Physicists Chen Ning Yang and Tsung-Dao Lee used to discuss their work over lunch at a Chinese restaurant on 125th Street in Manhattan. One day they made an important insight into parity violation, and the two received the 1957 Nobel Prize in physics.
After the award was announced, one of them noticed a sign in the restaurant window: “Eat here, get Nobel Prize.”
Does living in Iowa constitute cruel and unusual punishment? Hughes Bagley thought so — in 1982 he was paroled from federal prison on the condition that he live in Sioux City and remain within the federal district of northern Iowa for 12 years. He asked the court to set this aside so that he could return to Seattle.
“Although we might share Bagley’s enthusiasm for the Pacific Northwest,” wrote judge Herbert Choy, “we believe, and so hold, that it is not cruel and unusual punishment to require Bagley to serve his parole term in Iowa.”
There is a tradition to the effect that Noel Coward once sent identical notes to the twenty most prominent men in London, saying, ‘All is discovered. Escape while you can.’
All twenty abruptly left town.
— Paul C. Sherr, The Short Story and the Oral Tradition, 1970
Jackie Robinson received this note on May 22, 1951, before a double-header in Cincinnati:
WE HAVE ALREADY
GOT RID
OF SEVERAL
LIKE YOU
ONE WAS FOUND IN RIVER
JUST RECENTLY
ROBINSON
WE ARE GOING
TO KILL YOU
IF YOU ATTEMPT
TO ENTER A
BALL GAME AT
CROSLEY FIELD
It was signed THE TRAVELERS.
Robinson hit a home run in the first game.
In 1980, Morris Davie was accused of setting forest fires and brought to the headquarters of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to take a lie detector test. He was left alone in a room, where a hidden camera recorded him dropping to his knees and saying, “Oh God, let me get away with it just this once.”
At trial, his lawyer objected to this evidence, arguing that it violated a Canadian law that prohibited the interception of private communications “made under circumstances in which it is reasonable for the originator thereof to expect that it will not be intercepted by any person other than the person intended by the originator thereof to receive it.”
Is God a person? The trial judge thought so — he held the videotape inadmissible and Davie was acquitted. The British Columbia Court of Appeal disagreed, however, deciding that a private communication requires an “intended human recipient.”
“In my opinion,” wrote Justice J.A. Hutcheon, “the word ‘person’ is used in the statutes of Canada to describe someone to whom rights are granted and upon whom obligations are placed. There is no earthly authority which can grant rights or impose duties upon God. I can find no reason to think that the Parliament of Canada has attempted to do so in the enactment of sections of the Criminal Code dealing with the protection of privacy.” He ordered a new trial.
“You develop an instant global consciousness, a people orientation, an intense dissatisfaction with the state of the world, and a compulsion to do something about it. From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, ‘Look at that, you son of a bitch.'” — Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell
(Thanks, Hugh.)
A constitution can contain a clause that provides for its amendment. But can this clause be used to amend itself?
Article V of the U.S. Constitution requires that an amendment be ratified by three-fourths of the states. Could they change this requirement to 90 percent? Or declare that the president can amend the constitution at his whim? Or abolish amendments altogether?
“If legal rules that authorize change can be used to change themselves, then we have paradox and contradiction; but if they cannot be used to change themselves (and if there is no higher rule that could authorize their change), then we have immutable rules,” writes Earlham College philosopher Peter Suber. “Paradox and immutability should create an uncomfortable dilemma for jurists and citizens in western legal systems. It appears that we must give up either a central element of legal rationality or a central element of democratic theory.”
In 1987, eighth grader Gavin McDonald failed to win first place in a Ventura County, Calif., spelling bee.
So he sued.
A rival at another school had spelled horsy H-O-R-S-E-Y, and in the ensuing confusion the officials there had agreed to allow two students to advance to the county finals. McDonald alleged that this was unfair.
Justice Arthur Gilbert of the California Court of Appeal asked, “When should an attorney say ‘no’ to a client? Answer: When asked to file a lawsuit like this one.”
He dismissed the suit. “Our decision at least keeps plaintiff’s bucket of water from being added to the tidal wave of litigation that has engulfed our courts.”
Epitaph of the eminent barrister Sir John Strange:
Here lies an honest lawyer,–
that is Strange.
From Epitaphiana: or, The Curiosities of Churchyard Literature, 1873.