Bright-line test: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{a|g|[[File:Bright Line Test.jpg|450px|thumb|center|I told you I was ill.]]
{{a|g|[[File:Bright Line Test.jpg|450px|thumb|center|I told you I was ill.]]
}}{{d|Bright-line test|/brʌɪt/ /lʌɪn/ /tɛst/|n|}}
}}{{d|Bright-line test|/brʌɪt lʌɪn tɛst/|n|}}


(''American''). A conceptual exercise bestowing a so great degree of confidence in the mind of a member of the New York bar that it cannot, as a matter of [[metaphysics|metaphysical]] theory, much less ''legal'' theory, exist. A bright-line test is a [[paradox]]; a kind of unachievable [[Platonic form]]; a sunlit upland to which all US attorneys wistfully aspire, but which all know, and thank their lucky stars, they will never have to encounter in person.  
(''American''). A conceptual exercise bestowing so great a degree of confidence in the mind of a [[U.S. Attorney|member of the New York bar]] that it cannot, as a matter of [[metaphysics|metaphysical]] theory (much less ''legal'' theory) exist. A bright-line test is therefore a [[paradox]]; a kind of unachievable [[Platonic form]]; a sunlit upland to which all [[U.S. attorney]]s wistfully aspire, but which all know, and thank their lucky stars, they will never have to encounter in person.  


Wikipedia tells us the bright line test originates in U.S. constitutional law where the founding fathers held it to be a self-evident truth that overly simplistic “bright-line” rules had great potential to unjustly deprive US attorneys of their 9th amendment rights to filibuster indefinitely without arriving at a useful conclusion. Supreme Court Justice Jefferson D. Hogg observed that “no single set of principles can ever capture or limit the ever-shifting complexity of an attorney’s discursions.”
Wikipedia tells us the “bright-line test” originates in U.S. constitutional law, where the founding fathers held it to be a self-evident truth that overly simplistic “bright-line” rules had such great potential to unjustly deprive U.S. attorneys of their 9th Amendment rights to filibuster indefinitely for the account, if not the benefit, of their clients without arriving at a useful conclusion that the courts were justified in striking down any such rules that anyone might contrive to enact.  
 
In a lengthy disquisition, Supreme Court Justice Jefferson D. Hogg observed that “no single set of principles can ever capture or limit the ever-shifting complexity of an attorney’s discursions.”


Thus, the words “[[bright-line test]]” are always uttered in the negative, and with insincere remorse — e.g., “sadly, there’s no [[bright-line test]] for this”. The logical impossibility of a bright-line test is a [[US attorney]]’s means of evading any responsibility for anything she says, does, or commits to a lengthy written [[legal opinion|memorandum of advice]].
Thus, the words “[[bright-line test]]” are always uttered in the negative, and with insincere remorse — e.g., “sadly, there’s no [[bright-line test]] for this”. The logical impossibility of a bright-line test is a [[US attorney]]’s means of evading any responsibility for anything she says, does, or commits to a lengthy written [[legal opinion|memorandum of advice]].