The Language of Argument

3 5 5

C o m p o n e n t s o f L e g a l R e a s o n i n g

in this case. Moreover, the answer to the above question also depends on what

counts as “equal educational opportunities” for the purposes of the law. For

example, the studies cited by the Court found that segregated schools “affect

the motivation of a child to learn,” but these factual studies could not deter-

mine whether lowered motivation to learn counts as lowered opportunity to

learn. The Court had to decide this issue because it in effect determines what

the law is—what it prohibits and what it allows. Thus, what was presented

as a question of fact turned out to be at least partly a question of law. In such

cases, it is not clear where law ends and facts begin.

Questions of Law

Even after the facts are determined, no decision can be reached without de-

termining what the law is. The law varies from place to place and from time

to time, so we have to know what the law is at the right time and place. This

is determined mainly by looking at the legal institutions that actually exist.

In our legal system, there are three main sources of the law: statutes, the

Constitution, and precedents.

StatuteS. Roughly, statutes are general rules of law passed by legislatures.

Statutes are made at various levels (federal, state, and local), and they cover

various subjects, including crimes as well as property, contracts, and other

areas of civil law. There are also statutes governing the procedures and kinds

of evidence that can be presented in court.

When a general statute is applied to a particular case, the legal argument

is often primarily deductive. For example, Sally drove ninety-five miles per

hour in front of Hanover High School at 4 pm on a school day. It is illegal to

drive over fifteen miles per hour in front of any school at 4 pm on a school

day. Therefore, Sally’s driving was illegal. Of course, there are lots of sup-

pressed premises, such as that ninety-five miles per hour is over fifteen miles

per hour. Other assumptions are trickier: Sally might not be found guilty if

she had an excuse or justification, such as that a terrorist held a gun to her

head. Still, it is often obvious that Sally had no excuse or justification. If we

add this claim as a premise, then, with a little fiddling, the legal argument

against Sally can be made deductively sound.

Such simple cases are common, but they are also boring. Things get much

more difficult and interesting when a statute is vague, so that it is not clear

whether the statute applies to the case at issue. Then the statute must be

interpreted. We need some way to tell more precisely what the law prohibits

and what it allows.

The first step in interpreting a statute is to look carefully at the words in the

statute and their literal meanings. But the courts must often look beyond the

mere words of the statute. This need arises when the words are unclear and

when they lead to absurd results. For example, suppose a city council passes

an ordinance requiring zoos to provide clean, dry cages for all mammals.

97364_ch18_ptg01_351-382.indd 355 15/11/13 11:38 AM

some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materiallyCopyright 201^3 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights,

affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.