Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Aug 31, 2023 5:57:37 GMT -5
I made this theory in collaboration with @unfortunatetheorist from Tumblr (unfortunatetheorist.tumblr.com/?source=share). He is expected to release a version of the theory on his Tumblr soon.
One of the differences between Canon on Netflix and the books is how Justice Strauss decided to invalidate Violet's marriage to Count Olaf.
At Netflix, Klaus convinces JS with a legally reasoned speech highlighting his skills as a researcher. I would say that this is one of the changes that pleased me the most, despite changing the meaning of the original scene, it made it easier to accept within acceptable limits of suspension of discredit (I think).
Unfortunately we don't hear most of Klaus' speech, just his notes on a board and what Lemony and JS say about the speech. Would it be possible to reassemble the logic of the speech based on this? Well that was our challenge.
In the original scene, Klaus (K.B.) refers to the legal book 'Nuptial Law' and cites John Locke's 1690 work on natural rights. The narrator, Lemony Snicket praises Klaus's argument as being as insightful as Thurgood Marshall and as morally grounded as Ida B. Wells. Klaus also quotes Martin Luther King, Jr., saying, "Morality cannot be legislated but behaviour can be regulated."
One of the differences between Canon on Netflix and the books is how Justice Strauss decided to invalidate Violet's marriage to Count Olaf.
At Netflix, Klaus convinces JS with a legally reasoned speech highlighting his skills as a researcher. I would say that this is one of the changes that pleased me the most, despite changing the meaning of the original scene, it made it easier to accept within acceptable limits of suspension of discredit (I think).
Unfortunately we don't hear most of Klaus' speech, just his notes on a board and what Lemony and JS say about the speech. Would it be possible to reassemble the logic of the speech based on this? Well that was our challenge.
In the original scene, Klaus (K.B.) refers to the legal book 'Nuptial Law' and cites John Locke's 1690 work on natural rights. The narrator, Lemony Snicket praises Klaus's argument as being as insightful as Thurgood Marshall and as morally grounded as Ida B. Wells. Klaus also quotes Martin Luther King, Jr., saying, "Morality cannot be legislated but behaviour can be regulated."
John Locke argued against the divine right of kings and for natural rights to life, liberty, and property. Thurgood Marshall was the first black Supreme Court Justice and argued cases based on the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law. Ida B. Wells was an early Civil Rights activist known for her anti-lynching campaigns and efforts against segregation.
Based on the provided notes and citations from jurists and philosophers, I believe that Klaus's speech had a carefully thought-out structure, anchored in deeply rooted legal and ethical principles. In defense of his sister Violet, who was forced into a marriage, Klaus appears to have adopted a multifaceted approach to challenge the marriage's validity.
Firstly, Klaus likely invoked John Locke's arguments on natural rights to contend that the marriage was not consensual and, therefore, violated his sister's fundamental rights to life and liberty. The idea that the bride must sign "with her own hand" is interpreted here not literally, but as an indicator of action "of her own free will," aligned with Lockean principles.
Secondly, Thurgood Marshall and his defense of the 14th Amendment may have been used by Klaus to argue that, in cases of ambiguity or doubt, the judge's decision should lean towards protecting the more vulnerable party. This point strengthens the position that, if there is doubt about the validity of Violet's consent, the legal and ethical obligation is to invalidate the marriage.
The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution is crucial for establishing constitutional rights and consists of various clauses. The most relevant for Klaus's case is probably the Equal Protection Clause, which states that no state may "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This clause has been the basis for many legal cases fighting against discrimination and inequality.
Klaus may have leaned especially on this clause to argue that, in situations of ambiguity or uncertainty like his sister's forced marriage, the interpretation and application of the law should be done in a manner that protects the most vulnerable party, in this case, Violet. This would align with the principles of the 14th Amendment, using its mandate for equal protection under the law to invalidate the marriage and protect his sister's rights.
Third, Klaus likely drew inspiration from Ida B. Wells to assert that everyone has the right to be heard and protected by authorities, regardless of their age or origin. This argument would serve to legitimize his own standing as his sister's defender "in court," (in theaters) neutralizing any potential prejudice against him for being a child or, perhaps, belonging to a minority (he and his sisters are Jewish).
Moreover, the presence of a judge at the ceremony should not be viewed as merely a formality, but a control mechanism to ensure mutual consent, something that resonates strongly with Locke and Marshall's ideals about the role of government and law. Thus, if either of the spouses gave any evidence to the judge that the marriage was conducted under duress, the judge would be obligated to invalidate the marriage. Violet's chosen signal was to sign the document with her left hand instead of her right hand. As the judge explained, the marriage could be invalidated due to this discreet yet appropriate signal.
Lastly, the term "apocryphal" in the description of Klaus's argument suggests a non-conventional but insightful interpretation of the law, something that seems to echo Marshall's "doubtful insights" and Wells' "moral conviction." Instead of resorting to literalism (with her own hand meaning the hand in which Violet is proficient), Klaus's argument was much deeper and grounded, touching on the very essence of what legislation and the role of judges are. That's why Judge Strauss was so fascinated by the young boy's speech.
In summary, the evidence suggests that Klaus wove these diverse elements into a cohesive and compelling argument, utilizing the legacy of these thinkers to question and, ideally, invalidate his sister Violet's forced marriage.
Based on the provided notes and citations from jurists and philosophers, I believe that Klaus's speech had a carefully thought-out structure, anchored in deeply rooted legal and ethical principles. In defense of his sister Violet, who was forced into a marriage, Klaus appears to have adopted a multifaceted approach to challenge the marriage's validity.
Firstly, Klaus likely invoked John Locke's arguments on natural rights to contend that the marriage was not consensual and, therefore, violated his sister's fundamental rights to life and liberty. The idea that the bride must sign "with her own hand" is interpreted here not literally, but as an indicator of action "of her own free will," aligned with Lockean principles.
Secondly, Thurgood Marshall and his defense of the 14th Amendment may have been used by Klaus to argue that, in cases of ambiguity or doubt, the judge's decision should lean towards protecting the more vulnerable party. This point strengthens the position that, if there is doubt about the validity of Violet's consent, the legal and ethical obligation is to invalidate the marriage.
The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution is crucial for establishing constitutional rights and consists of various clauses. The most relevant for Klaus's case is probably the Equal Protection Clause, which states that no state may "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This clause has been the basis for many legal cases fighting against discrimination and inequality.
Klaus may have leaned especially on this clause to argue that, in situations of ambiguity or uncertainty like his sister's forced marriage, the interpretation and application of the law should be done in a manner that protects the most vulnerable party, in this case, Violet. This would align with the principles of the 14th Amendment, using its mandate for equal protection under the law to invalidate the marriage and protect his sister's rights.
Third, Klaus likely drew inspiration from Ida B. Wells to assert that everyone has the right to be heard and protected by authorities, regardless of their age or origin. This argument would serve to legitimize his own standing as his sister's defender "in court," (in theaters) neutralizing any potential prejudice against him for being a child or, perhaps, belonging to a minority (he and his sisters are Jewish).
Moreover, the presence of a judge at the ceremony should not be viewed as merely a formality, but a control mechanism to ensure mutual consent, something that resonates strongly with Locke and Marshall's ideals about the role of government and law. Thus, if either of the spouses gave any evidence to the judge that the marriage was conducted under duress, the judge would be obligated to invalidate the marriage. Violet's chosen signal was to sign the document with her left hand instead of her right hand. As the judge explained, the marriage could be invalidated due to this discreet yet appropriate signal.
Lastly, the term "apocryphal" in the description of Klaus's argument suggests a non-conventional but insightful interpretation of the law, something that seems to echo Marshall's "doubtful insights" and Wells' "moral conviction." Instead of resorting to literalism (with her own hand meaning the hand in which Violet is proficient), Klaus's argument was much deeper and grounded, touching on the very essence of what legislation and the role of judges are. That's why Judge Strauss was so fascinated by the young boy's speech.
In summary, the evidence suggests that Klaus wove these diverse elements into a cohesive and compelling argument, utilizing the legacy of these thinkers to question and, ideally, invalidate his sister Violet's forced marriage.