There are two categories of blog postings of mine that I have not posted to very often. Law and politics. You can see them listed on the left-hand sidebar. 🙂
Although admittedly, I did post a piece on administrative law that gives you a peek into how executive agencies have the power to create legislation and how that power is exercised. See: Framers, Federalists, and the Reality of the Administrative State. And I did do a series on marriage and divorce.* There are a few other posts there as well.
I’ve intentionally avoided these categories during the past four years because politics, in my country anyway, has been a very contentious topic. To say the least. And when I’ve tried to explain the Constitution and statutes, well, let’s just say that people have notions about how the law is “supposed” to work that are largely based on TV shows and outright fantasy.
But today, I’m going to go ahead and post something, very brief, about evidentiary law. Which is relevant to all of the litigation currently swirling about the US election.
But first, a disclaimer. Whenever I write about the law, it should never be construed to be legal advice. I have no attorney-client relationship with any of my readers. If you are involved in a legal situation, I suggest you seek out the advice of competent legal counsel.
And finally, obviously, this is not supposed to be entire encapsulation of evidentiary law. What I’m presenting is a very boiled down summary of what constitutes evidence that attorneys spend their entire legal careers practicing and learning about the various nuances of how to present it. Moreover, the rules of evidence are different in different states and there are differences between the state and federal rules of evidence.
With that disclaimer in mind . . . read on. 🙂Continue reading And the Evidence Shows . . .