<$BlogRSDUrl$>
Google
WWW Right To The Point

Tuesday, December 30, 2003

 
Proving you can't just read the headline -
I saw this link on the Drudge Report, "Enormous rats harass Israeli soldiers... ". I immediately thought that the UN had sent more "observers" over to Israel to muck things up as much as they can. However, when I saw the headline of the actual story, "'Crats': rodents harass Israeli soldiers." I immediately thought that the ACLU had sent some lawyers over, or some more lefty Hollywood elites had gone over to the promised land to try to sympathize with the poor oppressed homicide bombers.

Boy was I surprised to read that these appear to be actual rodents. Go figure. Then again, perhaps there's now a functioning law school in the occupied territories.
 
"There is nothing right with New Jersey!"
I apologize to my faithful reader(s). I'm sure that you too have had a busy holiday week. This is really the first chance I've had to blog since last Saturday.

On Sunday we went up to visit my folks in New Jersey. The quote above came from my lovely and gracious wife. If any of you have never been to New Jersey. Don't bother. It's a smelly hell-hole with speed-traps.

What epitomizes the state to me is that there are never signs BEFORE you need to make your decision. For, example, if you happen to be on one of the many toll "roads" and you decide to exit, undoubtedly, there will be some lanes that exit to one street and other lanes that exit to another. Of course, there are NO signs indicating this, and you must have the foresight or pure dumb luck to happen to know this in order to get where you are going.

I ask you, WHY? As best I can figure out, it is out of pure spitefulness. I suspect that the people in positions of authority at whatever they call their department of transportation hate all New Jersey motorists. I can't say that I blame them for that sentiment. I suspect, furthermore, that they decided to make driving on their pathetic asphalt an especially expensive prospect and at the same time, increase the probability of unfortunate souls making a Judgment Night-type wrong turn.

To cap it all off, the return drive (which is supposed to last about 3.5 hours) lasted over 5 hours. Does it surprise me that so many people were trying to get out of NJ? - NO. It is the only sane thing to do when confronted with the evil in the form of a state. If, however, you are a New Jersey fugitive, or someone contemplating such an escape, please take this as constructive criticism. You are not welcome anywhere else. 1. We don't particularly want you infecting our state with whatever New Jersey has, and two, in any case, you should not drive on our roads until you have been re-educated. After you've been quarantined in some location with no better use, such as Delaware, for six months without evidencing a strong urge to talk to "da family" or without complaining about roads that have signs BEFORE you need to have made your decision, and if you can prove you've been taught how to drive like a human, you should be tagged and released.

Saturday, December 27, 2003

 
Buy that man a knife!
In this CBSNews.com story Michael Jackson says, "Before I would hurt a child, I would slit my wrists."

Friday, December 26, 2003

 
Grutter v. Bollinger's broader application
The Philledelphia' Inquirer had this article about how the famous affirmative action case from the U. Mich. Law School is being applied in all sorts of interesting places.

There's lots I could say about this, but I'll keep it short and (dare I say) "Right To The Point".

Apparently the 7th Circuit has OK'd the use of race-sensitive promotion criteria to enhance the number of African-American and Hispanic sergeants. Do you see anything wrong with the following statement...

"The court said expert testimony had revealed that the city's minority residents deeply distrusted police, and that creating a diverse population at the sergeant rank would "set a proper tone" in the department to earn the trust of the community."

Maybe I'm just being a little naive here, but is promoting lower performing police officers the BEST way that they could imagine to enhance the trust the community has for the police. I guess it's just silly to think that having more qualified, and presumably better performing, and hence more often correct police would be the forst place to start at enhancing credibility, but what do I know.


Wednesday, December 24, 2003

 
BREAKING NEWS!!!
France cancels 3 flights to the US for security concerns!

[UPDATE: They ended up canceling 6 flights on Christmas Eve and Christmas to or from France. France has, apparently, found no cause for the concern. Pardon my skepticism if I don't just blindly accept French judgment on matters of US national security.]
 
We're #1!!!
Just announced, this year, 2003 is the WETTEST year on record in the Baltimore area!

I'll put in the links when I find 'em.

Basically as of about 1:45PM EST we had 62.3 inches of rain this year which beats the record set in 1889. (Yes that's 114 years ago!)
 
MAD COW!!! (no, not Hillary)
I've got a friend who knows a whole lot more about this than I do, but let me offer a few words about the first case of Mad Cow in America.

So far as we know, this disease is spread by a certain defective protein. This protein has the characteristic of, when it comes into contact with other similar proteins, of "flipping" a chemical marker to another, more stable position in the molecule. This has a cascading effect, and appears to be irreversible.

This disease is VERY BAD NEWS, however, the protein seems to only be in brain and spinal tissue, and the only "natural" way to spread the disease is by ingestion.

What does this mean? It means that they've been feeding cow-remains back to the cows. Not only is that disgusting, but there's no damn good reason for it. We've known for years that successive cannibalism increases the chances of the occurrence of this altered protein.

Here's a WebMD article about the primary disease, Creutzfeld Jakob Disease.

After the disease was first discovered in the UK in 1986, and it was learned that this was related to CJD, which is known to be related to cannibalism, ALL feeding of cow-derived feed products back to cows should have ENDED.

I think that since this process has continued, if anyone does contract BSE (Mad Cow), their estate will be able to make a mint from the beef-producing industry for not absolutely ending the known risky practice.

I suppose that I'll graduate before the first cases of human Mad Cow show up. I'll be all over that suit.

UPDATE: I was speaking to my friend again, and he informed me that I might be jumping the gun, just a bit. He (and he's pretty smart, so I am inclined to believe him) is under the impression that cow-products are never re-fed to cattle in America, and that BSE does occure naturally. The occurrance rate is exceptionally low, but any population of cattle will, over time, spontaneously develop this disease, and the best we can do is avoid eating brain-matter (ok... no prblem there) and have vigilent farmers.

Damn... How in the world am I going to make my first billion? I thought I had my fortune within sight!

BTW, the friend I was speaking of is planning to start his own blog in the near future. I'll keep you updated when it does finally come into virtual existence. I'll make sure he gets any message you leave for him.

Tuesday, December 23, 2003

 
The eyes and ears of Allah percieve more than any mortal man's
Since we all know it's true, it is incumbant on you to seek out Allah's wisdom. He's been watching the Dumb-ocRats for us.

By the way... MAJOR drink warning!
 
Justice will never SURVIVE if this goes unchecked!

There's a lot that I like about law and the legal profession. The post below is a perfect example of that.

Nevertheless, some crap is beyond the pale. I got the link to this story from the Ron Smith Radio Program website. Below is the first paragraph -

A new guide for trial lawyers advises them to be wary of Americans with "extreme attitudes about personal responsibility" when selecting jurors in personal injury lawsuits. The author of the guide says such jurors typically "espouse traditional family values" and often "have strong religious beliefs."

FYI, that's (poorly disguised) code for "Judeo-Christian" religious beliefs. The core belief in the Jewish and Christian faiths is that God created this planet and made us in His image. He gave us a brain to control our impulses and reason our actions and creativity so that we can make a difference in our lives and the lives of others.

The necessary result of having a brain is that you are expected to use it. Of course, people with this basis for their world views will be suspicious of someone wanting the law to appropriate someone else's possessions to them. They will want to know that the plaintiff acted reasonably and used his or her noggin to at least a minimum or acceptability given the circumstances.

This is what the author of the guide calls a "personal responsibility bias." No shit. (Pardon my French).

Anyone who wants to re-allocate the defendants possessions and wealth without asking whether the plaintiff is not truly the cause of his own injury is not seeking justice, at all.

Such a person is attempting to minimize the pain they perceive. The (stupid/irresponsible) plaintiff is actually injured, and maybe the money would make him feel better. The defendant won't feel actual pain if we take his money, so the plaintiff should get the money. The root of the "compassionate-altruistic bias" (as called by the author, and in contrast to "personal responsibility bias"), is the socialist ideal that possessing any more wealth than anyone else is inherently "evil". (For more discussion on this point, see my series "Creativity versus Sharing" part 1, part 2, and part 3.)

The question, then, is: Do we want people with the basis for their world view that has led to the prosperity of the most powerful nation that this world has ever seen (that's the USA, for you frogs) to be excluded from the decision-making role in our justice system in favor of people who have bought into the core beliefs that have led France and the former Soviet Union to their positions of world economic preeminence?

Hmmm... that's a tough one. I guess it would take a Trial Lawyer to figure that one out.

Monday, December 22, 2003

 
Legal Geek alert!
I know this won't interest most of you. Too bad.

One of the thinks that you absolutely need to have to get into Federal Court is "Standing." Now, I'm not going to get into the nitty gritty about how you come by it, but basically you need have a serious stake in the matter and a positive judicial outcome would need to be able to fix the problem.

I got this link to the brief filed by the US Dept. of Justice against Dr. Nedow in the Pledge of Aleigence case from How Appealing (Thanks H.B.)

The reason I'm linking to it here is that the first part of the argument is about trying to defeat at claim of standing. I'm not sure how often "standing" is an issue at the appellate level, but I can tell you I don't remember having read anything about establishing or arguing it, and I found it fascinating.

Laugh at me if you must, but this is a really good brief, and I hope to practice appelate law, eventually, and this brief is the essence of written appellate advocacy, and I enjoyed it. If you're not a lawyer, and you want to know what lawyers do and how a case is made or lost, read it.
 
Better finish what 'cha start!
Well, I'm glad to see that stupid laws are not indiginious to these United States (or, if you are not here... I guess it would be "those United States," or "that Great Satan," whatever).

I saw this story about a guy in Nairobi. For whatever reason, he hacked one of his own nuts off after a fight with his wife. I don't know, perhaps he was attempting to become some sort of metrosexual.

Anyway, he limped his way down to the local cops, I guess to taddle on his wife. They sent him to the hospital right away... good.

Here's the best part... The last line says it all, the deputy police chief said, "If we get evidence that he tried to take his life, then we may charge him because it is a criminal offence."

I love the idea of making attempted suicide a crime. Actual suicide, however, will not result in criminal prosecution. Brilliant!
 
First Amendment... What's THAT?
It appears that some judges, when they encounter religious beliefs they don't particularly like, feel that the best way to deal with the issue is to prohibit BOTH the "Free Exercise" part of the First Amendment, as well as the "Free Speech" part as well.

Check out this story.

I'm certainly no adherent of the Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints (Mormons). Nevertheless, polygyny (having multiple wives) was a valid part of their religion that the Church did disavow so that Utah could get statehood.

I don't think that this case will be successful for the Dad, but it probably should be. I also don't see this case making its way up to the Supreme Court anytime soon.

I've said before, and I'll say it again: Polygyny is a good thing (haven't yet convinced my wife of that... oh well). Polygyny increases the likelihood that women will get married to successful men. Schmucks are not likely to be able to compete. Fewer children will have to grow up without a father, and Mothers who don't want to be domestic will be able to join the economy knowing that their children are being cared for by family. Let's face it, men want sex more often than most women, and this arrangement would reduce the frustration of both men and women. (She won't have to say "No" as often, and he won't have to beg as often.)

Not only is it a good thing for all parties directly involved, it is Biblical. (I'm speaking of the Christian Bible and the Jewish Bible.) Having multiple wives was expressly allowed and provided-for in Jewish law. The Christian church came into existence in the period of political dominance of the Roman Empire. It was pagan Rome that instituted more-or-less strict monogamy. I'm not saying that all men need to have multiple wives. I'm not even saying that all men need to be married at all (or all women for that matter). I'm just saying that polygyny was, historically, an acceptable family structure, and has many potential positive benefits that we could sorely use in our society.

It's too bad that our nation has not seen fit to actually allow meaningful freedom of religion. It's sadder still that parents, in their own families (that's also a Modern Substantive Due Process issue) are not allowed to discuss (Freedom of Speech) their religious beliefs (Freedom of Religion).

Whether you like polygyny or not, for nothing more than precedent, this judge's ruling should not stand.

Sunday, December 21, 2003

 
This answers a lot of questions
Apparently Fmr. Gen. & recent DUMB-o-cRAT convert and DUMB-o-cRAT presidential candidate, Weasel-ly Clark doesn't take kindly to people doubting his patriotism.

I guess we know what the Russians did now. Hey, this also explains the whole Waco incident.
 
Dignity, Common Sense, and a Strong Arm
Saddam, apparently not a man enough to stand and fight, and even too much of a wimp to take his own life, did seem to find his pinto-bean sized gonads as he was being cuffed. According to this story, the murdering middle-eastern unabomber look-alike (Saddam) decided to display his dominance by spitting on a US soldier as he was being cuffed. The soldier, if the story is correct, hauled off and decked the man.

If this story is true, if I ever meet the man who decked that Iraqi prick, I will treat you to whatever drinks you want. Thanks for doing America proud!
 
Inadvertent display of decency
I surely did not see this coming. Apparently Time has named the American Soldier as the "Person of the Year".

As to be expected, even when smacked with the reality of the professionalism, excellence, and humanity of the men and women of our armed forces, the lefty editors of Time could not bring themselves to acknowledge that the Bush Doctrine is instrumental to keeping our nation safer and reducing terrorism throughout the world. I don't suppose you could get them to really even agree that getting rid of terrorism was a good thing.

To the men and women in the US Military (and to those of England and our other coalition partners as well), thank you for your service. Have faith you are being led by a Man of integrity, and we do appreciate that you are sacrificing for us.
 
More about the Bush Doctrine
The "Bush Doctrine" has gotten a fair (or unfair) amount of ridicule since it was enunciated shortly after the 9-11 attacks.

Basically it was that if you are friendly with terrorists, ANY terrorists, you are our enemy.

It's a bold policy, to be sure, but it wasn't an ill considered one. The President was right. We had gone on too long ignoring terrorism, or attempting to treat it with the same rules we apply to the "War on Drugs" or any other criminal enterprise that we aren' all that serious about getting rid of. We used to operate on the principle that if you are obviously a terrorist, and if you attack US, and if we catch you red-handed, then we'll put you on trial, eventually. (Thanks, Bubba)

This is not, and NEVER has been the proper response to terrorism. The appropriate response is to take every step to eradicate it where it may be found and to show all would-be terrorists that they will not get what they want from us.

I'm not sure, exactly what Al-Queda wanted to get from us. Certainly they didn't think that they would defeat the whole country with 4 planes. I suspect that they wanted to make us want to shy away from taking a stand and being involved in any way in the Middle East. This would serve two purposes. First it would allow them to solidify their cruel, iron-handed rule of countries that are already Islamic while destabilizing secular nations that have been our "allies" in the past and antagonize Israel even more. Second, it would be a great recruiting/ fundraising tool.

Alternately, they might have been wanting to get America so pissed off that we would launch a mindless and viscous attack until our rage passed, and then ignore the whole area.

In any event, what they probably thought was most unlikely was that would be willing to enter a long-term sustained assault on everything related to them.

They surely are having a difficult time recruiting if they can't have a place to meet.

The Bush Doctrine has two parts, the obvious and the dormant. The obvious part costs lots of money and puts American lives at risk. We take the war to our enemies. In any event, if a conflict is inevitable or appears to be so, it is smarter to take the devastation away from American Soil. Pre-emptive war, where some sort of war is inevitable, is the only war that should be waged.

The dormant part is the demonstration effect. It costs next to nothing, it convinces the rest of the world that we mean business, and it multiplies every military effort that we make.

We took out Afghanistan because the Taliban supported Al-Queda directly. Next we took out Iraq because they have a history of attempting to develop weapons of mass destruction (and actually using the ones they did get), Saddam was a vicious murderous monster who has attempted to kill American presidents in the past, and he actively supports terrorism throughout the world. That's two victories.

In beating these two enemies we demonstrated that we would take the risks necessary to eliminate terrorists and those who support them.

In waltzes Libya. I see no coincidence at all that Libya, after watching Afghanistan fall like houses of cards, and seeing that there is actually immense popular support among the freed peoples, decided to play nice.

Diplomacy can only work when backed by something. The threat of force means nothing if it is believed to be empty. It's less than nothing, actually. If the bastards we are up against don't think we'll actually use the necessary force to win, then to win we actually do have to use that force.

Thanks to President Bush we finally have some international negotiating power. How scared of France are when they rail against us? Me neither.

Nations who love freedom must be ready to act to defend that ideal lest we lose it. This is the heart of the Bush Doctrine.

That's exactly why America became a nation in the first place.

God Bless you, Mr. President. May He strengthen your hand and give you wisdom. And, God, save us from the liberal appeasers who would squander our freedoms and safety to gain the favor of those who hate you. Amen.

Saturday, December 20, 2003

 
Bush Doctrine:3 / Appeasement:0
So, after my evening off, I'm supposing you've all heard that Lybia's giving up their Weapons of Mass Distruction.

Nowhere in the story did it mention the curioius fact that the one of the major goals of invading Iraq was to make an example of the nation. We can NOT only kick their ass, but we'll free the people.

I'm sure that did not make ANY difference...

Bush 3
Surrender Monkeys 0
'Nuff said.

Friday, December 19, 2003

 
Something else to disagree about
Yet again, I have to take exception to Professor Volokh. In his post "Harry Potter and the Law", he indicates that he doesn't like a policy "...that merely gives parents the control over which books their kids are entitled to get from the library."

I don't know the answer to this, but I wonder if Professor Volokh is a parent. I know that school administrators normally think that it is their supreme right to force whatever philosophy they want upon unsuspecting children simply because they have gotten control of them for some part of the day.

As a parent, however, I must disagree. It is MY responsibility to pick what philosophies I want my child exposed to. The state has an interest in having educated children (I suppose), but there is a vast difference between indoctrination and education.

In my humble opinion, allowing parents to disallow access to some books in a library, where the state has confiscated the children from the parents for some period of the day (compulsory public education), is thororoughly appropriate. "Family" is a liberty protected under "Modern Substantive Due Process." Any state intrusions into family matters is supposed to be subjected to strict scrutiny. If parents object to exposing their own children to a certain perspective, they should be allowed to disallow it.

The big deal, and the fine point that I fear the good professor may have overlooked is that CHILDREN are NOT ADULTS. Children should not be given free reign over what philosophies they expose themselves to, as adults have. There is a huge experiential difference between adults and children, and parents are responsible for raising their children. NOT allowing parents to limit access to books that they find offensive interferes, unnecessarily, with parents rights to manage their own families.
 
"Expression" that waskily Wibutty
Professor Volokh has an excellent analysis of a Free Speech case.

I think that all of you who are not lawyers, law professors, or law students, should definitely read it. It touches on Religious Liberty as well as Freedom of Expression issues.

Since I've just completed my Constitutional Law course, I consider myself to be an expert enough to take issue with Professor Volokh, since he only teaches the subject at UCLA.

The heart of my contention is that Professor Volokh thinks that the school did not violate the student's freedom of speech right by not letting her express her opinion that homosexuality was wrong when she was invited to speak at a general assembly. (Oddly enough, the topic was "what diversity means to me." --- Can you spell "irony"?)

I agree that the government may express an opinion, and I agree that the goverment may have ITS actors express the opinion that it wants to have expressed.

The student, however, was NOT invited to express the SCHOOL'S (government) opinion, she was invited to express her own. By censoring her speech, the school engaged in "Content-Based Restriction of HIGH VALUE speech." To do that, the school needs to satisfy a very high standard. (i.e. the "strict scrutiny test" - (1) Compelling government interest, AND (2) means that are narrowly tailored to serve it.)

The school probably would have been within its rights to select a faculty member to express the opinion that they wanted to hear, or even to interview students ahead of time to figure out what the student's views are. Once, however they invited her to express HER opinion, they can't censor it.

Of course what do I know.
 
I told ya before...
Go check out my first posting on Consent of the Governed.

Federalism: Why We Should Want to Recover This Precious Pearl We Long Ago Threw to the Swine

It rambles a lil' bit but it should help you get to understand the need to REPEAL THE 17th AMENDMENT.

Thursday, December 18, 2003

 
Don't mess with the munchkins!
A friend sent this... enjoy.

7 Reasons Not to Mess With a Child

I) A little girl was talking to her teacher about whales. The teacher said it was physically impossible for a whale to swallow a human because even though it was a very large mammal its throat was very small. The little girl stated that Jonah was swallowed by a whale. Irritated, the teacher reiterated that a whale could not swallow a human; it was physically impossible.

The little girl said, "When I get to heaven I will ask Jonah." The teacher asked, " What if Jonah went to hell?" The little girl replied, "Then you ask him."


II) A Kindergarten teacher was observing her classroom of children while they were drawing. She would occasionally walk around to see each child's work. As she got to one little girl who was working diligently, she asked what the drawing was. The girl replied, "I'm drawing God."

The teacher paused and said, "But no one knows what God looks like." Without missing a beat, or looking up from her drawing, the girl replied, "They will in a minute."


III) A Sunday school teacher was discussing the Ten Commandments with her five and six year olds. After explaining the commandment to "honor" thy Father and thy Mother, she asked, "Is there a commandment that teaches us how to treat our brothers and sisters?" Without missing a beat one little boy (the oldest of a family) answered, "Thou shall not kill."


IV) One day a little girl was sitting and watching her mother do the dishes at the kitchen sink. She suddenly noticed that her mother had several strands of white hair sticking out in contrast on her brunette head. She looked at her mother and inquisitively asked, "Why are some of your hairs white, Mom?"

Her mother replied, "Well, every time that you do something wrong and make me cry or unhappy, one of my hairs turns white." The little girl thought about this revelation for a while and then said, "Momma, how come ALL of grandma's hairs are white?"


V) The children had all been photographed, and the teacher was trying to persuade them each to buy a copy of the group picture. "Just think how nice it will be to look at it when you are all grown up and say, 'There's Jennifer, she's a lawyer,' or 'That's Michael, He's a doctor.' A small voice at the back of the room rang out, "And there's the teacher, She's dead."


VI) A teacher was giving a lesson on the circulation of the blood. Trying to make the matter clearer, she said, "Now, class, if I stood on my head, the blood, as you know, would run into it, and I would turn red in the face.." "Yes," the class said. "Then why is it that while I am standing upright in the ordinary position the blood doesn't run into my feet?" A little fellow shouted, "Cause your feet ain't empty."


VII) The children were lined up in the cafeteria of a Catholic elementary school for lunch. At the head of the table was a large pile of apples. The nun made a note, and posted on the apple tray: "Take only ONE. God is watching."

Moving further along the lunch line, at the other end of the table was a large pile of chocolate chip cookies. A child had written a note, "Take all you want. God is watching the apples."

 
Yeah BABY!!!
I made it through another semester!!!

Tonight I survived Property! I'm very nearly half way along in my journey to JD's-ville!
 
Wishful thinking in Iran
Found this story on Yahoo's Odd News. An Iranian man faces a lengthy jail sentence for putting a bumper-sticker on his car that read "The era of arrogant rulers is over."

And another story just makes you want to cry.
 
Can you say, "Outrageous!"?
I heard about this story about PETA handing out pamphlets to children going to see a play that says, among other things, "Your Mommy Kills Animals."

I like the acknowledgment that this campaign might spark a backlash.

In my humble 2L opinion, what it might spark is a serious frikkin' law suit.

"Freedom of Speech," the grass-&-twig-eaters will shout. To that, I say, "Bite me!"

Tis true, deviant expression does get more protection than valuable political speech, now. Nevertheless, the freedom of speech is NOT absolute, even for the loony-left. Claiming "Freedom of speech" WILL NOT protect you from a civil suit from a private citizen for an intentional tort.

The tort that comes to mind is "intentional infliction of emotional distress." I know, I know, you're thinking that this particular cause of action is just fluff added to suits to pad the lawyers percentage. Sure, that does happen. I anticipate that I'll personally make money (lots of it) from that option in American Litigation. Don't forget, though, the tort exists for a reason.

According to the law, a person is not supposed to be able to recover on a claim of IIED unless, upon hearing the telling of the facts of the case, an objective hearer will be motivated to exclaim "Outrageous!" (That's as close a quote as I can remember from last Spring's Torts class...)

I am not sure from the reading of the story that PETA has actually done this yet. I hope that they do, and I hope they offend a conservative litigious family. Can you imagine how many fur-coats the family will be able to buy after that suit?

Oh, yeah... The story says they are planning this campaign in several cities... I think that this will open up the national PETA organization up to a FEDERAL class action. Those are kinda rare, of course, because you have to have a federal question or have alleged damages in excess of $75,000 per plaintiff. I know my kids' sensibilities are worth lots more than that, especially if offended by PETA.

I swear, I can't wait till I can make money from the stupidity of the loony-left!

Wednesday, December 17, 2003

 
"Potential" materializing into "Greatness!"
I told you before that I thought that Consent of the Governed was a potentially cool BLOG.

Well, they've gotten even better than you could have hoped... I've requested an invitation to be a co-contributor to the work. Now you'll be able to get twice as much of my brilliant but humble wisdom. I'll bet you' can't hardly contain your excitement. Me too!

Tuesday, December 16, 2003

 
We need to REPEAL 17... I'm serious!
Below is a re-print of part of what I blogged on December 2. I'm serious about the need to return our nation to it's Federalist roots, and I would like as much help as I can get in moving this idea forward. I've begun to post these sentiments on various conservative-minded blogs of which I am familiar.

Please read over and contemplate the need to repeal the 17th Amendment, and together, perhaps we can start to move things in the right direction.

The 17th Amendment has been the greatest single blow to our "federal" structure of government. "What's the 17th?" you ask. Good question!

The 17th Amendment made the selection of Senators a matter of popular election. As soon as you contemplate it, you should see, that this is a HUGE change. Previously, senators were selected by their states and were, therefore accountable to the states. Therefore, in the federal government, the people had a voice (the House of Representatives) and the states had a voice (the Senate). This was supposed to ensure that nobody offended the majority, the federal government did not invade states' sovereignty, and the Supreme Court made sure that nobody violated the Constitution.

States no longer have a voice in our government. States have been relegated to a mere formality in our national structure.

If you want to restrain the wanton expansion of the federal government (and probably, their spending as well) you really need to fight to get the 17th Amendment repealed by a new Amendment.

 
The Ghost of Lawrence v. Texas

I came across this story about a woman who was arrested and charged for violating the local obscenity law.

The constitutionality of the obscenity law is shaky to begin with, but after Lawrence, I cannot see how the law will stand.

A number of constitutional issues are implicated with this case:

1. Commercial "speech" - The 1st Amendment does protect commercial speech, however it is considered "low value" expression, so it is subject to regulations as to "Time, Place, and Manner" so long as they are not excessive. Not allowing people to purchase these products IN THEIR OWN HOMES will have a hard time passing the "not excessive" prong.

2. Privacy Rights - Those of us who look at the Constitution and cannot find a Right of Privacy, Neanderthals that we are, are still under the current interpretation of the Constitution which has found that "Privacy" rights are protected under "Modern Substantive Due Process." One might argue (well) that since it was a commercial enterprise, this cannot be considered part of privacy concerns, but, I think that the nature and location of the sales events will pull the case into that realm. Ever since Lawrence made consensual sexual relations between adults (of just about any combination) (read as: "fudge-packing"), a protected activity, in-home parties intending to advance or enhance these types of relations via the products sold will probably be able to claim an additional grounds for protection. A government restriction will need to serve at least an important, and probably a compelling interest to be able to prevent this sort of activity, as well as, since commercial activity and sexual relations are now both protected by the constitution, any restriction will need to be "closely drawn" or "narrowly tailored" to so as not to intrude too much on these protected activities.

3. Obscenity - Passing the Miller Test to declare something "obscene" is not all that easy... and that explains the continued existence of Hustler. First the prosecutor will need to prove that average person applying contemporary community standards would find that the parties appealed to the prurient interests. Since in-home sexual relations between consenting adults is protected activity, and these parties, apparently do not actually demonstrate the more interesting uses for the products, these parties will probably win the case on this the first prong. Second, the prosecution will have to show that the parties depict sexual acts that are prohibited by state statute in a patently offensive way. After Lawrence, the state may not prohibit most types of sexual activity that takes place in private. Therefore, unless the parties depict how the products can be used for having sex with a goat in front of the county court-house, I don't think the state will be able survive this prong. Finally, the state will need to demonstrate that the parties and the material presented, when taken as a whole, do not have any significant "literary, artistic, scientific, or political" value. Since the products are intended as "marital aids" and since people do seek professional, clinical, help for marital/sexual problems, products that actually attempt to help will probably have to be protected.

Don't get me wrong. I personally think that a locality should be allowed to regulate adult commercial activity fairly closely. I think that a business that brings adult sexual-aid products to people is probably the wrong activity to regulate. Otherwise, the town will need to have a part of town that is, more or less, dedicated to adult businesses. If adult business are allowed to make house-calls, the town might be able to entirely eliminate adult-product retail outlets, since house-calls are allowed (probably not).

Unless the state can show that the parties actually involved activities that were tantamount to prostitution, the obscenity case will have to be dropped. Another thought is that, perhaps prohibitions against prostitution might also have to be struck down now, after Lawrence.

A final thought, perhaps the town does not think it will succeed in preventing the parties. Perhaps the "sting" was intended to intimidate Ms. Webb and others in her line of work into quitting the business. If this is the case, I think that she, and anyone else arrested under similar circumstances would have an excellent "malicious prosecution" and various other civil actions against the town. Perhaps she'll not need to continue the business after she's done with that suit.

As a law-student... I gotta think this case would be fun to try. Not only would I, as the lawyer, get a lot of money, the trial itself would be, ahem, stimulating.

[UPDATE: I'm still trying to get the permalinks to work right... sorry for any inconvenience]

 
Have you heard these before?

1. Q: How do you stop a nymphomaniac from wanting sex?
A: You marry her.

OR

2. A man comes home from work one day and finds his wife on the front step of the house with her bags packed and an angry look on her face. The husband, very concerned, asked, "Honey, what's the matter?"

She responded, "I'm leaving! I was talking to my girlfriend today and she said that I could make $400 per night in Las Vegas doing what I do for you in bed!"

The husband thought for just a moment, then he ran inside, and up to the bedroom. A few moments later, he reappeared at the doorway where his wife was still sitting. He also had a packed bag.

His wife asked, "Where are you going?"

He responded, "I'm going to Las Vegas too. I want to see you try to live on $800 per year!"

****
Those jokes were brought to mind by this story. All you married guys (more than a year) will know what it's about.

Monday, December 15, 2003

 
Two down, one to go...
I just finished final #2. It was Constitutional Law. All that's left now is the Property, and the weeping, of course.

The funny thing is, I felt pretty good about the test until I started talking to my compatriots. Either I screwed the pooch, I aced it, or I screwed up about as much as everyone else. I will assume that I aced it until I hear otherwise. At that time, I'll come back and erase this entry.

I hope y'all had a less eventful day.

Sunday, December 14, 2003

 
This is the stuff I was talking about!
Go here for a story in the Telegraph about how Atta was connected all the way up to the top of the Iraqi government.

You might have to register (free), but if you don't want to take the time, you can enjoy this first paragraph...

"Iraq's coalition government claims that it has uncovered documentary proof that Mohammed Atta, the al-Qaeda mastermind of the September 11 attacks against the US, was trained in Baghdad by Abu Nidal, the notorious Palestinian terrorist."
 
Notice of a potentially cool Blog...
I've just received the following message from Tuning Spork -

Pssst! Consent of the Governed, at http://consent.mu.nu is ready for
launch! Spread the word!!


I took a peek at the site yesterday, and it looks promising.

I took a peek just now and the site is even better. Go visit Consent of the Governed and tell your friends (to find his site after they've partaken of the wisdom on my site).
 
No connection, eh?
Breaking news, I just saw, on Meet the [De]Press[ed] a little while ago that a British journalist has recently published a story based on a document that firmly ties Mohammad Atta to the Saddam regime. (I'll add a link when I find one.)

I suspect that with the capture of Saddam, this story will actually get some real play.

To all you Hate-America-First whinners out there who were perfectly willing to ignore the well documented support and funding that Saddam had given to other terrorist organizations (Hammas, Islamic Jihad, PLO, etc.) not to mention all of the actual terrorism he was personally responsible for. Most of you were so arrogant as to say, when confronted with this data, "Yeah, but he didn't attack us, and we should really worry about Osama right now." --- BITE ME!

You bastards are what give America a bad image, not our "Cowboy" of a President. You see, George W. Bush is actually standing up against terrorism. Terrorism affects people all around the world, not just here. You liberals don't seem to think the rest of the world deserves to live in peace. Shame on you. I wish on you the fate you wanted for the Iraqi citizens. I wish on you the sense of security that Israeli families feel every day when they try to get up and go to work, or go shopping, or even have a family celebration!

Saturday, December 13, 2003

 
etc. and so on...
I have a couple of pieces of information that might not interest anyone but me, but, if you cared, I suppose you would leave a comment...

This morning, I took my Constitutional Criminal Procedure I final exam. UUUGH! My compassionate professor believes in making us feel like we're taking the bar, so the 84 lengthy multiple choice quesitons (each about half a page long and for which we got a total of 80 of out 180 minutes of test time) mostly had options that were essentially "pick the least-worst" choices. I'm sure I passed the class. I feel like there's a good chance I got a B out ot it. I'm just glad it's over.

One down two to go!

In other news, I've added a link in my "Cool Blogs" area. I do not consider myself a Loyal Citizen of the Rottweiler Empire, but I am open to having regular diplomatic relations with the Emperor. Enjoy his site, but be warned... He *ahem* expresses his opinion in unambiguous terms. Well, you know I can't go wrong putting a link on my page to a site that proudly proclaims itself to have won "Most Annoying Right-of-Center Blog of 2003" and proudly anounces its affiliation with the VWRC (Vast Right Wing Conspiracy). (I'm waiting on my membership card and de-coder ring.)

Friday, December 12, 2003

 
"... a lengthy tragedy."
That snippet comes from part of Justice Scalia's dissent from McConnell v. FEC.

There's a lot to say about that decision... And I suppose I still can... We're not too close to an election as of this writing. Two things have conspired to keep me from commenting prior to now about that dreadful piece of juris-imprudence. First, it's taken me a while to calm down and be able to write, readably, about it. Second, Constitutional Criminal Procedure final is tomorrow... 'nuff said 'bout that.

I guess what surprises me the most is that so many, otherwise intelligent, folks are not bothered by this decision, even after they are told. So many people are dedicated to NIMBY ("not in my back yard") that they are unwilling to take notice of something that does not seem to directly or imminently impact them in a noticeably negative way.

If that describes you, with all due respect, "WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU??? Get your head out of your ass and realize that one of the few CONSTITUTIONAL liberties, expressly guaranteed, that had some vitality has been shredded!"

There's a reason that the First Amendment is so hated by our "benevolent" leaders. They derive their status from power. Their power is threatened by YOU. YOU can remove them. Until they can actually make their positions permanent... until they complete the establishment of themselves as a legal class of nobility, they will continue to attack our First Amendment liberties.

They (our leaders) want a firm separation of church and state, with ANY church activity discouraged, and this has been the trend in the past 50 or so years. Why? They don't want you to believe that (1) there is anything above THEM, or (2) that they should be responsible to anything or anyone. Religious belief is a threat to self-centered politicians.

They (our leaders) hate free speech (the McConnell case) because dissent or opposition that takes the form of thought and materializes into expression MIGHT persuade YOU. Free Speech is a threat to those who wish to establish themselves in positions of overlord-ship, especially if they must, periodically deal with elections. The titular quote, in more complete form is:

"The first instinct of power is the retention of power, and, under a Constitution that requires periodic elections, that is best achieved by suppression of election-time speech. We have witnessed merely the second scene of Act I of what promises to be a lengthy tragedy."

Justice Scalia, like him or not, has nailed it.

The "Press" is spared from the BCRA, but not for long. Once there is no right to a type of expression, there is no right to report that expression.

Association is not spared by this ruling either. Why? Because if you happen to be able to form a thought that threatens THEIR continued retention of power, they surely do not want you infecting others with it.

Don't, not even for a minute, think that I'm overstating the danger of this law (BCRA) or this ruling (McConnell). Money, when donated to political, philosophical, and religious causes are ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, and UNMISTAKABLY "expression". Furthermore, this type of expression is EXACTLY the type of speech that the founders intended to protect. What the hell good is "representation" if you can't tell your representative what's important to you.

Anybody who knows anything about money knows that money is the ability to change things... to remake reality to some extent into what you prefer it to be. Money, therefore in political situations creates the possibility that an ideal might be able to have its desired effect.

What would happen to your ability to receive a fair trial if the government made a ruling that criminal defendants charged with X have a right to counsel, but the attorney MAY NOT be compensated for that representation. Would ANY attorney take your case? - NO.

We need to discuss the root of the problem. Political incumbents want to stay in power. Political incumbents, during their incumbency, wield power, and have great name recognition. Few people will be able to motivate significant numbers of others to donate to their cause directly without the status of incumbency. The BCRA creates insulation from a coordinated political challenge. The BCRA is nothing more than an incumbency protection act.

Perhaps the most infuriating aspect of this case is that the Supreme Court... scratch that, 5 socialists on the Supreme Court (Make no mistake, O'Connor has sealed her legacy as a Socialist, at this point.) has decided that "...Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech..." is not only NOT an absolute, but in the area where it is supposedly strongest, political speech, that it means that Congress ACTUALLY CAN make laws abridging political speech FOR THE PURPOSE of imagined impropriety. ("Appearance of corruption")

To whom does "Corruption" appear? She doesn't say. She doesn't care. The majority of the court thinks that Congress should be almost unlimited in how it determines how others may challenge them. The Supreme Court, apparently thinks that "life-time tenure" is such a good deal (All Federal Judges, pursuant to U.S. Const. Art. III, get their jobs FOR LIFE and their pay can NEVER go down.) that the rest of the ruling elite deserves to be able to effectively (perhaps in time, actually) establish it for themselves.

As wrong as this is, it cannot be fully blamed on the Five Socialists in Black Robes (O'Connor, Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter, Bryer). Congress, and the President are also fully responsible for bringing this upon us. There is NO excuse.

I believe that we MUST DEMAND that any person who wants our vote sign a pledge to both REPEAL the 17th Amendment, and guarantee that political speech be given full protection.

Wednesday, December 10, 2003

 
Back to where we once belonged...
It's becoming more of a passion for me as time goes on to aid in the revitalization of the spirit of Federalism.

Today, Professor Walter E. Williams has posted a column entitled "Let's do some detective work". The gist of his article is that the Constitution does NOT authorize much, if not most, of what the Federal Government gets itself into by way of congressional ambition.

I never was a fan of term limits. My basic thought is that a population should be allowed to elect whom they want and they, generally, deserve whom they elect. On the one hand, that's true. On the other hand, when people "get what they deserve," they also give the rest of us some of it too.

I've previously posted on what the need to repeal the 17th Amendment. If we want to restore the Constitution, in any meaningful sense, that MUST be a key part of the remedy. Now I am starting to think that the House of Representatives must be returned to its original status as the voice of the citizen, and not merely the "2-year Renewal" membership option for "Club Fed Elite."

A two or three term limit for Representatives would be appropriate to keep the House from being their permanent home. IF the Senate is returned to selection by state legislatures, I do not think that a term limit will necessarily be necessary. Since I do like the Constitution, I don't want to advocate too many Amendments at once.

I fear that the current state of our nation is such that no meaningful AND positive legislation will ever make it through. Since I am proposing a change to the legislature, I think Satan has a better chance of making a snow angel outside his primary residence than of anything like what I've proposed to be passed through the legislature (2/3 in both houses) for an Amendment. To get this done, I think the states need to use one of their last weapons. Article 5 of the Constitution allows that if 2/3 of the states call for an Amendment they can force a Constitutional Convention to make it happen. The dangerous thing, of course would be that I am not sure if this Constitutional Convention would be bound, at all, by the original purpose, and if instead, the States could re-write the whole thing.

In any event, we are a LONG way from where we are supposed to be, and we need to get back to where we once belonged if we don't want the nation to deteriorate further and faster to a quasi-socialist tyranny by the majority even more than it is now. Perhaps we've waited too long, but if we can see what's right, its our duty, I think, to advocate to stand up for it even if we will never achieve it. How we stand for our principles in light of certain defeat says the only thing worth recording about who we really are.

Tuesday, December 09, 2003

 
Shhh... Don't make the "Nice doggie" angry!
Thanks to the Imperial Torturer of the Rottweiler Empire for this post.

It's a spicy rendition of some dish on the French (bleh... saying that makes a bad taste in my mouth... *Huuchk-spit*!!!). For those of you with delicate palates for intellectual consumption... you should pass on this one.
 
New York City's "Finest"
Here's a story. It's strange enough on its own. I mean, really, how often do you read about a fellow using a sword in a domestic violence incident in New York.

That said, I think the real story is about the police who responded. Check out the quote below -

"One officer fired 14 shots that left both Forbes and another officer wounded."

One officer... 14 shots...
First, did he stop to reload? What type of gun is he using?

Second, with 14 shots, he only wounded the bad guy. Later in the story it tells us that Forbes (the bad guy) was shot in both legs. Again, what type of gun is this guy using? Has Bloomberg replaced all the real firearms on the NYC police with pellet guns as a cost-savings initiative, or to prevent racially incendiary situations in the future?

Third, another officer was wounded! Where the f@#$ did that cop learn to shoot?

Fourth, 14 shots and only 3 found their targets. Again, where the f@#$ did that cop learn to shoot? It's not as if he were trying to pick off the perp from the top of a building, three blocks away, and obscured by several trees!!! The cop was at the apartment with the sword wielding nut, and squeezed off 14 rounds! He only hit anybody about 21% of the time (3 of 14), and one third of those went into ANOTHER COP!

This guy needs to be promoted to toll-collector or the head of UN security... I take that back, the potential for abuse of power is too great as a toll collector to be able to trust this puddin'-brained (hammy... Do you suppose he/she/it went to public school? hammy...) numb-nuts. And if he got the job at the UN, of course, he would have access to even more weapons...

He should be moved to a place where he would be reduced to a level of total ineffectiveness where he could cause no more harm. He should run for the Democratic nomination for the Presidency.

Monday, December 08, 2003

 
Preparing for finals...
Well folks, this semester, I've got three classes, and all of them have finals.

I anticipate posting my outlines, for your benefit, and so that if you see a problem, or are curious about why something is presented the way that it is, you can ask me and I can refine or correct what I've put in my outline.

The classes that you can look forward to reviewing with me this semester are (1) Constitutional Criminal Procedure I, (2) Constitutional Law, and (3) Property Law.

I have the ConLaw outline largely completed. I've only to refresh my memory of particular cases. Professor Higginbotham has said that he will be drawing several fact patterns more or less directly from some of the cases.

In ConCrimPro, Professor Warnken (anybody who lives in the Baltimore area will be familiar with Professor Warnken since he is just about the most frequently quoted and interviewed legal expert in the area, for good reason) has also said that he will be testing on our knowledge of particular cases that we read this semester. This sucks, of course. "Black Letter Law" is is much easier to remember (IMHO) than particulars of cases. Oh well.

As for property... I'm sure Professor Gilligan will give us a fair test. That's not much consolation. Property Law is so arcane that it is difficult to fit everything into a nice-neat conceptual framework. Additionally, this area of law is SO OLD that the ancient "terms of art" are still very important, so much of the test will be, effectively, a vocabulary test. AARGH!!! -- Quick, what is a "profit a prendre", an "easement appurtanent", "riparian water rights"?

(Answers:
Profit a prendre = products of the property taken from the property. Typically fish, game animals, minerals, etc.

Easement appurtanent = An easement (right to use) that benefits another parcel of property. This is the type of easement that a landlocked parcel of property will have over an adjacent property so that the owner will be able to put in and use a driveway. Whoever possesses the benefited property will be able to use the easement because it "benefits" the property, not the possessor.

Riparian water rights = The legal rights of the owner of a property bordering a river or other body of water.)
 
Great enigmas for the masses
We all have those really meaningless questions about"how", "what", "why", and "when" regarding something that is of absolutely no consequence.

Some people have bucked-up the courage to display their curriosity for the irrelevant, and have done just that. You too can learn the answers (possibly) of questions like "Why do men and women's shirts button on different sides?" and "What does the 'YKK' on zippers stand for?" and many other nagging questions like them at this site.
 
Making the world a better place
Personally, I can't ever get enough of people expiring as a proximate cause of their own stupidity.

If you aren't familiar with Darwin Awards, visit the site, read, and enjoy, but if you want to get onto the list yourself, make sure you're original.

Friday, December 05, 2003

 
And who do you think YOU are?

Thanks to Sasha Volokh for pointing to this site...

Take the test... Know thyself!
(And hey, let me know who you really are.)


Which Historical Lunatic Are You?
From the fecund loins of Rum and Monkey.
 
Irony upon Irony
Irony #1: Man to Be Spokesman for Co. He Stole From. This article might normally look like just another example of management doing what it does best... being stupid. But if you read the article, you'll see there is some logic to it.

Irony #2: The fellow who would be the spokesperson and who previously did the stealing... his name is "Dennis Cheatem." With a name like "Cheatem," don't you suppose he would have picked a different crime of choice than embezzlement? If it were me, I would have gone for something that has as little to do with questions of honesty as possible... perhaps random violence... just to keep the police off my trail.

Thursday, December 04, 2003

 
Till death do they part...
Here's an article about a 76 year old woman who tried to hire a hit-man to kill her 82 year old husband.

The thing that strikes me is that this woman REALLY needs to develop some patience. I mean, really, how much longer will she have to wait if she does nothing? Better yet, she could cook him some of my mother's favorite casseroles, that would have done the trick, been cheaper, and she probably wouldn't have been arrested for it. ;-)

(Mom, if you read this... Just kidding.)

Wednesday, December 03, 2003

 
Dual Standards
I heard a discussion on the radio this morning, but I haven't been able to find an article online about it yet, that Baltimore City schools are considering a dual graduation standard.

Basically, they are discussing issuing two different diplomas. One "normal" diploma, and the other a diploma for the sizeable minority of students who couldn't pass the state standards for graduation.

Whatever it is that those folks on the Baltimore City Board of Education are smoking must be truly prime... I'm guessing they confiscated it from some kindergarten.

In all honesty, I think a dual or separate diploma program isn't a bad idea, in and of itself, but I don't like this plan. A "college-prep" diploma along side a "vocational" diploma would be a reasonable distinction. Lets face it, not all jobs require a degree in rocket science, and a vocational degree would probably be far more useful for the majority of kids than whatever education they are currently getting.

That said, a distinction that is "met-the-requirements-and-deserve-to-graduate" diploma versus a "failed-to-meet-the-requirements-so-I-don't-deserve-to-graduate-but-the-pinko-administrators-thought-giving-me-a-diploma-instead-of-teaching-me-would-be-easier-and-help-my-self-esteem-more-than-would-an-actual-education"diploma is utterly moronic.

If the standards are bad, address the standards. If the schools aren't doing their jobs, fix the schools. (Easier said than done, I know.) The BIG problem is parental guidance from early childhood to about 10 years old. If the parents have no appreciation for learning, the kids will inherit this contempt by osmosis.

Here's a thought... VOUCHERS! If you involve the parents and give THEM a stake, then they might actually care. (It's a long-shot, I know.)

To mold behavior without direct force, you must understand human motivations. One universal truism about humans is that we care about that in which we are personally invested. Throughout history, and even today, most parents see the fact of parenthood as enough of an investment in their kids to care about the kids education, so figuring out a scheme to motivate parents has been unnecessary.

My hypothesis is that most of the parents whose kids are failing do care, but they have been frustrated in their attempts to invest in their children. Vouchers will, I think, eliminate some of the frustration, and re-engage those parents.

For those parents who won't care anyway, I suspect that most or all of them will neglect their kids in other ways as well and if the various agencies of the state are doing their job, the state will have solid grounds for stepping in to modify the situation based on the broad neglect that the kids probably do suffer.

Tuesday, December 02, 2003

 
Repeal 17!!!
"What's that?" you say. What is Bronson talking about?

I'm so glad you asked!

I was able to go down to the Supreme Court yesterday as a guest of a Professor (Professor Anderson) and his Supreme Court Seminar class. We watched the morning docket of cases (all two hours), and then we had lunch in the Supreme Court cafeteria. While there we met Jay Sekulow. He's arguing a case today... and it could have important implications for us all. (Keep him in your prayers, if you pray, otherwise, think nice thoughts in his direction.)

Mr. Sekulow is widely regarded as one of the best appellate attorneys in practice today. Mr. Sekulow spoke with our group for about ten minutes.

After lunch, we got to spend some time with the clerk of the court(Ret. Gen. Wm. Souter). He's a smart and very interesting fellow. Then, Justice Scalia came in and spent about an hour and a half with us.

Out of professional courtesy, I won't disclose the full content of the discussion we had, but he made one excellent point, that very few people (even conservatives) realize as a problem.

The 17th Amendment has been the greatest single blow to our "federal" structure of government. "What's the 17th?" you ask. Good question!

The 17th Amendment made the selection of Senators a matter of popular election. As soon as you contemplate it, you should see, that this is a HUGE change. Previously, senators were selected by their states and were, therefore accountable to the states. Therefore, in the federal government, the people had a voice (the House of Representatives) and the states had a voice (the Senate). This was supposed to ensure that nobody offended the majority, the federal government did not invade states' sovereignty, and the Supreme Court made sure that nobody violated the Constitution.

States no longer have a voice in our government. States have been relegated to a mere formality in our national structure.

If you want to restrain the wanton expansion of the federal government (and probably, their spending as well) you really need to fight to get the 17th Amendment repealed by a new Amendment.

After that, discussion, I was the first to ask Justice Scalia a question. (I'm sure that nobody who knows me would have guessed that I would be first to ask a question...) My question concerned the "Necessary and proper" clause, US. Const. Art. I Sect. 8.

His response indicated that he recognized that the clause is used as a blanket for things that have little or nothing to do with the proper exercise of federal Constitutional power by the legislature. My thought was that it should not be a blanket of permission, but a two pronged test. I thought that either Justice Scalia didn't get the proposition that I was attempting to forward, or he thought that it just didn't have much merit. But hey, at least I got to TALK to Justice Scalia.

Later that evening, Professor Anderson came up to me and told me that after the meeting, he had a moment to talk with Justice Scalia, and Justice Scalia said he was impressed with that question and was impressed that UB was teaching the whole Constitution.

As a law student, that kind of comment is, perhaps, the highest compliment I can receive.

Whoo-Haa!
 
Sorry for the delay.
I know that several of you may be close to giving up hope since I haven't posted anything since last Thanksgiving. My appologies.

FYI, we are fast approaching that special time of years known affectionately as "finals." My postings might be more sporadic for the next couple of weeks. I'm sorry if that disapoints you.

I'll do what I can to keep you properly updated as to my thoughts.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?