(Part 2) Best general administrative law books according to redditors
We found 452 Reddit comments discussing the best general administrative law books. We ranked the 198 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 21-40. You can also go back to the previous section.
He is getting this from The Case Against Impeaching Trump: Alan Dershowitz. This is not him coming up with crazy, It is him listing to 'his' experts. Dershowiz is beyond the pail with this argument.
A politician believes that some policy is creating a problem population (in this case lax immigration enforcement is causing too many bad people coming up from Latin America and stay here). Politician says as much on the campaign trail, in the kind of emotional and hyperbolic language that is typical in politics, and that is needed for politicians to show supporters they will actually put up a fight on the issue. Politician is elected, uses his rightful constitutional powers to change said policies (actually -- using his executive powers to rescind a policy which itself was of dubious lawfulness). The president decides he is actually going to enforce the law as is, and not give special work dispensations to unauthorized aliens. However -- random judge says that because of emotional language politician used on the campaign trail, particularly language that targeted people from Latin America, the orders he makes are unlawful and blocks the executive order.
If this stands, it is a judicial coup. The logic at work here has nothing to do with interpreting the laws as they were written. Disallowing disparate impact is not a constitutional principle. Presidents not being able to make policy affecting problem populations they don't like is not a constitutional precept. The judge is inventing principles that basically allow a judicial veto of any Republican president executive action involving sex, race, religion, immigration, etc, which goes against progressive values (since in any such scenario the Republican president with a spine can probably be accused of an "ism" based on his campaign statements). The judge is sovereign, the president can only make rules within a narrow box confined by the judges.
Rule by the judges has been a growing phenomena over many decades -- there a few books on it, such as this one -- https://www.amazon.com/Government-Judiciary-Studies-Jurisprudence-Legal/dp/0865971447/ But this takes it to an even greater level.
Some follow-up questions that come to mind: will there be any awareness among Republicans that the system prevents their candidates from actual ruling? Will the system suffer a legitimacy crisis as a result? At what point will the "muh Constitution" people on the right realize their Constitution has been pwned? Will Trump try to Andrew Jackson the judiciary? What would happen if he did?
Because opiates are addictive and rake in a shit tonne of money. Entheogens/hallucinogens/psychadelics are non-addictive and help cure people of addictions and of pain, physical or trauma-based
Also, psychadelic medicines are prevalent across many, many cultures for shamanism and healing work. They are hella illegal in the States due in part to how useful they are to Indigenous cultures. Remember, we are in apartheid right now in the US, Canada, Australia,...
Except she didn't apply for her Harvard job, they recruited her and her ancestry never came up in the hiring committee process.
She got the job at Harvard because she was the top brain in the entire country when he comes to consumer law and bankruptcy law. She literally wrote the book on it. You don't get a professorship at Harvard Law School without merit.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1454822384/ref=mp_s_a_1_6?qid=1463342888&sr=8-6&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_FMwebp_QL65&keywords=warren+bankruptcy+law&dpPl=1&dpID=41oAYH8Re3L&ref=plSrch
Unlike GWB, whose ancestry was the only reason he was admitted into Yale.
Supplements aren't essential, but they can be one of many tools you use. I rely heavily on supplements and have done very well in law school. Here are the one's I used for those courses:
Civil Procedure: The Glannon Guide and the E&E (also by Glannon).
Criminal Law: Understanding Criminal Law by Dressler.
Property: Understanding Property by Sprankling and Siegel's Property.
This - it is indeed just flowcharts. If you want to spend some extra time, grab a copy of Estates in Land and Future Interests and walk through some of the problems. It also has several charts of the relationships in there.
Have you tried the Edwards book? http://www.amazon.com/Estates-Land-Future-Interests-Guide/dp/0735576653
Yep, safety is the number one politician "excuse" answer of all time. In The Interests of Safety is a really good book on how safety is far-too-often cited as a reason, and how it can actually make us less safe.
http://www.amazon.com/Reducing-Gun-Violence-America-Informing/dp/1421411105/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1459354154&sr=8-1&keywords=reducing+gun+violence
Reading this now. The authors of the mental illness chapter say there is very little evidence connecting people with diagnosed mental illnesses and gun violence.
The authors of In The Interests Of Safety sought the origin of this rule and found something surprising: it has nothing to do with keeping the plane safe. In the early days of cell phones, the cell tower infrastructure wasn't very robust. The phone engineers were worried that a low-flying airplane full of transmitting cell phones would pass in range of too many towers too quickly for the land-based computer systems that route calls to the towers to keep up, so they put warnings in the manuals that the phone should be turned off during takeoff and landing.
The FAA interpreted this to mean it would interfere with the plane, apparently without bothering to check that assumption with the phone manufacturers who'd printed the warning. So they made it a rule. There've been various rationalizations made up after the fact, because once your agency has a rule, you naturally assume there must be a reason for it. They don't really hold up to scrutiny, they. Picking on the ones in this thread:
One of the ways you can tell cell phone use isn't dangerous is that the flight crew doesn't make any particular attempt to enforce the rule against it. If you try to get your laptop out during takeoff, the flight attendants will yell at you, because heavy hard projectiles really are a danger. Interference from a cell phone has never been implicated in any airline crash, so there's really no pressure on anyone to enforce the ban. If it were really a problem they'd be going seat-to-seat checking your phone, or even making you check them in your luggage.
https://www.cali.org/ - go to the property course and do the exercises you think will be helpful.
Also, the E&E for property. Here's the link on Amazon, but check to see if your school library has it: https://www.amazon.com/Examples-Explanations-Property-Barlow-Burke/dp/145485006X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1523798146&sr=8-1&keywords=property+examples+and+explanations
The basic concepts of patent law are easy to understand. The U.S. patent law Wikipedia page explains the broad ideas such as what things can be patented and what the pre-requisites are for obtaining a patent. Beyond that you’ll have to get more specific about what you're interested in.
If you want to know why a company would choose trade secret protection over patent protection, or the difference between trademarks and copyrights you’ll need a broader understanding of IP. In law school you would take an IP class and read a hundred cases explaining the nuances of each area of law. The law student shortcut is to read the “nutshell” or the E&E. Both references highlight the black letter law (the concrete legal rules) while the E&E also includes questions and answers that expose some of the subtleties within the law. This is probably what you’re looking for.
If you’d rather know the nitty-gritty about patent prosecution—how you obtain a patent—then you’ll need to understand the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. Assuming you don’t care about things like how many months you have to file a response to an examiner’s first office action, I’d focus on chapter 2100, which deals with the statutory requirements for obtaining a patent (as a bonus, chapter 2400 deals entirely with issues surrounding biotechnology).
If your background has you interested in pharmaceuticals then you’ll probably also want to consider how the Hatch-Waxman Act affects the patenting process. Unfortunately, I’m not familiar with Hatch-Waxman so I don’t feel comfortable suggesting a source. Beyond these basics there’s also patent litigation, licensing, and all the policy considerations that go into intellectual property law. But these sources should give you a good starting point.
I can tell that there's nothing in the world that would change your mind, but for other people reading this, there isn't a single candidate in the race who better understands how financial institutions and income inequality is fucking the average American better than Warren. She literally wrote the book on consumer debt that is standard for most law schools. She's also largely responsible for CFPB, which, based on how much Republicans and Wall Street hated it, was the greatest government agency ever.
I'm not going to try to take a shit on Sanders, but I don't really give a shit if she was a registered Republican 30 years ago. You want to vote for anti-science, campaign-spoiler, and obvious Republican plant Jill Stein, be my guest. But if you are so enamored with Sanders, you should probably listen to his endorsement if he drops out.
I was using it to post such gems as
http://www.amazon.com/Hit-Where-Hurts-Take-No-Prisoners-Divorce-Alimony/dp/1593377398
or
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1035315/Father-branded-pervert--photographing-children-public-park.html
but posting reddit examples could be fun too.
I got this book recommended to me in another thread, it does not seen to be a collection of essays but it deals with the Clean Air Act, so maybe what you are looking for?
https://www.amazon.com/Pollution-Control-Mitigation-Environmental-Institute/dp/1585761532
Maybe a bit out of date now, but I did enjoy reading it years ago.
https://www.amazon.com/Pollution-Control-Mitigation-Environmental-Institute/dp/1585761532
Okay first guy got it right but if I'm good at anything its working smarter not harder. DONT get Chemerinsky, amazon prime or get your ass to a book store that sells this go through it and understand the core of the cases, go watch the barbri lectures that are keyed to your semester, take fucking notes, you put your self in a corner so no fucking time to slack. Then go to the library or bookstore and get this And do EVERY SINGLE FUCKING QUESTION, the multiple choice took me like 4 hours to get through at a slow pace. and take 30 min for the essays, for efficiency sake do the multiple choice questions first. Good luck.... you'll fucking need it.
Here is one: https://www.mqup.ca/blog/secwepemc-people-land-laws/
Here is another one: https://www.amazon.ca/Unsettling-Canada-National-Wake-Up-Call-ebook/dp/B012XYFJHO
And another: https://www.amazon.ca/dp/1632460688/?coliid=I9PKGROBS5P88&colid=3VO89QG4XNLG3&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it
More: https://www.amazon.ca/dp/1632460688/?coliid=I9PKGROBS5P88&colid=3VO89QG4XNLG3&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it
Additional: https://www.amazon.ca/dp/1626566747/?coliid=I1BAWUWU32N6NC&colid=3VO89QG4XNLG3&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it
Another: https://www.amazon.ca/dp/1442614714/?coliid=I3P3FGFUIK7RFG&colid=3VO89QG4XNLG3&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it
One more: https://www.amazon.ca/dp/0888646402/?coliid=I2843W2GF6U9NS&colid=3VO89QG4XNLG3&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it
More: https://www.amazon.ca/dp/0814798535/?coliid=I30HZQ9D3V5O2W&colid=3VO89QG4XNLG3&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it
Here: https://www.amazon.ca/dp/1138585866/?coliid=I2UL77UTJ47BF0&colid=3VO89QG4XNLG3&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it
Another: https://www.amazon.ca/dp/1496201558/?coliid=I3BTQMC9LYCLHJ&colid=3VO89QG4XNLG3&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it
One: https://www.amazon.ca/dp/0822330210/?coliid=I1SEHQBGT2K6CT&colid=3VO89QG4XNLG3&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it
Another: https://www.amazon.ca/dp/0803282869/?coliid=IHTY3OT3VU8CZ&colid=3VO89QG4XNLG3&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it
Last one: https://www.amazon.ca/dp/0773547436/?coliid=ITIW0V5V1H7TR&colid=3VO89QG4XNLG3&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it
I totally concur with OP, supplements are supplements, not replacements. Read the case book, then read the relevant chapter from the supplement to ensure you got everything you were supposed to get out of it. Once you are getting everything out of the casebook in the first pass, you can discard supplements entirely if you like.
Best supplements, in my opinion:
You can quibble on some, but any law student worth his salt will recognize Dressler on crim and Chemerinsky on con law as the best. Freer on Civ Pro is very well recognized as well. I like the Understanding series for contracts and property because they are still succinct yet more in-depth than the E&E's. I like the E&E for torts because the Understanding book for that class isn't especially good.
If you don't like any of the above, the respective E&E would be my second choice.
I used this https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/073557961X
Examples & Explanations: Intellectual Property, Fourth Edition https://www.amazon.com/dp/1454803320/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_qkMMyb891X7XS
I used this book in my IP Law class during undergrad. Easy to read and tons of info and examples.
I know they've been thought of. They won't be done because they are expensive. It's makes more economic sense to kill them or castrate them. There is zero incentive for these people to do anything else. Non-human animals have no rights. Non-human animals are almost exclusively subordinate to economic interests, including animal "welfare" laws, which really exist to serve the interest of the property holders, not the animals themselves. This is a fantastic book on the subject.
You've done an excellent job explaining why firearms are primarily defensive in a military context.
But in a civilian context these arguments unfortunately don't hold up.
Most civilian firearm deaths are caused by handguns (see citation). Most firearm suicides and homicides occur within a home (see citation).
At 3 feet an abusive boyfriend with a firearm is not a skilled fighter with a scalpel.
In a civilian context firearms are primary offensive weapons because they allow a violent person to kill another person quickly and with little skill. The offensive person because he or she is the instigator can get within a very short distance of the defender and shoot the defender several times before the defender can pull his or her "defensive firearm" and react.
Your arguments are all certainly correct, but they relies on the idea that both the defender and offender have equal awareness that a gun fight is occurring. In civilian situations, the defender doesn't know a gun fight is beginning until the offender has time to fire half a clip at he or she, at close range.
Were a civilian shootout to occur, you're correct the skilled defender would win, but gun homicides very rarely occur in shoot outs.
I think you have a very valid point, but you're statements do not address why in a lawful society civilian need to carrying firearms around.
Citation:
"Reducing Gun Violence in America"
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1421411105
You have no idea what you are talking about. The amount of ignorance in your post is astounding.
http://www.amazon.com/Guilty-Until-Proven-Innocent-Accusations/product-reviews/1581070624
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1422498743/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1 I used this for my Property class.
https://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Impeaching-Trump/dp/151074228X
Inside Administrative Law: What Matters and Why (Inside (Wolters Kluwer)) https://www.amazon.com/dp/073557961X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apip_IzE4kUHledzxH
https://www.amazon.com/Examples-Explanations-Contracts-Brian-Blum/dp/1454868414/ref=dp_ob_title_bk (7th Edition)
​
https://www.amazon.com/Examples-Explanations-Property-Barlow-Burke/dp/145485006X (5th Edition)
​
https://www.amazon.com/Emanuel-CrunchTime-Property-Steven-L/dp/1454870222 (5th Edition)
​
https://www.amazon.com/Emanuel-CrunchTime-Contracts-Steven-L/dp/1454870176/ (6th Edition)
​
> So you want to treat kids like homeless people?
It does not cost $1200 a month to buy one extra person's worth of groceries, buy some clothes and so forth. That will cover rent nicely, though. Or a car payment for her new boyfriend. Things I've seen go down.
> Lies and lies. That's a huge way for her to lose the kids.
Again, if you don't know what you're talking about, BE SILENT. He must forever and always open his books to her any time she thinks she can raise support. He can literally NEVER ask or demand any accounting of moneys spent, unless he gets a court order and even then, that's only done in extenuating circumstances e.g. massive neglect.
A good friend of mine's brother had his wife walk out with some dude who kicked his pregnant wife down the stairs and then after they shacked up - started trying to see his daughter (9) naked. There's clear neglect and the kids get fed something pasta-and-tomato-sauce based out of a can every meal while she spends the difference on the boyfriend. And there's nothing he could do about it, even as her credit card people advised her she wasn't making enough payments and she said well, better get the kids full time to double the check. And did. Free.
> Dont project.
Don't deflect. You lost. Accept it.
> Defend what argument? An oddly specific one that does sound personal?
Not at all. I asked what a man gets out of a contract. When we're talking about a contract, we're talking about I give you $20000 and you furnish me with a Hyundai Accent. Not "well, I'm spiritually fulfilled at having made the sale, and you'll have wonderful memories driving along the coast in your car". Maybe the car does nothing but break down and he sets fire to it in frustration, and maybe the salesman sells the car at a loss and it's a reason he's later fired. But regardless, the contract specifies: $20,000 in exchange for one car. I asked, have asked before and will ask again what marriage does for a guy. Because all it does is make him indebted and financially liable without any upside.
> So you see all women as gold diggers and see having a family as enslavement. Problems with conditions 1 and 2.
No, listen carefully. I'm saying that the contract allows for exactly that. And yes, when someone is compelled to work to feed three kids she won't let him see, under pain of jail even though the amounts are excessive and she could easily get a goddamn job of her own, that's compelled labor, which is by the way, literally enslavement.
> The same goes for you.
Not at all, lady. I just fucking told you. She gets him on the hook to pay for her credit cards, the obligation to keep her financially, and cash, prizes and a pension when she changes her mind. If they're just dating and living in separate apartments when she decides to off and fuck Chad she doesn't get a monthly check to thank her for going on dates with him previous. Holy fuck, listen.
> If he doesn't see his wife as a hole and he doesn't see his kids as a liability, he's more likely to love being his marriage.
Again, because you cannot and will not answer the question, you make it "oh, you just see women as prostitutes, no wonder you can't get married". Twist, change, deflect. LOL. In other words I win.
> Same with men.
Not really: maybe he can't afford to. Maybe he's worried she'll punch herself in the face and then call the cops saying "Duluth Model! Jail him!" Maybe he can't afford to find all his belongings on fire and her illegally kicking him out of his own apartment. Whereas she can because when she does, CASH AND PRIZES.
> Same with men.
Google how many men get alimony. By the way when men don't pay it they go to jail. See if you can find one example of a woman in jail for nonpayment of alimony or child support. Hint: you can't.
> Exactly and most do not.
Except the contract does, and so does society. And yes you do, the moment you decide you could do better, you get bitter and hate and resent the guy, and decide "I'm going to fuck him one last time, but not with this little kitty, tee hee". And then you buy a book like this
> And that's why YOU THINK marriages suck for guys,
I don't think. That's what it actually IS. You're thinking about it in girl terms, e.g. what the romance novels and Disney make it out to be. I'm looking at the law itself.
> And you make it sound like it's a bad thing.
I could care less.
Not a lecture, but check out the Lexis "Understanding" series of supplement books. Property was the first class I ever used one of these books for, and I CALI'd it! They have it on Amazon here, but I'm guessing most law libraries would have it too.
Link
I'm not a con law lawyer, but I have a decent fundamental understanding and I can try to clarify any questions you have. But that book is a great primer on con law, it summarizes the case law book written by the foremost scholar on con law, Chemerinsky.
>Says who?
I'm be sure to assume your guilty if you're ever accused of a crime, since obviously you give others the benifit of the doubt when the shoe is on the other foot.
Some of us try to keep and "open mind," (but don't let your brains fall out like you did) but obviously you don't.
Your is snapped shut like a bear trap. Sure you're not a SJW? Confusing "evidence" with feelz sure sounds like it.
>Translation: I'm going to bend over backwards to convince you that I never-dee-ever prejudge anyone guilty just like everyone else does by fabricating some story about how deeply moved I was during jury.
So everyone is exactly alike, same thought patterns, same everything. Obviously not, since we're arguing about this.
Different experiences teach us different things. Some people learn, some don't, like you.
> Uh huh, I'm sure you definitely didn't.
Not all of us are ignorant dipshits (see the links which prove your ignorance) like you.
>Let's hear it. By all means, proceed to tell me an overwrought story about how you didn't assume he was guilty at all and totally waited for all the evidence to come in before arriving at a judgement.
I grew up with him in football and movies. I didn't want to believe he did it, for the most part I didn't care.
I tend not to follow popular culture to closely, but it happens to seep in.
>I mean, wowee, wow, are all of us who assume guilt from time to time going to end up in a mob1? MWAHAHA! We're all getting our pitchforks and coming to get you, jjbees!!
They don't want to assume guilt from time to time. They want to assume guilt all the time.
>I'm sure you do with each and every criminal case that crosses your attention.
If I care enough. Usually not.
>Yeah, yeah guy, I'm more than aware that people can be innocent.
noticed you said nothing about the fact that people ran with his guilt but was found innocent AND the person who accused him was forced to apologize by the court
> We're talking one blogger who explicitly makes a distinction between law and personal judgement.
No, you are defending her using emotions to assume everyone accused of some sex crime is guilty.
You're defending her use of emotional bullshit. "If he's been accused, he must be guilty of something." That is feelz, not waiting to make a judgement based on evidence.
>We're talking one blogger
Not one blogger, a lot of other people. On this sub and other places. If you haven't read them, and you're saying it's just one person, well..... -->
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/backlash-college-men-challenge-guilty-until-proven-innocent-standard-for-sex-assault-cases/article/2551863
http://reason.com/archives/2013/12/17/guilty-until-proven-innocent
http://dailycaller.com/2014/10/26/guilty-until-proven-innocent-law-lets-irs-seize-citizens-cash-when-no-crime-is-suspected/
http://www.wnyc.org/story/guilty-until-proven-innocent/
http://time.com/88407/the-white-houses-report-on-campus-sexual-assault-relies-on-the-lowest-common-denominator/
My favorite---->http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2014/08/26/philadelphia-civil-forfeiture-class-action-lawsuit/
http://www.amazon.com/Guilty-Until-Proven-Innocent-Accusations/dp/1581070624
-->you obviously don't pay enough attention. You're a dipshit
Awesome. So is that this book: https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Property-Law-John-Sprankling/dp/1522105573/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1518013588&sr=8-1&keywords=understanding+property ?
Anarcho-capitalism 101:
Anarcho-capitalism: Books on Private Law
If you want to understand originalism as a way of interpreting the US Constitution, I suggest you read anything by Raoul Berger - probably the first originalism scholar. A good place to start is Government by Judiciary
There are all sorts of (((NGOS))) working round the clock to try to get Muslim refugees into America.
https://www.amazon.ca/Refugee-Resettlement-Hijra-America-Corcoran/dp/1508820708
The only way to deal with the RAP is graphically. You can't answer it by thinking about it like a puzzle. It's sort of the real-life version of a LSAT logic game.
What you do is watch this video on how to draw a graphical representation of the times involved and conveyances: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLTDCqR2mts
If you need to learn estates, pick up https://www.amazon.com/Students-Guide-Estates-Future-Interests/dp/1422498743
Can we pick where the refugees come from? I want to sponsor some Somalis/Eritreans and get refugee housing built in homogeneous upper class neighborhoods to help fight residential segregation and promote diversity and multiculturalism. The only way we can move past racism is to end residential segregation. Proximity breeds tolerance. I wish we could just pick a country of origin, pick a postal code where they will be placed, pay some cash, and have refugees shipped there like a letter bomb.
Edit: NGOs are already doing that. you can read about it in this book. It's about the refugee system in America but the Canadian system functions very much in the same way:
http://www.amazon.ca/Refugee-Resettlement-Hijra-America-Corcoran/dp/1508820708