First Ave Maria Graduating Class TOPS ALL MICHIGAN LAW SCHOOLS ON BAR EXAM

"Healthy competition in legal education, however, does not come from additional schools offering the same educational fare. It comes from more law schools offering a mission-driven and value-laden education. There are far too few of these, but these schools can provide legitimate alternatives to the relativistic legal education available at most law schools.

They can also provide an excellent legal education, as evidenced by the recent bar exam results in the State of Michigan. Ave Maria Law School’s first class of exam-takers achieved the highest passage rate in the whole state (93%), leading even the University of Michigan."

http://www.liberty.edu/Academics/Law/index.cfm?PID=5054


First Time Takers

Ave Maria School of Law: 93% Pass

University of Michigan: 90% Pass

Detroit College of Law: 85% Pass

Wayne State University: 81% Pass

Total Applicants First Time: 75% Pass

University of Detroit Mercy: 59% Pass

Thomas M. Cooley: 43% Pass

http://www.avemarialaw.edu/news/newsEvents/fullView.cfm?newsid=540&pyear=2003

 

Let's hoist a slice of Domino's pizza to honor those Ave Maria graduates. Between their performance, and that of Oak Brook in California, the vision of the folks at Patrick Henry College to fill the House and Senate with well-trained evangelical Christians looks like it is on track.

John Bear
"Iraq needs a constitution. Let's give them
ours; we're not using it." --Jay Leno

 

Interesting; they claim to be neither approved nor provisionally approved by the ABA. I wonder if their web site is behindhand or if they had to obtain approval from the Michigan Bar.

In their "about us" page, they say that the law should not be a vehicle of social change, that it reflects universal moral values.

Hm. Under that theory, there would still be segregation in American public schools.

 

Statement of Provisional Accreditation

"Statement of Provisional Accreditation

"The American Bar Association granted Ave Maria School of Law provisional accreditation at the earliest opportunity. Graduates of provisionally accredited law schools may sit for the bar examination in any U.S. jurisdiction. Students and graduates of provisionally accredited law schools are entitled to the same recognition given to students and graduates of fully accredited law schools. A law school may apply for full accreditation two years after receiving provisional accreditation."

http://www.avemarialaw.edu/prospective/admissions/adm7.cfm

 

nosborne48,

I believe you read Liberty University's "about us" page. I apologize for any confusion.

I only became aware of Ave Maria Law School because the Dean of the Liberty School of law has a blog which has become part of my daily reading. This why I posted links to both the blog and to Ave Maria's page.

 

This is really wonderful to see. It is also potentially great news for our local area here in Naples, Florida, where Ave Maria is in the process of building a new and rather large campus.

Quite impressive!

Tom

 

Over to the Liberty School of Law

LU's "about us" page says:

How could one use the "foundational moral law" to support segregation in American public schools?

 

Re: Over to the Liberty School of Law

How does LU know this? How is it determined what is and what isn't a true part of this "foundational moral law"? How is it determined who is qualified to proclaim and to interpret this law? How are disputes concerning it resolved? How is it proposed that human laws be brought into accordance with this revelation? What recourse do those who disagree with it have?

I sense the dry arid odor of theocratic fatwas.

 

Hi Bill,

I believe the answers to all of your questions are found in the Constitution of the United States.

The LU School of Law Webpage discusses the school's philosophy in detail. I particularly enjoy reading the Dean's Blog. While I understand that you do not subscribe to the same worldview as Liberty University, I sincerely believe you would enjoy the blog.

As I understand it a fatwa is an order from an Islamic leader. I'm sure Sharia law could potentially be discussed at the LU or Ave Maria Schools of Law, but I am nearly positive they will not be issuing any fatwas.

 

natural law

Cicero issued no fatwas.

A specifically Christian belief in natural law does not require "theocracy" (sic). Paul's letter to the Romans is foundational. In it he speaks at length about natural law. He also speaks quite definitely about submission to the Roman government (at the time, headed by Nero, who specifically rejected natural law theory). Paul did not envision a Christian-controlled empire, and saw no contradiction between accepting the political status quo and affirming a belief in natural law. This stance may, to those who do not acccept this as revelation, be quite problematic, but it is not "theocratic."

 

I was focusing on the statement at LU that the law should not be a vehicle of societal change. In American history, the Courts have been on some occasions very much the source of social change. One time when they were NOT was the famous Dred Scott decision. Another time when they were not was the almost as famous Plessey v. Fergusen.

For better or worse, the American system places the authority in the Courts to correct societal injustice within the framework of the constitution. To argue that it shouldn't be this way is one thing; to claim to train American lawyers with such a doctrine is to ignore our history.

 

This part?

Ave Maria School of Law Professor, Judge Robert H. Bork, addresses whats wrong with activist courts here:

"Activist courts—courts that announce principles and reach decisions not plausibly derived from the Constitution—tend to enact the values of the dominant social class. Today, that class is the intelligentsia, and its values are frequently opposed to the moral assumptions of much of the rest of the electorate. Hence elections and elected representatives do not produce results entirely satisfactory, or satisfactory at all, to the intelligentsia. Their agenda is forwarded more fully and rapidly by activist courts. The result is that legislation that does not violate the actual Constitution is nevertheless declared unconstitutional. This conflict between the courts and the legislatures is one aspect of what has come to be known as the culture war.

The effects of judicial activism go well beyond changes in law, however. Law, as Cardinal George says, teaches lessons.[3] The Constitution is the most revered document in our society. When the Supreme Court, rightly or wrongly, enunciates a principle as constitutional law, people assume that the principle is in fact of constitutional stature, that it is, therefore, basic to our freedoms. In that way, the morality of the cultural “elites” are spread to the rest of society."

http://www.avemarialaw.edu/publications/lawReview/lrarticle.cfm?lrarticleid=155