Posted by wlansden |
Filed under general, commentary
By James Bowden
True story: since 1891, the Kentucky State Constitution has required all Members of the General Assembly, Officers, and members of the bar to take an oath that includes a statement that, “since the adoption of the present [Kentucky State] Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending.”
Apparently, in the twilight of the nineteenth century Kentucky was concerned about its growing reputation as the “Wow, That Escalated Quickly” state. Legislative machinations are now afoot to amend the State Constitution to remove the language. However, I wonder if eliminating the last vestige of an attempt to suppress a dispute resolution problem that harkens to the days of yore is really worth the trouble. After all, it’s no secret that a few of the founding fathers weren’t above settling their problems from twenty paces; and a particularly famous Tennessean was allegedly quite fond of pistols at dawn (goes great with grits and red-eye gravy!). I’m afraid that Kentucky may be losing a colorful part of its heritage if it goes through with stripping the oath of the “no dueling” rep. In any case, is it really worth the time and effort of a Constitutional amendment?
Attorneys in Kentucky: what do you think? Also, as a practical matter, how many attorneys make it through the oath without laughing? My guess is about one in five.
Currently rated 4.8 by 4 people
- Currently 4.75/5 Stars.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5