With 1.7 million freelancers, we'll match you with the perfect talent.
The client has made the following changes to the job.
Client prefers freelancers from:
You are still able to submit a proposal for this job.
The client prefers freelancers from
a different location.
Looking for a brief argument (1 or two pages) about US constitutional holdings to suggest that: (a) It is unconstitutional for the law to overtly purport to hold one thing for the public and the litigants, but to covertly hold the exact opposite for the bench and the bar. (b) It is unconstitutional to protect only a plaintiff's rights and not provide equal protection to a defendant's rights in a civil proceeding. (c) It is unconstitutional for the laxity and informality of the courts to allow a party’s attorney’s “zealous advocacy” during oral argument to serve as a proxy for responsive pleadings, properly sworn testimony, and proper presentation of evidence to meet a burden of proof (otherwise, judges are basing their decisions on personality of the lawyers or litigants, not the law. I think this is mostly a due process and equal protection argument.
Sign in or Register to see more