Law and Justice

Posts Tagged ‘Review’

We should have a review of our Constitution.

Dalip Singh Wasan, Advocate,

Formerly employment Officer P.E.S. II.

E.Mail. dalipsinghwassan @ Yahoo Co.In.

We must accept that our Constitution had accepted all good items available in Constitutions of other countries and therefore, it is a comperhensive document and shall be guiding us for all the times to come. We have been conducting review and there had been some amendments in this Constitution. Still we need more amendments because uptil now we could not provide that only competent people should come forward in the houses. We could not provide maximum age uptil which they shall be in the houses. It would have been better if people who are more than 70 years age should not be present in the house and we should have abolished all the state level legislative assemblies because one Parliament is enough to represnt us. We are one country and we have got one types of our problems and the situations and conditions are also the same. We have got one nation and when we have a deep look, all the provinces have created so many problems for us. These units have given birth to religious and regional political parties and now these parties are taking more than due place in the centre too. Had there been one Parliament in this country, there were chances that there could have been two to three political parties there were chances that these parties would have taken competent people in them. All and sundary would not have been allowed to enter these two to three parties and there were chances that these parties would have adopted the path of giving us shadow cabinets and we, the people of India would have been given a chance to elect ministers direct. The present system of appointing ministers by the Prime Minister is not healthy because here we are obliged to appoint ministers as their share in the government and merit is no consideration. That is the reason there is no unity in the cabinet and they just work. Since ministers are not appointed on the basis of merits, they are not in a position to hold charge of people working under them. Rather they work under the bureaucracy and in most of the cases orders are passed by the bureaucracy and signed by the ministers. Such government cannot be called a

democracy.

We should think of establishing one Public Service Commission for the whole country and similarly there should be Subordinate Services Selection Board for whole of the country. We should see that the Employment Exchanges are also allowed to function and if candidates appointed through these agencies are found fit their services should be regularised without rooting them thrrough the Subordinate Service Selection Boards. Recruitment to all offices should be made through these agencies and even establishments in private sectors be invited to utilise the services of these organisations. We should not disturb and put into difficulties our unemployed people and they should be tested once and given job as per their performance in the competitive test.

We should abolish all schools and colleges which are estrablished on religious basis and there should be educational institutions as national institutions and none should be allowed to preach his own religion through these institutions. We should limit the religious institutions in the country their numbers be fixed by the state and the state must have an eye on these institution so that they may not be giving birth to fundamentalists who can cause danger to our unity and integrity.

We should have one law for the whole of India so that the people must be in a position to understand law and they also start believing that people of one part are not better placed. Whole of India must be open to all of us and none of the state be allowed to see that people of its own area are getting jobs under the state and people from other states are not allowed to participate in competitions.

We should ensure that each one of us has got proper education, proper training and proper adjustment at work from where each one is carrying adequate income with which he is able to run his family administration. We are more than 100 crore in number and therefore, we need a working force of about 40,00,00,000 and if such an assessment is carried out, we shall be short of workers. There had been some defect in our plannings that we could not develop such a structure in which each one of us should have been at work and none should have been dependant upon others.

We may allow to the people religious libirty, but time has come when we shall have to see that people who are living on charity should not be allowed to increase in number. even to day this number is on higher side and we must try to see that no one is allowed to live on charity alone and everyone should be at work because when a nation has got a large number of people living on charity, more and more people shall be joining this line and thus burdon on working people is increased and this is not a healthy sign. We should have an introspection and must see that this number is decreased.

We should see that people of one religion should not be allowed to concentrate on one place. They must be asked to disperse and locate themselves amongst people of other religions because people of one religion are located at one place, they start demanding something which our Constitution dies notallow. We should have one common civil code in which system of marriage and divorce should be one and similarly we should be having one succession law with us. We should see that the family should be bound to look after the infirm and old people and every child must get proper education and proper training. The nation must look after the child through his or her parents, but none of them should be allowed to go astray.

Till we have one spirit, we shall never become a nation and till we attain the status of a nation all these terrorism and riots shall be hampering our progress and we shall remain a backward country. Therefore, we should see that each one of us must get all these fundamental rightws automatically and is not is compelled to fight for these rights in Courts.

—————————-

We should have a review of our Constitution.

Dalip Singh Wasan, Advocate,

Formerly employment Officer P.E.S. II.

E.Mail. dalipsinghwassan @ Yahoo Co.In.

We must accept that our Constitution had accepted all good items available in Constitutions of other countries and therefore, it is a comperhensive document and shall be guiding us for all the times to come. We have been conducting review and there had been some amendments in this Constitution. Still we need more amendments because uptil now we could not provide that only competent people should come forward in the houses. We could not provide maximum age uptil which they shall be in the houses. It would have been better if people who are more than 70 years age should not be present in the house and we should have abolished all the state level legislative assemblies because one Parliament is enough to represnt us. We are one country and we have got one types of our problems and the situations and conditions are also the same. We have got one nation and when we have a deep look, all the provinces have created so many problems for us. These units have given birth to religious and regional political parties and now these parties are taking more than due place in the centre too. Had there been one Parliament in this country, there were chances that there could have been two to three political parties there were chances that these parties would have taken competent people in them. All and sundary would not have been allowed to enter these two to three parties and there were chances that these parties would have adopted the path of giving us shadow cabinets and we, the people of India would have been given a chance to elect ministers direct. The present system of appointing ministers by the Prime Minister is not healthy because here we are obliged to appoint ministers as their share in the government and merit is no consideration. That is the reason there is no unity in the cabinet and they just work. Since ministers are not appointed on the basis of merits, they are not in a position to hold charge of people working under them. Rather they work under the bureaucracy and in most of the cases orders are passed by the bureaucracy and signed by the ministers. Such government cannot be called a

democracy.

We should think of establishing one Public Service Commission for the whole country and similarly there should be Subordinate Services Selection Board for whole of the country. We should see that the Employment Exchanges are also allowed to function and if candidates appointed through these agencies are found fit their services should be regularised without rooting them thrrough the Subordinate Service Selection Boards. Recruitment to all offices should be made through these agencies and even establishments in private sectors be invited to utilise the services of these organisations. We should not disturb and put into difficulties our unemployed people and they should be tested once and given job as per their performance in the competitive test.

We should abolish all schools and colleges which are estrablished on religious basis and there should be educational institutions as national institutions and none should be allowed to preach his own religion through these institutions. We should limit the religious institutions in the country their numbers be fixed by the state and the state must have an eye on these institution so that they may not be giving birth to fundamentalists who can cause danger to our unity and integrity.

We should have one law for the whole of India so that the people must be in a position to understand law and they also start believing that people of one part are not better placed. Whole of India must be open to all of us and none of the state be allowed to see that people of its own area are getting jobs under the state and people from other states are not allowed to participate in competitions.

We should ensure that each one of us has got proper education, proper training and proper adjustment at work from where each one is carrying adequate income with which he is able to run his family administration. We are more than 100 crore in number and therefore, we need a working force of about 40,00,00,000 and if such an assessment is carried out, we shall be short of workers. There had been some defect in our plannings that we could not develop such a structure in which each one of us should have been at work and none should have been dependant upon others.

We may allow to the people religious libirty, but time has come when we shall have to see that people who are living on charity should not be allowed to increase in number. even to day this number is on higher side and we must try to see that no one is allowed to live on charity alone and everyone should be at work because when a nation has got a large number of people living on charity, more and more people shall be joining this line and thus burdon on working people is increased and this is not a healthy sign. We should have an introspection and must see that this number is decreased.

We should see that people of one religion should not be allowed to concentrate on one place. They must be asked to disperse and locate themselves amongst people of other religions because people of one religion are located at one place, they start demanding something which our Constitution dies notallow. We should have one common civil code in which system of marriage and divorce should be one and similarly we should be having one succession law with us. We should see that the family should be bound to look after the infirm and old people and every child must get proper education and proper training. The nation must look after the child through his or her parents, but none of them should be allowed to go astray.

Till we have one spirit, we shall never become a nation and till we attain the status of a nation all these terrorism and riots shall be hampering our progress and we shall remain a backward country. Therefore, we should see that each one of us must get all these fundamental rightws automatically and is not is compelled to fight for these rights in Courts.

The Attitude of Ghanaian Courts towards the Enforcement of Socio-economic Rights of the Citizenry: A Critical Review.

Introduction

Ghana has a chequered past; one interspersed with both civilian and military governments since its independence from Great Britain in 1957. The concept of human rights enshrinement in the Constitution was not foreign to the Ghanaian setup. Prior to the adoption of the 1992 Republican Constitution human rights were  provided in the 1969 and 1979 Constitutions of Ghana. It was provided to a limited extent in Chapter Six of the 1979 constitution of Ghana. During the deliberations leading to the adoption of the 1992 Constitution, the Committee of Experts noted that even though there has been compartmentalization of human rights into civil and political right; and economic, social and cultural rights, they felt that whatever the material scope of the rights, all persons were entitled to them. (Paragraph 137 of  Report of Committee of Experts on Proposals for Draft Constitution of Ghana).

 The 1992 Constitution of Ghana has its Bill of Rights being Chapter Five of the Constitution. A reading of the constitution evinces a number of civil and political rights as well as socio- economic rights in the Bill of Rights. The socio-economic rights include: protection from deprivation of property (Article 20), property rights of spouses (Article 22), right to work under safe, satisfactory and healthy conditions and right to form trade unions (Article 24), right to educational opportunities and facilities (Article 25), women’s rights (Article 27),children’s rights (Article 28), rights of the disabled (Article 29). Also, a number of these socio-economic rights such as the right to a healthy environment (Art. 36(9)); the right to work; the right to good health care and the right to education are provided for under Chapter Six of the 1992 Constitution. Yet still a number of socio-economic rights like the right to social security and adequate standards of living are not provided for at all under the present constitution.

The Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) are to serve as guidelines in the application and interpretation of the constitution (Article 34(1) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana).  Due to this, it has been suggested that the directive principles are not justiciable. However, a provision in the constitution stipulates that the fundamental human rights mentioned in Chapter Five are not to be regarded as excluding others not specifically mentioned (Article 33(5)). In other words, Chapter Five does not exhaust the socio-economic rights.

The question then is, whether the socio-economic rights which are not mentioned in chapter Five are rights which can be enforced by the courts? The High court has been charged with the duty of enforcement of the fundamental rights with right of appeal to the Court of Appeal and then, the Supreme Court. A number of cases involving socio-economic rights under chapter Six of the constitution have come before the courts for interpretation.

1.     The Legal Arguments Emanating from the Courts

The Ghanaian decisions to be examined in this respect are: the New Patriotic Party (NPP) v Attorney-General (the 31st December case, 1993-94, 2 GLR 35- 192) ; New Patriotic Party (NPP) v Attorney-General (CIBA case 1996-97, SCGLR 729-803) and Ghana Lotto Operators Association & 6 Ors. v National Lottery Authority (Lotto case, 23rd July 2008, unreported)).

In the 31st December case, an action was brought by the plaintiff, a registered political party in the supreme court for a declaration that the celebration of the 31st December as a statutory public holiday was inconsistent with articles 3, 35(1) and 41(b) of the Constitution. Amongst the issues for determination was whether the directive principles of state policy were justiciable. This was because the declaration sought was in respect of two provisions under chapter Six of the constitution.

Adade JSC, in giving the lead judgment of the court stated that “The Directive Principles of State Policy contained in the 1992 Constitution,  Chapter Six were justiciable because the Constitution as a whole was a justiciable document and accordingly, if any part was non-justiciable, the Constitution itself had to indicate it”. But no provision in the constitution had indicated that chapter Six was not justiciable. Yet, the evidence to establish the non-justiciability of the principles had to be internal to the constitution otherwise it would be in conflict with it and thus be void and inadmissible. He stated further that “although in some quarters it had been said that the use of the phrase ‘shall guide’ in article 34(1) of the 1992 Constitution implied that the directive principles were not meant to be justiciable, the argument was weak and unimpressive and that though, all laws were for guidance, they had not on that account, be said to be non-justiciable”. 

It must be said that though this was not a unanimous decision of the house either some members of the house inferring the non- justiciability of the directive principles from the Committee of Experts and Consultative Assembly reports, it must be said that the deliberations leading up to its adoption in the 1979 Constitution of Ghana does not support such a position nor does the express language in Article 34(1) suggest same. The majority decision is the one supported as such a decision can be said to be the natural deduction and conclusion to be inferred from the preamble and Article 1 of the constitution that the will of the people shall be supreme and that the fundamental human rights and freedoms shall be protected and preserved.

The CIBA case was concerned with a declaration sought under article 2(1) of the 1992 constitution  by the NPP to the effect that the Council of Indigenous Business Association (CIBA) law was inconsistent and thereby contravened Articles 21 (1) (e), 35(1) and 37(2)(a) and (3) of the 1992 constitution of Ghana. The defendant raised a preliminary objection to the suit on the ground that the articles sought to be relied on by the plaintiff fell under chapter Six of the 1992 Constitution titled Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) and were thus not justiciable. In ruling on the preliminary objection to the action, the majority of the house held that the Directive Principles of State Policy had the effect of providing goals for legislative programmes and a guide for judicial interpretation but were not of and by themselves legally enforceable by any court.

According to Bamford Addo JSC, as a mouth piece of the unanimous majority, the Directive Principles of State Policy were of and in themselves, not justiciable. She made reference to Par. 95-97 of the Report of the Committee of Experts on Proposals for a Draft Constitution of Ghana especially par.96 which stated that the principles should not of and by themselves be legally enforceable by any court. She however qualified this statement to the effect that they could be justiciable when read in conjunction with other enforceable provisions of the constitution by reason of the fact that the courts are mandated to apply them, they become justiciable. Also, that any provision in chapter Six that could be interpreted to mean a guaranteed fundamental right also became justiciable. She concluded by stating that the justiciability of any provision under Chapter Six of the constitution would rest on the peculiar facts of the case presented before the court. The position stated by Bamford Addo remained the position as regards the directive principles of state policy until a new position was stated by the Supreme Court of Ghana in 2008 in Lotto case.

The Supreme Court decision in the Lotto case can be said to be the most recent and hence the current position of the law on the Directive Principles of State Policy. In this case, a reference was made to the Supreme Court of Ghana for a determination as to whether The National Lotto Act, 2006, Act 722 violated Articles 33(5), 35(1) and 36(2) of the 1992 constitution of Ghana.

 The background to the case concerned the issue of a writ by some private lotto operators in Ghana by virtue of newspaper announcements by the defendant established under the National Lotto Act, 2006 to the effect that no person other than the National Lotto Authority  from operating any form of lottery in Ghana. The plaintiffs who were aggrieved sought a declaration inter alia that, Act 722 violated the afore-mentioned provisions.

Date- Bah JSC, giving the judgment of the court made some very interesting pronouncements on the justiciability of the Directive Principles of State Policy. It is this aspect of the case that shall be subject to our perusal. After establishing the fact that the plaintiffs had failed to make a case concerning the first two articles, he stated that the most relevant issue to be determined was whether the Act violated Article 36(2) of the constitution. He examined this article by stating that an issue was justiciable if it was capable of being settled by a court. For him all the provisions in the constitution were justiciable because it contained the most important rule on political governance. 

In so stating, he reiterated the view earlier expressed by Adade JSC in the 31st December Case that all the provisions in the constitution were justiciable unless the constitution categorically stated otherwise. He distinguished the restraint on Indian judges to adjudicate on the Directive principles by reference Article 37 of the Indian Constitution which unequivocally stated that the Provisions in Part IV therein was unenforceable by any court as against a non- express exclusion in the Ghanaian constitution. After examining the Committee of Experts report on the adoption of the constitution of Ghana, he came to the conclusion that there was no language in the constitution suggestive that the Directive principles are not of and by themselves legally enforceable by any court.  He stated that even if the original intention of the Committee may have being to make the principles unenforceable that did not appear in the constitution as such.

He continued that as the problems of the nation changed, the interpretations of the constitutions by the judiciary also had to change to reflect modern practices. A statement he made which is at the heart of this article bears repeating. He stated that the rights set out in chapter Six are predominantly the economic, social and cultural rights which by international and domestic practice are becoming just as fundamental as the rights in chapter Five.

The enforceability of these economic, social and cultural rights was a legitimate purpose for the court to seek to achieve through appropriate purposive interpretation and so any interpretation to Article 34 of the constitution should take into account the purpose of expanding the range of enforceable human rights in Ghana. He emphasized the need for the elaboration and enforcement of economic, social and cultural rights in light of the history, culture and legal system as a need of the present times and for the test of Article 34 if it could help meet this need, then the court should fulfil it.

He added that a presumption of justiciability in respect of Chapter Six of the constitution would strengthen the legal status of socio- economic and cultural rights in the Ghanaian jurisdiction and that any provision that does not lend itself to enforcement by its nature would rebut such a presumption as this would go a long way to deepen our democracy. Any ambiguity in article 34 should be resolved in favour of enforceability so as to strengthen the enforcement of fundamental human rights as a core value of the current legal and constitutional system.

Date-Bah however cautioned that the enforceability of these economic, social and cultural rights did not mean that the implementation in respect of it would be the same as the civil and political rights embodied in Chapter Five. The court thus needed to be flexible and imaginative in determining how provisions under the Chapter Six would be enforced.

Aside the courts, a body clothed with competence to hear complaints on the fundamental human rights is the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) hereinafter known as CHRAJ. CHRAJ which is an elaboration of the Ombudsman in the 1979 constitution has now per Article 218(a) and section 7(1) (a) of the CHRAJ Act the mandate to investigate complaints of violations of fundamental rights and freedoms. In line with this mandate, CHRAJ has given a number of decisions on the fundamental human rights specifically the socio-economic rights. However it has not given a decision in respect of the justiciability of socio-economic rights.

2.     Conclusion

Having recognized that the CIBA case was a departure from the 31st December case and that there was a conflict between two previous decisions, of the supreme court and thus the court was free to choose between the two or formulate a different rule, the court still went ahead to choose a presumption of justiciability of chapter Six of the 1992 constitution. This is probably due to the fact that the court recognized the increasing trend in various jurisdictions to this position as a need of our time and hence important that it does likewise.

After a reading of the various cases, it can be boldly stated that the Ghanaian position on the Directive Principles and thus, the socio- economic rights has now been established by the Lotto case and has been resolved in favour of the justiciability of the socio- economic rights. Ghana has therefore joined hands with other jurisdictions to safeguard the protection of the socio- economic rights, thus changing the attitude of the courts in that direction. 

Lifting the District of Columbia’s Gun Ban is Wrong!

The Supreme Court Justices should not allow ideology to pale the beauty of the U.S. Constitution by ignoring the context of history and the “will” of the District of Columbia’s “disenfranchised” people. The ongoing Supreme Court arguments and ruling on whether to lift the District’s Gun Ban., a law since 1979, should be a measure of balance and prudence on interpreting the 2nd Amendment’s “right of the people to keep and bear arms”.

This historic deliberation must also include a candid review of the mandate and culpability of federal government agencies and the U.S. Congress to effectively manage crime in the Nation’s Capital. Throughout the District, large numbers of residents still exist in some of the most blighted, underserved and impoverished neighborhood conditions in the nation. Interpersonal-gun violence and street carnage are too often linked to the intricate, unresolved problems of illiteracy, under education joblessness, substance abuse and a plethora of untreated psychological health disabilities.

 Our society has allowed the handgun to evolve as the most glamorized and desirable weapon of choice for human destruction. The United States leads the world in homicides resulting from handguns, with more than 13,000 deaths (men, women and children) annually.

“We the people” and each of the Supreme Court Justices should not ignore the fact that our nation has been through a period in our history when everyone was allowed to carry a firearm because of the need for self defense. Only through the thoughtful leadership of Town Councils, Sheriffs, U.S. Marshalls and Federal Judges, who created town ordinances that, limited the carrying of firearms, were we able to ultimately control the mindless level of lawlessness that prevailed during that period. The notion of allowing every law-abiding citizen to posses and carry gun is as foolish a proposition today as it was during the era of taming the “Wild West”. And when would residents of the District ever need a militia? We already have volunteer residents who comprise the highly trained National Guard and are who also are serving as members of the U. S. Army that is considered the best in the world.

It would be judicial malfeasance to strike down a law that will quickly result in the proliferation of District based gun stores everywhere, and the addition on more legal guns into a city that is already awash with illegal firearms. For the court, this would be both an unethical and immoral precedent.

Unfortunately, problems of street-level crime and victimization have not been adequately confronted by local and federal authorities because neither has been effective in addressing the pathology of firearm violence. The Supreme Court should realize that when the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment there wasn’t a firearm in the nation capable of firing more than twice. How firearms and the times have changed!

Obviously, striking down the District’s imperfect Gun Ban is not in anyway reasonable. It would result in the influx of a higher number of guns to be placed in the hands of a larger segment of the city’s population that will only serve to create an even deadlier and volatile mix of illegal and legal firearms. And tragically, it would only accelerate the depreciation in the value of human life that is continuing to plague residents of the District of Columbia!

Tom Blagburn
University of the District of Columbia, Institute for Public Safety & Justice
Former Director, Community Policing, Metropolitan Police Department (Ret)
6935 33rd Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20015
Washington, D.C. 20015
(202) 537-1118

The Law School Confidential: A Complete Guide to the Law School Experience, By Students, For Students has been called “a must for anyone attending or thinking about law school” by The Houston Lawyer, and is one book that can be found in the bookshelf of every law student. Law School Confidential is considered the “little black book” of law schools around the United States. Rather than being a simple guide book with study and exam prep tips, the Law School Confidential aims to be a complete guide to the entire law school experience. It walks the reader through what it feels like to be inside a law school – surviving the first year and the 1L exams, the summer law internship, the screening interviews come graduation. The author frequently uses the experiences of former law students to make its points clear, and at that it is quite effective. The book begins with a string of lengthy chapters on orienting the reader with the process of getting inside a law school. This “beginner’s guide” is exhaustive and well written, and does a good job of introducing law school and the law school lifestyle to the reader. However, one feels that more could be devoted to how to actually pick which law school to apply for. Some very useful information comes in the form of the grading curves in each individual school, and which school has pass fail grading available as an option. For most first year students, this information can be vital; the first year is easily the toughest. The book stresses the fact that the best, and the most useful tips and advice often come from fellow students and not professors. In most law schools, the 2L and the 3L students are the go to guys – the professors are often either too busy to entertain individual students, or are not open enough in sharing information. The strongest point of the book, and one that has made it so popular among most law students is its no nonsense, conversational tone. Most law books tend to throw legal mumbo jumbo at their readers – a tradition among lawyers themselves – but Law School Confidential keeps the verbose to a minimum, and focuses on delivering frank information that can be actually useful to those thinking of, or attending law school. Where this book fails is that it can be too basic sometimes, coming across as preachy. Some of the study tips are downright basic – things which most people have picked up in their undergrad years itself. Moreover, the book tries to push certain tactics which may not be applicable to everyone. Nonetheless, as the Houston Lawyer says, this book is definitely a must for anyone either thinking of, or attending law school. As the New York Law Journal put it, this is quite a “useful, worthwhile book”.

The Law School Confidential: A Complete Guide to the Law School Experience, By Students, For Students has been called “a must for anyone attending or thinking about law school” by The Houston Lawyer, and is one book that can be found in the bookshelf of every law student.

Law School Confidential is considered the “little black book” of law schools around the United States. Rather than being a simple guide book with study and exam prep tips, the Law School Confidential aims to be a complete guide to the entire law school experience. It walks the reader through what it feels like to be inside a law school – surviving the first year and the 1L exams, the summer law internship, the screening interviews come graduation. The author frequently uses the experiences of former law students to make its points clear, and at that it is quite effective.

The book begins with a string of lengthy chapters on orienting the reader with the process of getting inside a law school. This “beginner’s guide” is exhaustive and well written, and does a good job of introducing law school and the law school lifestyle to the reader. However, one feels that more could be devoted to how to actually pick which law school to apply for.

Some very useful information comes in the form of the grading curves in each individual school, and which school has pass fail grading available as an option. For most first year students, this information can be vital; the first year is easily the toughest.

The book stresses the fact that the best, and the most useful tips and advice often come from fellow students and not professors. In most law schools, the 2L and the 3L students are the go to guys – the professors are often either too busy to entertain individual students, or are not open enough in sharing information.

The strongest point of the book, and one that has made it so popular among most law students is its no nonsense, conversational tone. Most law books tend to throw legal mumbo jumbo at their readers – a tradition among lawyers themselves – but Law School Confidential keeps the verbose to a minimum, and focuses on delivering frank information that can be actually useful to those thinking of, or attending law school.

Where this book fails is that it can be too basic sometimes, coming across as preachy. Some of the study tips are downright basic – things which most people have picked up in their undergrad years itself. Moreover, the book tries to push certain tactics which may not be applicable to everyone.

Nonetheless, as the Houston Lawyer says, this book is definitely a must for anyone either thinking of, or attending law school. As the New York Law Journal put it, this is quite a “useful, worthwhile book”.

Lyle Lovett, the richly talented Rock artist has released him latest CD titled Joshua Judges Ruth and Wow! It’s really a good one.

Lyle Lovett has been a heavy hitter in the Rock genre for quite a while now and Joshua Judges Ruth is an excellent illustration as to why.

Rock music fans will recognize some of the well known guests that have been assembled to play along with Lovett on several of the tracks. Artists like Dean Parks and Russ Kunkel just to name a couple.

Listen to and I think you’ll agree that the song choices are excellent, the production is outstanding and Lyle Lovett is clearly in top form.

While this entire CD is really very good some of my favorites are track 3 – She’s Already Made Up Her Mind, track 10 – She’s Leaving Me Because She Really Wants To, and track 12 – She Make Me Feel Good

My Bonus Pick, and the one that got Sore [...as in "Stuck On REpeat"] is track 1 – I’ve Been To Memphis. What a nice track!

Joshua Judges Ruth Release Notes:

Lyle Lovett originally released Joshua Judges Ruth on March 31, 1992 on the MCA Records label.

CD Track List Follows:

1. I’ve Been To Memphis 2. Church 3. She’s Already Made Up Her Mind 4. North Dakota 5. You’ve Been So Good Up To Now 6. All My Love Is Gone 7. Since The Last Time 8. Baltimore 9. Family Reserve 10. She’s Leaving Me Because She Really Wants To 11. Flyswatter / Ice Water Blues 12. She Makes Me Feel Good

Personnel includes: Lyle Lovett (vocals, acoustic guitar); Dean Parks (acoustic guitar); Ray Herndon, Billy Williams (electric guitar); Leo Kottke (guitar); Jay Dee Maness (pedal steel guitar); John Hagen (cello); Plas Johnson (tenor saxophone); Matt Rollings (piano); Leland Sklar (bass); Russ Kunkel (drums); Ricky Lee Jones, Emmylou Harris, Sir Harry Bowen, Sweet Pea Atkinson (background vocals). Producers: George Massenberg, Billy Williams, Lyle Lovett. Recorded at Ocean Way Recorders and Conway Studios, Hollywood, California between September 1991 & January 1992.

Incoming search terms: