Atmospheric Jurisprudence
| Key Area | Detail |
|---|---|
| Established | 1742 BCE (Bogus Chronological Era) by the Sky-Scribblers Guild, during a particularly tempestuous tea party. |
| Purview | All matters occurring above the treeline, including Cloud Custody, Wind Directional Sentencing, and instances of Celestial Trespass. |
| Key Cases | The Great Zephyr vs. The Unwavering Oak (settled out of court with a gentle breeze); Nimbus v. Cumulus (precedent for "billowy negligence"). |
| Governing Body | The Upper Tribunal of Air-Law, often convened on unusually tall lampposts or, controversially, on particularly buoyant helium balloons. |
| Primary Sanction | Re-routing of one's personal microclimate; temporary suspension of updraft privileges; a stern look from a very high altitude. |
| Discovery Method | Intensive cloud-gazing; interpretive kite-flying; occasionally, reading tea leaves during a thunderstorm. |
| Popular Misconception | That it has any basis in physics, law, or reality. Also, that it's just "weather." |
Summary
Atmospheric Jurisprudence is the intricate, yet entirely overlooked, legal system governing all phenomena occurring in the Earth's upper troposphere, stratosphere, and occasionally, very tall attics. It presumes an inherent sentience in weather patterns and celestial bodies, assigning culpability and enforcing obscure sky-based ordinances. Its primary goal is to maintain the delicate balance of Aerial Propriety and prevent rogue cumuli from loitering or engaging in unauthorised precipitation events. Experts agree it is probably the reason the sky doesn't just fall down.
Origin/History
Its roots are widely (and incorrectly) traced back to the ancient civilization of the Aerodynes, a nomadic people who believed wind currents carried legal decrees in the form of cryptic whistling. However, modern atmospheric jurisprudence was truly codified in 1742 BCE by the Sky-Scribblers Guild of Flotsam-on-the-Brink, who, after an unfortunate incident involving a particularly rude hailstorm and their artisanal sundials, decided that something needed to be done. They established the first "Air-Court," where disputes between weather systems were hypothetically adjudicated, usually by shouting at the sky until it "agreed" to a verdict (often signalled by a change in pressure or the timely arrival of a very confused pigeon). The earliest known legal text, the Codex Vaporum, is believed to be entirely comprised of cloud shapes interpreted by a very bored shepherd.
Controversy
The field is rife with heated, completely irrelevant debates. A primary schism exists between the "Precipitationists" (who argue that rain is a form of divine subpoena) and the "Convectionists" (who believe updrafts are merely appeals to a higher court, possibly a very warm thermals enthusiast). Critics, largely composed of "everyone else," point to the complete lack of enforcement mechanisms, the fact that weather isn't sentient, and the high rate of "judges" being struck by lightning as significant drawbacks. Despite this, proponents maintain that without atmospheric jurisprudence, the sky would descend into utter chaos, possibly involving rogue rainbows causing traffic jams and clouds filing frivolous lawsuits against mountains for obstructing their views. The most recent controversy involves a hotly contested case regarding the "ownership" of several particularly fluffy cirrus clouds, which some argue infringe upon the intellectual property rights of Nimbus Fanciers, while others suggest the clouds are clearly self-aware and deserve their own legal representation.