo same!!!
I like how simple the topic was tbh... made this case a lot easier to follow for us who aren’t in law school/ who aren’t practicing attorneys. Mostly understandable overall
Yea... The 2019 case was on native american child custody laws lol.
ㅤㅤ yeah that one killed me lol.
@Brad1156 its...a....joke...
@Brad1156 yes it was
@@obo2999 yep. Was a joke. Some people don't catch on lol 🤣
This is really top notch mooting. This has to be the culmination of natural talent and hard work.
Thank you Harvard Law School for putting this video together.
May sound geeky, but I love watching court competitions.
Same.
In my country you'll be considered the perfect son!!! being geeky is cool in Asian culture!!! Everyone wanna be geeky here!!
I do too!
omg same
And I loved participating in moot courts at law school. It is scary, but thrilling and it is perhaps the best experience any law student can gain to prepare him/her for real life practice. The research and the requirement of knowledge about the topic/law is challenging, but that's how real life cases work :)
i even can't understand anything about what they said because i'm a Vietnamese trying to learn English right now. But i really impressive and admire all of them. They really talent, think fast and talk smart !
Hope you're learning well! This is a great place to get some expert speaking tips. I'm vietnamese too (Viet American)
Hope your learning is going well! Keep up learning
think fast and talk smart r the logos of the native speakers👍
Your english is fantastic =) better than mine and I'm a native speaker. Best wishes to You
Thank you so much 🥰
There’s something about seeing Sotomayor as the Chief Justice that makes me feel good inside
Do you find it amazing that a woman born in a generation so technologically inferior to our's is able to explain, comprehend, and rule on a topic as complex as 3D printed firearms??! My father is around her age still doesn't know how to compose an iMessage lol. It is reassuring to see people as intelligent as her on the Supreme Court :)
Dave Mahler that’s why she’s on the Supreme Court. All judges need to be like Sotomayor in terms of understanding that our society is rapidly changing and making sure the Constitution will be adaptable to today.
John Henderson how would you rate Cathrine McCaffery’s argument on a scale of 1 to 10?
Sotomayor is this generation’s Byron White
Agreed! It’s also nice to hear the words “Madam Chief Justice” apply to her - even if it’s for a competition.
This is cool to watch but also really scary and stressful
Justice Sotomayor's pauses are so funny to me. Unintentional of course... she pauses in contemplation then they feel they have space to respond but nope lolol. Hats off to these brilliant students
The issue at hand is something that we can follow, and actually here the arguments from both sides
I don’t know why TH-cam recommended this to me. Can’t believe I’m enjoying this!
Sotomayor always does such a great job with these. She asks the right questions every time.
The main thing I take away from these moot court competitions is being able to actually watch SCOTUS justices in argument.
Shows us how big of an imbecile Sotomayor truly is. She willfully ignores hundreds of years precedent and even the very language of the Constitution itself. Instead of asking for the legal reasoning behind the petitioner's points, she instead argued her own personal opinion as if she were a Congresswoman, not a judge.
The oralists didn't research CAD files and how they work, and neither did the judges. A CAD file usually uses G-code or another, this is written by the programmer as their free speech, as it is simply a list of coordinates and direction codes that the machine understands and carries out. It is not simply something that just happens because a person made a drawing on a computer, or had the Idea to make a gun. This individual had to program through a computer to create the Nessassary instructions that the machine can understand. It is the same as using any type of printer to print, an individual writes what is desired to be printed, and transfers the knowledge into the printer through different methods for the printer to carry out and transfer their written text onto paper. The simple difference is that the written code is transferred into a physical object.
O good! It is a unique way to disseminate learnings to all worldwide.
Thanks. ..
How am I going to be a lawyer?? I'll probably faint when the judge will ask a question
Check out Ames 2019, haha.
ames 2019 15 mins lmao a girl DID. and literally SAME i have to get through to myself that i wont agree with everything im arguing and i will have to see how i can agree and argue it is right lmao
Just do scripted faint to get time for the question , like the girl did in Ames 2019.
@@ArcherALT did she really script it?!?!
@@garrettgould4406. She said it was a ploy.
damn they can talk..if i had a dollar for everytime I would say "umm" if I were there I'd be earning like 10-15 dollars per minute.
HAHAHAHA you killed it man!🤣🤣🤣
@@msanngie565 :))))
Instant Thoughtful responses 👌 👏
For these moot court competitions, how are they organized? Is this prepared or on the spot ?
Definitely a months preparation.
Technically, since there are 2 teams in this competition, the proper award should assigned as “Better...” not “Best...”.
I believe that "best" calls for the highest excellence in a group. Therefore, a group of two can have a best. A group of three can have a "good," and "better," and "best." However, a group of one cannot have a "best" since there is nothing/no one to compare.
@@awilson8521 Correct. "Best" is better than all the rest; since "all the rest" here is just one other team, then "best" is correct. "Better" is also technically correct, since "best" includes better; but I believe it's insufficiently clear, since "better" per se does not imply "best."
Ahhhh... reminds me of when I wanted to be a lawyer in high school 😍😍😍
The argument that applying restrictions through the State's police power to prevent crime somehow sets the Second Amendment apart from the First Amendment is bogus because that same State police power wielded to prevent crime is also applied to the First Amendment (See "fighting words" statutes, "criminal threat" statutes, etc. )
Drinking game: Take a shot every time the chief justice says "Umm"
Today, I'm asking myself, "Do you still think that the Internet is entertaining?"
more like educational on my end
All the same, I wouldn't be watching this on a Sunday afternoon if I don't derive a certain satisfaction from it.
So even at Harvard Law they start off with the word so.
So?
How is that wrong?
First guy is truly phenomenal if you want an example of how to score well in competitions, coming from a former mooter and current coach.
6:00-6:15 wtf did I think this man was eatin a sandwich in court?
i just laughed so loud. it does look like it lollll
I’m Not a lawyer or law student (yet), but, If l were arguing that the ban on the diagrams was constitutional- I would argue against the definition of the diagrams as blueprints or communication. Blueprints are instructions on how to make something- and, because they exist as nothing more than expression of instructions- they are considered speech, and are protected. However, that is not what the diagram is doing. The diagram- when given to the machine-makes the machine do the work of making the gun. It is not a text that the machine uses to build the gun- it directly implements knowledge into the machine and directly gives it the ability to do the work of making a gun- (a part from some minor actions and adjustments that the user would need to do to allow it to be made, however, these do not encompass the labor of making the gun- but rather a very small portion) Therefore, I would argue that the court can not consider the program to be written speech, but rather, a service- an active duty- in this case, of directly implementing knowledge. Since the diagram is not speech- an expression of thought, but rather a program- the implementation of thought, it is not speech. Consequently, the illegalization of the program does not violate first amendment doctrines.
CAD files use what is called g-code, as someone who codes a g-code is a written speech that is understood by the machine. The programmer wrote this speech it is not a direct implementation of knowledge. It is the same as someone who WRITES a code on a computer for a program, it is their free speech to have the computer carry out the code thus written.
@@sharmanitascos the point still stands though with code, that it isn’t just speech. Sure, someone wrote the code, difference is that code (in this context) is not just an expression, like bombmaking instructions. with bomb instructions the human reader still has to _choose_ to follow the instructions using their own mind. The 3D printer can’t. The reader has to independently understand, and complete the mental and physical labor of building a bomb- something again that they do out of their free will. The instructions aren’t an end in themself. In contrast, commanding computer programming-particularly this cad file, although a written piece, does more than express thought. It takes over the mental labor process of building a gun, by commanding the 3D printer to do its work. There is no ability for the printer to individually interpret the file, or decide whether to use it or not, because it has no free will and it has no mind. It has no ability to choose whether or not it wants to carry out the labor of making the gun, because it has no free will. It is _under the control_ of the programming. The programming acts as a surrogate mind for the 3D printer. Therefore, the CAD file is a service, not speech.
Here i would able to see that how to represent before the honourable court and the main thing moot court it can be improve my fluency in argument thanks a lot
Harvard law students are a whole different level... I can't even present a patient's history to my consultant without stammering lol
the second speaker counsel of the petitioner certainly could draw to the main point rather than beating AROUND THE BUSh , Judges do not like that.. by ipso facto of historical eveidences to the point of law per se could be precise .
Is it really okay to begin every other statement with the words ‘I think’ or ‘we think’. Isn’t the point of a legal proceeding to provide both the sides with an opportunity to make clear cut statements trying to prove their point of view is the right one, beginning with having a sound belief in oneself and what one is saying.
Saying "I think" or "we think" doesn't imply they don't have a sound belief in what they're saying....It's not about a lack of confidence, and it doesn't really matter what they preface their statements with, the judges still examine the statement itself. You think saying "I know....X" instead of "I think...X" has anything really to do with evaluating X?
Bdbs makes a point in saying that what is really evaluated is the substance of the proposition. Also saying I think is just basically saying “our position is “ except not rendered in absolute terms because in these type of contested cases, i think it’s just not adequate to frame your argument in that absolutist manner.
I thought about the same question. Doing so, I believe, encourages more questioning against the argument and somewhat weakens the foundation by creating rambling... which brings questions that are most likely outside of the studied spectrum.
Our professor told us, "Get used to saying "In my opinion" because that's what you're getting paid for." Here, they are expressing that in different terms and it doesn't take away from their argument in any way. If you watch other moots or even Supreme Court hearings, you will see the same thing. Part of it is because lawyers are interpreting the law and trying to justify it, so it's totally fair to say "we think". I think it allows for a more open discussion rather than a completely adversarial one in which everyone is arrogant and a metaphorical wall.
@@kevinnapier1014 Judges will ask regardless of how you phrase your question. They can't be complacent because (in common law jurisdictions - I can't speak to civil law) there is a lot on the line due to stare decisis, equity, etc.
America is a world of peace❤❤❤
I love watching court competitions ❤️
Did he really imply that someone wants to be a felon?
"Damn the Moot!" - Ulfrich Stormcloak
LOL! :D
Great job overall. I agree with the judges' decision, though it was close. It is hard to justify a 2nd amendment ban on a technology that parallels with a blueprint of a gun, though restrictions indeed do apply, a delayed releasement of rights is too nuanced to uphold. Great job to all.
I didn't understand a single word of your comment lmao
For case to proceed judgement of Corbin plaintiff
Even a simple draft of fire ammunition should be getting yourself in prison rehabilitation 😂😂😂😂
Having been studying law my whole life (everything but law school itself), I enjoy these competitions a great deal.
Why dont you try law school
why Dasani though?
👍👍👍👍👍👍❤
what will be the researcher test only for the researcher of the team at the competition day?
Yes......goodwill comes with gold
The first kid destroyed these judges. Sotomayor described the item being made as dangerous rather than useful. That was a choice. ALS.
He did very well, for sure. I don't know about "destroyed," however.
Well,the Mooting is amazing
😂😂😂😂so the honourable should be this young girl sitting
@23:05-11 I must correct Justice Sotomayor on the background of Third Amendment to the Constitution- Quartering soliders in private homes. This was added to the Bill of Rights not because of what was happening in Britain, but rather what had happened in the colonies on many occasions before and during the Revolutionary War.
Don't mind me, I rewatch it cause some article says you can 3d print a semi rifle which is 😬
I truly believe the respondents here deserve the best oralists not the petitioners.
These are all Harvard teams (i.e., Harvard v. Harvard)? Thanks.
Is this with persian subtitle?
One of the highest key word that appears on this competition is "Constitutional right". Has anyone noticed that we are signing off a lot of constitutional right in a lot of circumstances? Such as when you sign contract with your employer, sign lease agreement with your landlord, sign CC&R agreement when you buy into an HOA, clicking "agree" when your cell phone prompt some app upgrades... May anyone suggest how strong those agreement can bind you?
prosím rozoberte celi film ako sa začalo zatvárať obchody v Vojne a výklad dnes opačný kde sa dá predpokladať že by dnes to trochu zmenené ale podstata myšlienka zostáva stejna Dne pred tým s dnes je to opačne kde štáty izoluje od všetkého a stále niekto bude tvrdiť o biznise a kupovanie generálov
nice from zambia studying law at university of zambia
That is great!
The brilliant eye of judges sees.
I’d shit myself trying to do this
This brings up an argument that felons who have served their time should have all their right reinstated at termination of imprisonment.
Law does not inhibit someone from committing a crime but allows punishment for breaking the law post-fact.
A law prohibiting a felon from possessing a firearm will not stop the felon who wants to commit a crime. The only thing the law is accomplishing is prohibiting felons who abide by the law (post confinement) the ability to possess a firearm. In essence repealing the law of barring felons firearms will not change any criminal statistic.
My suggestion would be to give violent offenders maximum sentences without possibility of parole. The court should also maintain graduated sentencing for repeat offenders respectively.
What is speech council? 🤔
Excellent by all means!!
Commenters saying "So much legal jargon can be replaced by layman terms". Well, many words can be replaced by a single emoji. What's lost is the depth of meaning. The law has nuance and words have more particular meaning than you appear to realize, and that's why you're a layman and not a lawyer. So sit down and shut up, and try listening for once.
Wow i should get one of the technology and made good business in that software 😂😂😂😂😂
Forget IQ tests. This, right here, gives you a good idea of where you stand intellectually.
😂
Judge want a gun 😂😂😂😂you need a pen is enough to ban fire arms ammunition
As a Norwegian, I find it absolutely shocking that a lot of the constitutional analyses in American courts look at what "the founding fathers" would've thought a long long time ago. Your constitution isn't a religious document, and even if it was, it would be subject to scrutiny in the context of today's world and societal values just as much as the Quran is.
The constitution is under scrutiny, hence the SCOTUS has interpreted constitutional rights differently than how constitutional rights were interpreted by the founding fathers. Many a times the court has addressed the fact that oftentimes the founding fathers could not have been able to predict what circumstances the long distant future would hold and hence interpreted, expanded or narrowed definitions of certain rights. However, certain rights are sacred to American citizens and hence the heavy reliance on the constitution. There is a real fear amongst a large portion of the population regarding the power of the government so perhaps that is the reason for the heavy reliance on the founding fathers too, perhaps a cultural trait of sorts. I am not a lawyer nor a college graduate so forgive me if my is answer is not clear or true.
The Constitution was voted on and passed by delegates of the several states before it was ratified… it is therefore a democratic document. It is anti-democratic to read into the Constitution meanings which it did not have at the time it was passed. If the people want to change something in the Constitution, they can pass an amendment, and if they want something that the Constitution allows the Congress to do pursuant to Art I. S8., all they have to do is pass a law. But it is not the purview of the 9 unelected Justices to read their meaning into the Constitution, contrary to what it meant when it was ratified.
It amazes me too, its like they have a philosophy that says law is only limited to communication, that the meaning of words at the founding is the law and the only law of a written text. This approach is very strange for outsiders as most people take law to include values, principles existing and acquired overtime to constitute the legal content including the purpose of such laws since law is by its very nature inacted for a determinable purpose.
No one is saying it's a religious document; in fact, they refer to it as a "living document". A living document is in stark contrast to a religious one; the former changes, the latter never does. However, the philosophies behind it are so sound that not many changes are needed. There is a right to free speech. There is a right to self defence. There is a right to be free from unreasonable searches. There is a right to a trial. What is it you think needs changing?
Mike tyson punches can kill a person, if got gun i cant imagine 😂😂😂😂😂
Have my 48 horas 2022 you no respec now 2 years
That guy just interrupted Sonia Sotomayor twice, and it’s only the first five minutes!
Your theory of the case is that we
Her pattern of speech is so unusual I don't blame him
Sotomayor really seems uninterested in the long-standing precedent of Heller in her line of questioning.
That's a judicial activist for ya
In her subconscious mind, Heller has already been overruled
I my you you go
We are the people of no common sense asking ban 😂😂😂😂
Not a good ruling. The best oralist was State counsellor no.1 and best arguments were presented by the state side. He was composed and poised. Petitioner side's girl was a bit bamboozled at times and composed on the others but not as much to be the best at it. The petitioner side guy was NOT the best oralist. Not only was he repeating his answers, i couldn't see him surpassing state counsels in any way. I still wonder why the last speaker couldn't even secure a special mention. He was retorting as much good as one can and was expressing side knowledge as well while replying to the random questions of the hon'ble justices. He was persuasive no doubt. That doesn't seem to be a good distribution of accomplishments.
hammad raza I actually thought he state had some stronger arguments but ideology plays a role as well and I think when it comes to free speech it’s always an uphill battle to argue against it in any sort of way.
Agreed. First State Counsellor was AWESOME!
And when you get to Harvard then you can make decisions until then you're just an outsider wannabe
I actually disagree I think the petitioner's first oralist was very solid mainly in light of the multitude of questions that he was asked. Many people think questions indicate doubt on the part of the justices but they usually don't. Just because his performance was questioned doesn't make it weaker, but rather stronger.
@@yellow468 You sound mad
You Kansas
When did Aviation101 go into law?
It pains me to say it, but every time I hear Sotomayor speak I find her less impressive than the time before.
It seems that the fundamental problem arises from a public safety need to somehow control firearms. The control is possible because metal detectors can detect metal, and therefore a search can be done based on a probable cause that the metal could be used in a dangerous way. If the firearm is plastic, that bit of public safety may be reduced to zero. Therefore, the facilitated ability to make such plastic guns should be controlled. It does not seem that regulating such files is a violation of the 1st amendment.
Is anyone watching this after tonight’s debate?
Counsel, stand up straight.
Hmmmm... I think Justice Sotomayor pushed a little too hard in one direction early on. I like this model for coaching associates (even in the domain of "technology"), but the evaluator/coach might have to put some distance between the role play and personal opinions. (Yeah, I actually agree with the position on regulating firearms that her words suggest... But still...)
Tú vas a ser de Estados Unidos hasta que yo entienda el idioma englés now you Canadá
I print money 😂😂😂😂😂print gun stupidity 😂😂😂😂
Justice Susan Carney is beautiful.
amen
B Veerappa is a big CURROUPT JUDGE in Karnataka High court having connection with land developers and political leaders...
What is the case?? But equality before the law more important
Dude needs to stop interrupting the judges...
Reality everybody running
You conbiyte you canada mi compiure muve ebliten reality you en Canadá
我认识大部分单词但是我真的不知道你们在说什么😢😭
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
YOU LIVE EN CANADA 300 YEAR YOU YOU FAMILIA
😂😂😂😂😂Theory, it shouldnt be license in the first place, time to ban,
B Veerappa is a big CURROUPT JUDGE in Karnataka High court having connection with land developers and political leaders....in india...
4th orator really should've went with the content restriction/ strict scrutiny approach... the content-neutral approach doesn't make sense. He's making an almost strict scrutiny argument but failing to commit to it.
Here from jhalts bio LMAO
😂❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤