Constructively Reasonable

Celebrating with Guns

2008-06-28T23:25:00.002-06:00

I have celebrated Heller this weekend. I went shooting with my Dad on Friday. He shot his Glock and I shot my Taurus. We had a good time and angered Obama in the process. What a deal!

Then, I attended the sixth annual Independence Institute Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Party. This is our chance to celebrate the fun of being an adult-- while it is still legal. We shoot guns (shotguns on a sporting clay course). We smoke cigars and cigarettes. We drink alcohol. (No shooting after the alcohol, in case you were wondering). We celebrate liberty and the FUN of being an adult (until the nannyists stop us).

Some highlights:

Deer Me!: Stand 9 featured a “rabbit” target, and thus shooters were aiming at the ground for that station. Deer have never been known for their intelligence. The deer slowly mooned across the shooting lane of Stand 9. The deer did not take the large amount of 12ga. fire as a clue that maybe he didn’t want to be there. We released a clay to scare it away. Instead, the deer got the classic “deer-in-the-headlights” stare at the moving clay. I was quite tempted to shoot the deer and put it up on my wall. (Note: there was a sign that prohibited shooting of live birds, but nothing prohibited shooting medium game.) Finally he wandered away and my group could continue attacking the clays.

Heller Celebrated: The expert on the Second Amendment happens to work for the Independence Institute. David Kopel was at the counsel’s table during the oral arguments of DC v. Heller. He gave a great presentation on how it was as best as gun people could hope for, and what the pro-gun lobby would be doing to further the cause (including suing Chicago and San Francisco over their gun bans). He received a standing ovation, and deservedly so.

Jonathan Hoenig: Jonathan Hoenig, the founder of CapitalistPig LLC, gave a fantastic speech on the role of the welfare/nanny state and how it makes us, as a community, poorer. It was entertaining and informative on the real economic impacts of false “government safety nets.”

The ATF party is a great event and will be on my calendar every year in the future. It is a fantastic chance to get to have fun and meet with like-minded people (maybe there I can find a woman to be my wife on day). We get to anger the nannyists who want to run our lives.

Slam it. Smoke it. Shoot it.

Guns and DC v. Heller

2008-06-26T13:09:00.001-06:00

The SCOTUS has handed down the biggest case of the year: DC v. Heller (opinion here). Justice Scalia, the most philosophical/logical of the conservative justices, wrote the majority opinion. Had Kennedy wrote the opinion, the reasoning/protection of the rights would not be as strong. Justices Stevens and Breyer wrote dissents representing the four liberal justices. The opinion is long, so I give a brief synopsis here. My full(er) discussion is below.

Synopsis: I am happy with the fist holding (2d Amendment is an individual right). I understand the reasoning behind the second holding (allowing limits on the right) but am weary that it could lead to back door bans. I am happy that the third holding strikes down the DC gun ban. Yet, the holding still allows for licensing programs and that is dangerous (DC had a gun licensing program, but simply never issued licenses). This was the best the pro-gun side could hope for. There is still going to be a lot of litigation to flesh out the limits of the right and or the limits of the government to regulate the right. The second and third holding in particular have some troubling caveats to the general rule. Yet, the opinion was well reasoned and fairly exhaustive and will provide a launching point to challenge other silly gun laws.

Admittedly, I am an extremist when it comes to the second amendment (and constitutional protections generally). Thus, Scalia didn’t give me all that I wanted, but the opinion is certainly the absolute best the pro-gun rights side could hope for. It is a good day. Also, this commentary is long, but so is the decision (157 pages). It is difficult to compress all of the information.

The post below has my full(er) discussion.

Heller, Guns, DC FULL(ER) DISCUSSION

2008-06-26T10:01:00.001-06:00

Full(er) discussion of DC v. Heller:
Holdings:

1. “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
2. “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
3. “The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.”

The first holding, that the Second Amendment is an individual right is fundamental. Had the court gone the way of the liberal justices, the second amendment would apply to the National Guard only. Scalia did a good job going through the history of the meaning of the purpose clause (“A well regulated militia…”), the operative clause (“the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”), and the relation between the two. Of particular note, Scalia does a good job of refuting the dissents’ contentions that the second amendment applied only to militias.

The first holding is so important because it gives the foundation on which to challenge/examine other gun laws. Not only does this case establish the individual right in the SCOTUS jurisprudence, it also gives a through justification for why it is a right. Also, the Court does not rely on “hunting” or “target shooting” as the rationale for the right, but one of personal security. That will be key in future cases.

The second holding, “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited,” troubles me a bit, but the rationales are actually pretty reasonable. Laws the prohibit felons and the mentally ill from possessing firearms and the like are expressly upheld (generally) by this ruling. I’m still bothered by Scalia’s upholding of banning guns at “sensitive places” like government buildings and schools only because the list of “sensitive places” keeps expanding. (Like I said, I’m an extremist in this area, and the discussion of which places should be able to ban guns is for another day.)

So too with the discussion of Miller, which was a case 70 years ago about a sawed off shotgun. The “unusual and dangerous” exception can make sense (really, the argument for allowing possession of RPGs, tanks, and claymores is on somewhat shaky ground). Historically speaking, the militia that won the Revolutionary War did so without the latest in military technology. While the language under this holding seems to indicate that the M-16 type tactical weapons may be banned, I think the language under the third holding may save the right to have “military looking/style” weapons (more on that later).

However, it is a real danger in the opinion’s language that modern military weaponry may be banned. It may come back as a back door ban on guns. For example, the Mexican Constitution allows for the right to bear arms that are not militarily useful. Since militaries use all sorts of calibers for various purposes, the end result of the Mexican law is that a Mexican citizen can only have a .22 which is useless in most self-defense situations. Most other calibers have been adopted by the Mexican military at one time or another and therefore are banned to the general populace. If we are not careful, that same reasoning could be applied under the language of the second holding in this case.

The third holding actually pertains to the Draconian gun ban in place by DC (Chicago and San Francisco have similarly harsh laws). It is important to note that DC is a federal district and therefore this ruling does not necessarily apply to states and normal cities.

Since the first holding established that the second amendment pertains to the right of self defense and guns are included in that right, then DC cannot outright ban handguns. What is interesting is that Scalia bases his rationale on the fact that handguns (as opposed to long guns) are overwhelmingly the choice for most Americans for self defense. This is where I think that the AR-15 and other “military style” semi autos will be found to be okay. Since so many people choose to buy them for home protection, then, under the reasoning of this third holding, the military style rifles cannot be banned (does not apply to full auto). This of course is reading into the text, but that is where I would start my argument in a future case to stop bans on semiautomatic rifles. This may be the saving grace from the problem that Mexican citizens face.

The third holding strikes down the outright ban on handguns in the home, the requirement that long guns be disassembled and have a trigger lock on at all times, and other nonsensical laws. One of the worst parts of the DC law was that a homeowner could not move his gun from room to room in the house. Wherever the gun was when the law was enacted in the 1970s, it must remain for all time.

I am bothered by the Court still allowing “licensing” of guns in DC. To license is the ability to restrict and ban. Indeed, DC had a licensing system—but NO ONE was ever granted the license. Thus, it was a practical ban. The court did not really address this problem and it should have. I suppose that’s another day’s litigation.

Scalia failed to explicitly state which standard of scrutiny the Court would take in examining gun laws. Of course, I want the strictest (“strict scrutiny”) that would make the government show a compelling state interest in the law-- which is a very difficult test to pass. The dissents wanted the lowest level of scrutiny: rational basis (asking, “Did the government have a rational reason for this law?”-- which almost any law can satisfy). Reading the tea leaves, it appears that the Court wants something higher than rational basis but I doubt the votes will be there for strict scrutiny. They may settle on something in between (intermediate scrutiny of some sort) in the future.

This was the best the pro-gun side could hope for. There is still going to be a lot of litigation to flesh out the limits of the right and or the limits of the government to regulate the right. The second and third holding in particular have some troubling caveats to the general rule. Yet, the opinion was well reasoned and fairly exhaustive and will provide a launching point to challenge other silly gun laws.

Who Polices the Police?

2008-06-23T23:18:00.006-06:00

SCOTUSblog does a great job of covering the Supreme Court Of The United States. In a recent article about the grants and denials of certiorari and various other orders, one case thrown in at the end caught my eye.

The case of Arizona v. Johnson (No. 07-1122) intrigues me. The issue is:

Whether, in the context of a vehicular stop for a minor traffic infraction, an officer may conduct a pat-down search of a passenger when the officer has an articulable basis to believe the passenger might be armed and presently dangerous, but had no reasonable grounds to believe that the passenger is committing, or has committed, a criminal offense.

HT: FourthAmendment.com

According to a passing reference in the New York Times,

A Tucson police officer testified that she had searched a passenger, Lemon M. Johnson, because he was wearing gang colors and seemed dangerous, not because he was suspected of having committed a crime.
The search yielded a gun and marijuana. An Arizona appeals court overturned Mr. Johnson’s conviction, saying the evidence against him should have been suppressed because the search was unconstitutional.

The SCOTUS jurisprudence is very complex for Fourth Amendment searches for occupants in a car. Due to the late hour, I cannot recall the exact names of the landmark cases (please feel free to help out in the comments section), but Fourth Amendment priciples are generally based on a balancing test. On one side is the individual's interest in "privacy" (really, his interest in not being molested/abused by the police) and on the other side sits the police officer's interest in self protection.

Certainly, as the gang shootout last night near the DNC's convention site demonstrates, the police have legitmate security concerns. (However, they get to carry guns and handcuff people too, so they are far from defenseless.)

Yet I cannot help but believe that our rights are very important. We do not want the police state that the United Kindom has become-- where big brother watches over your shoulder and it is a crime for old men to wear a hat lest they "hide their identities."

Lest you think I'm jumping too far: look at what the officer identified as the "basis to believe the passenger might be armed and presently dangerous." She said he was wearing gang colors. Guess what folks, gang colors encompass just about every general color possible. Indeed now police are saying that gang members no longer display their colors to avoid police detection. In other words, anyone wearing any color or "looking dangerous" (whatever that means) can be searched in a car they are riding in if the SCOTUS upholds the police officer's actions.

Based on the SCOTUS' tendancy to defer to the police, I suspect that the officer's actions will be upheld. Remember that it is police officers who serve as security detail for high-ranking judges (in the case of the SCOTUS, it is the Secret Service) and thus, in a very real way, the judges' lives depend on the police. That is why the judicary is so deferential to the police.

I do not fully know the facts of the case and I suspect that the suspect was a gangbanger scumbag, but rights need to be upheld for everyone, otherwise they apply to no one.

Climate Change Killed Elvis

2008-06-18T17:02:00.000-06:00

A contributor to Discover Magazine online has an interesting theory on the tomato scare.

Apparently, "climate change" causes everything. Perhaps my foot is itching because of climate change. Maybe climate change caused my computer to freeze last night. I know, climate change is what killed Elvis!

The writer's claim that "genetically modified organisms" (GMO) are also partly to blame. Some background for those of you who are not biology/agri-science nerds: the US is one of the biggest producers of genetically modified food (i.e. plants, not animals) in the world. Through the use of genetic replacement therapy, we have been able to use plant viruses to change the DNA of a plant to be resistant to bugs, grow faster, or even choke out weeds. While the means we use to accomplish these goals (DNA modification) is new, the idea is not. Farmers once selectively bred their crops for certain characteristics.

Now, there is a global debate on the safety of the modified food. The environmentalists claim that it is "not natural" and therefore bad. (By the way, Salmonella is natural and bad, but an autoclave is unnatural and good.) Mostly fanned by the Europeans, who have an economic interest in stopping US food exports, many third world nations refuse US genetically modified food-- despite starving families.

Now, back to the claim that GMOs are responsible for the current tomato scare: the writer fails to show how exactly GMOs "exacerbate" the problem. He lays a claim, and then gives no evidence or argument to back it up. Indeed, he even admits that the outbreak could have "natural" causes not related to GMOs.

In the end, environmentalists hate two things: people (except themselves) and technology. They have stated consistently in their literature that people (overpopulation) are the cause of all their professed problems. Sure, they talk about investment in new technology for energy, but the reality is that they want fewer people and a return to an agrarian life with little in the way of technology. The most extreme example is the hippie commune.

We have returned to the lie of the nobility of savagery.

Lying Government

2008-06-17T20:15:00.006-06:00

The Rocky Mountain News reported today on a series of sightings. Before you go all UFO on me, wait. It appears that Special Operations Command was running a series of training exercises in the Denver area.

What shocked me was the line:

"Military and police officials dismissed reports that the exercise was preparation for the Democratic National Convention coming to Denver in August."

OF COURSE this was a training exercise for the upcoming Democratic National Convention! For one week, Denver will be one of the biggest terrorist targets in the nation.

This is why I will boycott Denver during the DNC. Yes, I do have a mild fear that there could be an attack (this is the world we live in now). Also, though, I would be working next to the "Free Speech Zone." The chanters and protesters will be an annoyance. Some groups have promised violence. Who needs to deal with all of that just to go to work in an office with broken a/c?

Nah, I'll take a vacation instead.

Banana Car

2008-06-16T20:11:00.005-06:00

Breitbart.com pointed me to this recent AP story.

I know that whenever I travel looking for bananas, I am always ready to pay those high grocery store prices. Perhaps they were intending to shop at 7-Eleven.

P.S.: At the going rate of ~$1.65 per pound (cited in the story), the men would be buying approximately 225,454 pounds of bananas. Assuming they are medium bananas, that would be approximately 676,364 bananas total.

Why I Do Law

2008-06-09T21:41:00.002-06:00

A relative of mine is in the hospital. She was supposed to go in for a quick procedure and be out within twelve to forty-eight hours. She has now been in for nine days. The surgeon unnecessarily delayed in performing the procedure, despite recommendations from her primary care physician and the Emergency Department physician who recommended the procedure. That was an annoyance.

The true problem arose when the staff physical therapist failed to do her job. My relative had orders from the medical attending to receive physical therapy twice per day. In the nine days she has been in the hospital, the physical therapist has spent a grand total of twenty (yes, 20) minutes. As any medical professional will tell you, if a person does not get out of bed and use their muscles, then the muscles will begin to atrophy within a day.

My relative could walk when she went to the hospital. Now, she cannot walk. People are not supposed to get worse when they stay in a hospital.

When we expressed our concerns with the physical therapist, she began to talk over us and then proceeded to blame my relative for not “alerting her” when she failed to return. Yes, that is right, a bed-bound person recovering from surgery is supposed to chase a flighty physical therapist down the hallway.

Well, the “house manager” was eventually called. When he came, I put on my lawyer hat and represented my client. I was able to calmly and rationally explain our concerns about my relative’s treatment. I then discussed the physical therapist’s failure to hear our concerns (i.e. she was filibustering). Finally, I emphasized that it is not the responsibility of a bed-bound patient to chase someone down the hall to beg the therapist to do her job.

My relative was relieved that I stepped in to explain what was going on. The house manager promised a meeting and that someone else would take over my relative’s physical therapy.

Yesterday I was an advocate. Yesterday I made a difference. This is why I’m in law school.

Qwest's Bum

2008-05-15T17:00:00.006-06:00

The federal prosecutor in the Joe Nacchio case has requested en banc review by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Nacchio was the former CEO of Qwest, which is based in Denver, Colorado. He was convicted of nineteen counts of insider trading. A three judge panel at the Tenth Circuit later reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial because the trial court improperly barred the defense from calling a witness.

This case is not about the insider trading per se. What is really going on is that many of the USWest and Qwest workers lost their retirement investments in the company when the company's stock tanked. The employees blame Nacchio, and there is good evidence that he was focused on his well being rather than the company's well being. I happen to know several top level managers (i.e. those who achieved the highest level possible without kissing butt). They could see Nacchio was no good for the company or the employees.

Like many actions of criminal law against the wealthy and the powerful, the charges Nacchio faced were not what the government really wanted. Following this case, it is clear that the insider trading charges are weak. The prosecution was really trying to apply some retributivist justice. The employees suffered greatly for his mismanagement. The government wanted to make him pay somehow, and the insider trading charges were their best bet.

There is little reason to see why the Tenth Circuit should grant en banc review. (The Wikipedia article on en banc is here, if you need it.). The prosecution is trying everything it can to get the panel's decision overturned. The first trial was extremely expensive, and the second trial will be too. So, the prosecution must try every appeal to avoid the cost of the new trial and to make Nacchio pay for his bad behavior.

This case is about making those who lost their lifetime investments somehow whole by throwing the bum in jail. The problem is that the government is struggling to prove a weak case. Nacchio will probably walk.

Wikipedia

2008-05-14T17:01:00.000-06:00

I have a little less than a week before my jobs start. I am doing what any newly minted 2L would do in this situation: sitting on my butt watching TV.

Among the plethora of vocational school commercials, ads for “male enhancement,” and pitches for new kitchen gadgets, I saw a personal injury attorney’s commercial. The attorney’s commercial featured dramatic music, stock photos of doctors and factories, and a dramatic voice. The voice said, “Have you or your loved one suffered from Mesothelioma?...” Many lawyers place such ads (Colorado features “The Strong Arm” and “The Bulldog”). What was unique about this ad was that its information on Mesothelioma was cited to Wikipedia.

How far have we sunk when Wikipedia serves as a source for a legal commercial? Do not get me wrong, I have used Wikipedia when I need quick information on a non-controversial topic. But I would never cite it for my livelihood. Even if the article was correct and well-written, I would still seek more reliable evidence.

Such legal commercials are often for class action lawsuits (the notice requirement for FRCivP. 23). If a lawyer already has a class representative and is putting a case together, surely he can afford the few extra dollars to get his medical expert to be his citation for his commercial.

Good Bye Summer, Hello Resume

2008-05-13T16:36:00.000-06:00

What will I do when since I have two prestigious internships available for the summer?

On the one hand, the state supreme court justice has offered me an internship. Among other things, I will be researching long-term issues of law for the justice. More importantly, I will review the certiorari petitions to the court. It will be my job to find the interesting and pressing cases that need review. That is quite a bit of responsibility. It will also be great experience. How can a 1L hope to beat the state supreme court?

The solicitor general will have me researching long term issues that he thinks might come up in the coming term. Since I am looking at getting into appellate advocacy, this will be good experience to work with him.

Therefore, I really want both jobs. I had applied to the state supreme court justice first (in October), but I did not hear anything for months. Whenever I inquired I received the same response, “She has not decided yet.” I had assumed she had not chosen me for the interviewing round. Finally, I had the second opportunity come where I could work with the solicitor general. After I applied and was accepted by him, the justice called up. Now, I am left with a puzzle: who should I work for? I applied first to the justice, but I was accepted first by the solicitor general.

My decision thus far: try to see if I can have my cake and eat it too. I will try to work for both the justice and the solicitor general. I may not have a social life this summer, but I should come out with two awesome references and a great resume.

Hopefully, I can handle the pressures…

Traffic Ticket Quotas

2008-05-10T22:42:00.001-06:00

Finals are now officially over. I am in the post-exam decompression. This includes being a little ill (my body finally has permission to succumb to illness), lots of sleep, and a curious headache.

Of course, my law school had various parties (official and unofficial) involving copious amounts of alcohol. Now, before you think my headache is a hangover: I do not get hangovers and I didn’t have very much to drink.

I needed to be temperate because I had an interview Friday with the state supreme court justice. I believe it went well. I kept them laughing, and it was not about my resume. That’s usually a good sign. I should be hearing about it in a week. I really want this internship, so I am hoping they think I am a “cool guy.”

Then, at a law school party yesterday, I was speaking with a State Patrol trooper. (Yes, law enforcement and lawyers mingle— sometimes). Someone (not me) said, “Yes, but how high is your traffic ticket quota?” The trooper replied with a joke about how she gets a toaster if she could write 100 tickets in a month. Her point, of course, is that there are no quotas for traffic citations.

However, the trooper then went on to betray her defense. She said that the supervisors will question her if she does not write any tickets on a ten hour shift. She framed the situation as, “They ask: what have you been doing for the last ten hours, then?”

The trooper gave an anecdote. One day, she was assigned to the Left Hand Canyon patrol. She drove five hundred miles and had only stopped one car. That is because the Canyon can be a fairly empty place, depending on the time of the year. When she came back to the station, her sergeant noticed she had issued only one citation. The sergeant asked, “What happened? Did you go hiking today instead of patrolling?” The Trooper then needed to explain that the Canyon was particularly empty that day and, as proof that she was on the job, she produced the mileage on her patrol car which had five hundred new miles on it.

This anecdote is precisely one that proves the pressure patrol officers feel in writing tickets. It is true that few police departments are brainless enough to give an exact numerical quota of traffic citations. Yet, if an officer or trooper or deputy faces a likely dress-down every time they have “too few” citations, then that is still pressure to give citations.

What are the chances, now, that this trooper will give you a warning the next time she stops you?

Criminal Law

2008-05-05T17:33:00.003-06:00

I was running late. Where is room 206? This place is familiar—it is the law school after all. Yet, something is wrong. Where the hell is room 206? I’m late! The test started 20 minutes ago!
This was my first law school related nightmare. It was not a good a good sign for the day to come.

I just finished my Criminal Law exam. All I can say is that I certainly helped the curve. I am a giving person. I want to help my fellow students because I care. Therefore, I decided to go ahead and screw up the four-credit class’ exam so that I can raise the curve for everyone else.

The exam was that bad. I already knew that I was not cut out to be a prosecutor or a defense attorney. I know criminal law generally and I am pretty good at statutory interpretation. What I could not wrap my head around was the common law of criminal law. What’s worse, we did not spend much time in class discussing the rules but instead looked at focused on theory and international versions of criminal law.

The exam was multiple choice and two issue spotters. I was going to regulate my time, but I arrived at the 75 minute mark (my time limit for the first section) with 10 multiple choice questions left. I therefore faced a dilemma: should I finish the multiple-choice or go on to the essay? I choose to finish the multiple-choice. I calculated that I am a fairly good writer, especially under pressure. Further, the multiple-choice was likely to be the curve-determinate, so it needed to be finished. However, the consequence of that decision was that I was not able to fully cover all the issues in each issue spotter. Finally, the time constraints forced me write, “I see the felony-murder issue here, but I do not have time to fully explore the issue.” And, TIME!

I actually respect and appreciate my crim law professor. He is a great guy and one who really knows what he’s talking about. The problem is entirely on my end. I simply do not think very well in the criminal law framework.

Who knows? Maybe I did better than I thought I did. I can always hope for that…

Halfway Through

2008-05-02T16:21:00.005-06:00

I am halfway through finals. I just turned in my Property paper. The Paper topic:

"Teachers teach nonsense when they persuade students that legal reasoning is distinct, as a method for reaching correct results, from ethical and political discourse in general (i.e., from policy analysis). It is true that there is a distinctive lawyers' body of knowledge of the rules in force. It is true that there are distinctive lawyers' argumentative techniques for spotting gaps, conflicts, and ambiguities in the rules.....But these are only argumentative techniques. There is never a 'correct legal solution' that is other than the correct ethical and political solution to that legal problem. Put another way, everything taught, except the formal rules themselves and the argumentative techniques for manipulating them, is policy and nothing more. It follows that the classroom distinction between the unproblematic, legal case and the policy-oriented case is a mere artifact: each could as well be taught in the opposite way."

To what extent is this statement true or untrue? Specifically, use two or more cases we have studied this year (you can use cases from the first semester) to illustrate the extent to which you believe it is or is not true that "the classroom distinction between the unproblematic, legal case and the policy-oriented case is a mere artifact: each could as well be taught in the opposite way."

Here I had a choice. I could stick to my guns and say that his legal nihilism was bunk. Or, I could get a good grade. I choose the latter. I can rationalize it as simply learning to adopt the best interests for my client (here, me) by arguing in such a manner that will appeal to the court (here, Campos).

What was curious was finding what Campos was looking for. He gave us copies of past papers that received top marks. One was written at a fifth grade level. It was a "stream of conscience" of a new associate who was representing one of the clients from one of the cases in the casebook (Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condo Ass. Inc-- the "cat lady" case). The other paper was a discussion of the "decision matrix" (a glorified pro-con list) and did not mention Property Law until the eighth page.

These papers received top marks? Perhaps I should simply turn in a Haiku.
I like hiakus
Sometimes they do not make sense
Refrigerator

Instead, I managed to quote Dennis the Peasant and King Artur from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. I also included references to "Reverend" Jeremiah Wright. My crowning achievement, however, was referencing Third Amendment case law.

Yes, I am the master of BS.

A Sad Day

2008-05-01T23:32:00.004-06:00

My beloved Colorado Avalanche have lost their bid for Lord Stanley's Cup this year. The evil Red Wings have swept the Avs with an 8-2 victory. My friend Mount Virtus will certainly not let me hear the end of this defeat.

What can I say? The team has never been the same since Roy left. Roy carried the team far more than most people wanted to admit. This is certainly true since the team has lost its defense focus as soon as Ray Bourque left.

Nonetheless, credit should go the the Red Wings for a solid series and playoff run so far.

Congratulations Detroit. (ick, I threw up a little in my mouth...)

There is always next year....

Lesbian-on-Lesbian Action

2008-04-30T13:42:00.003-06:00

As an Ancient History major, I have heard a few corny history jokes with "Lesbian" in the punch line.

The term Lesbian originally referred to the people who lived on the Greek island Lesbos. Indeed, they were an important player in the Peloponnesian War. This knowledge, however, does not stop me from snickering every time the "Lesbian ambassador" was mentioned in class. (To be fair, I also snicker when my law professors say "but for" or "duty.")

Now, the AP is reporting that three Lesbians (of the island) are suing a Lesbian (homosexual women) group.

"My sister can't say she is a Lesbian," said Dimitris Lambrou. "Our geographical designation has been usurped by certain ladies who have no connection whatsoever with Lesbos," he said.

First, the line "My sister can't say she is a Lesbian":This must bring a chuckle. What more is there to say for that phrase? Second, I love the euphemism, "certain ladies." How politically correct and respectful!

Lambrou said the word lesbian has only been linked with gay women in the past few decades. "But we have been Lesbians for thousands of years," said Lambrou[.]

Lambrou has a point here. The homosexual community has usurped many words for their own identification. Other words have been thrust upon them. Either way, the modern speaker has a minefield to navigate lest he somehow refer to homosexuality. "Gay" once simply meant merry or happy. Lesbian referred to a person from the tiny Greek island. "Queer" simply meant odd or unusual. "Faggot" is really a term for kindling. Indeed, anyone who reads Foxe's Book of Martyrs will get quite a surprise if they did not know the true definition of faggot.

It will be interesting to see how this case turns out. Greece has long been known for its openness to "alternative" sexual choices. Thus, the courts may be reluctant to condemn in anyway the homosexual community. Yet, the Greek people are very proud of the heritage and land too. I would not want to grow up on Lesbos and have my sister thus teased for being a "Lesbian." Which side will win the tug of war?

Murderer On Campus

2008-04-29T17:00:00.002-06:00

Fellow blogger Rocky Mountain Neo-Con broke a major story at my alma mater. It seems that the Metro State Political Science Department will be inviting a former Iranian "Revolutionary" (read, "Murderer/Terrorist") to speak to my former school. The full story can be found here and here.

Metro is a great school. The professors care deeply that the students learn the material. Further, the school has a philosophy that the professors need to have real-world as well as academic credentials. But it appears that the Political Science Department is determined to undermine the school's credibility.

I remember Dr. Oneida Meranto (the PhD is suspect: it is in "Native American Studies" and the only school that offers a doctorate in that field is UC Berkley) and her diatribes against "white Christian males." Indeed, she was so radical that even very liberal friends of mine found it difficult to sit through her lectures. Once, when on tour through the American Indian History Museum, one of these liberal students expressed their boredom and lingering doubt that all of the Christians were "that bad." He received an "F" in that course. For his privacy's sake, I do not fully disclose who this person is, but I can personally vouch that he was a solid B student and in now way deserved the F. Indeed, he was a socialist and we rarely agreed on anything. The problem was that he dared to question, even in the slightest, Meranto's philosophy. You can imagine the issues I had when I took her course.

Yet, there are good people in the Political Science Department too. Dr. Norman Provizer taught me more about Constitutional Law than I learned in the course with the same name in law school. He is also an nationally-renowned expert on jazz. Dr. Robert Hazan, the chair of the department, is a kind and generous man who actually gives a fair reading of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Indeed, he was born in Turkey and gives an insider's view to politics for the entire middle east.

Perhaps poli-sci simply attracts extremists and weirdos. I cannot explain why my alma mater has so disgraced its name to allow a terrorist to speak to the school. It makes me ashamed to say I went there. Perhaps the school will wake up one day.

Christian License Plates

2008-04-24T19:09:00.003-06:00

My friend Dan pointed me to this CNN story. A Florida state representative has proposed a bill to create a new license plate which reads "I BELIEVE" and bears the image of a stained-glass window featuring a cross. (photo credit: AP)

There were some interesting quotes in the article.

The problem with the state manufacturing the plate is that it "sends a message that Florida is essentially a Christian state" and, second, gives the "appearance that the state is endorsing a particular religious preference," said Howard Simon, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida.

This is the boilerplate, standard response by the ACLU on any indication of Christianity in the public sphere. My guess is that Mr. Simon had not even seen the proposed plate. Even if he had seen it, his response was not reasoned out based on these peculiar facts. Instead, the response is the product of a kneejerk reaction to any cross seen in public.

What is more interesting is what Rep. Kelly Skidmore (D) said:

It's not a road I want to go down. I don't want to see the Star of David next. I don't want to see a Torah next. None of that stuff is appropriate to me," said Skidmore, a Democrat who voted against the plate in committee. "I just believe that."

Why are there two references to Judaism? This double reference may be a slip of the tongue but it smacks of anti-Semitic animus. She may have wished to refer to either the Star and Crescent or the Koran of Islam. (Often, politicians use the “Big Three” of monotheism when discussing religious access.) Yet, she mentions Judaism twice about a case of a Christian symbol, which is suspicious.

Finally:

Simon, of the ACLU, said approval of the plate could prompt many other groups to seek their own designs, and they could claim discrimination if their plans were rejected. That could even allow the Ku Klux Klan to get a plate, Simon said.

This is a true problem when allowing the state’s imprimatur to be lent to a cause or issue. The actual example (A KKK license plate) is highly unlikely, but often used when someone wants to shut down the free access side of the argument. “Should we let the KKK or Nazis do it too?” is nice and pejorative so as to make the idea seem ridiculous.

Normally, I would say Florida is wasting time and money on the idea. However, the bill has little chance of passing, given the recent history of similar plates. The best way to look at is to realize any day a legislature is arguing about irrelevant topics is a day they cannot pass new taxes.

Disclaimer.

2008-04-24T15:44:00.001-06:00

I just scheduled my interview with the Colorado Supreme Court justice. I am so excited. As for other postings for the next few weeks, I may be intermittent due to finals. I hope you understand. Keep checking up on the blog because you never know when I will be posting something in an attempt to procrastinate studying.

Eh...

2008-04-24T07:54:00.002-06:00

I'm currently trying to work on the "final" paper for Property. The honor code and paper instructions both prohibit me from discussing the paper topic here for now. (I will divulge it after the deadline has passed.)

The great rule of persuasion is "Know thy judge." That is, know who they are, what they think, and what arguments would work best on them. I have thus been researching Paul Campos. It seems he has made some interesting comments recently that stand against academic freedom. See Brain Leiter's scathing reply to Campos.

Further, the man is a legal nihilist: the law is nothing but arbitrary pronouncements from the bench. There are no rules or logical conclusions. It's all vanity and navel contemplation.

This paper should be interesting.

Genetics and Privacy

2008-04-23T21:09:00.000-06:00

Lawmakers are close to passing a bill to prohibit insurance companies and employers from discriminating on the basis of genetic information. (HT: Dan) Their reasons for restricting the use of DNA and genetic encoding information in the determination for insurance or employment stem from a concern of the right to medical privacy and the infancy of medical knowledge on genetics and disease.

The right to medical privacy and the doctor-patient privilege is sacred to our modern society.

The fear is that a company will do a DNA “background check” on its employees or applicants to determine how many useful years of work and an estimate of healthcare costs of a person. Thus, if a person were to be genetically predisposed to breast cancer or a cardiac disease, then the company may not hire that person to save on the bottom line.

The insurance fear is tangential to the employment fear: people with “bad genes” will not be able to buy health insurance because they are “too great a risk” for the insurance companies. Remember, insurance companies are primarily investment corporations that take the premiums of their clients and invest that money in the markets for profit. The more they pay out, the less money they invest and consequently, the less money they make.

Further, medical knowledge on genes and disease is in its infancy.

Some genes seem to flag a greater probability of getting a disease, but that flag is not dispositive. A person can have a “bad gene” and never get ill, and conversely, a person with “good genes” could succumb to breast cancer. There are too many variables to the health of a person (exercise, diet, employment, emotional health, etc.) to use genetics as a deciding factor in employment or insurance decisions.

The reality of our world is that entities crave quantitative data for every decision. Statistics are in vogue with academia, the media, and the man on the street. Every week there is a new statistical study on the effects of caffeine and alcohol on health. USA Today is famous (or infamous) for its colorful charts. The RBI stat in baseball is the most overused and over-analyzed stat in all of sports. Companies are using credit scores in their determination for hiring candidates. In short, our culture has shed its ability to decide abstract ideas based on evidence and philosophies in favor of easy, mathematical decisions based on numbers. Turning to genes and the probabilities of disease are just another story in this line.

Friggin Drama UPDATE

2008-04-22T18:02:00.000-06:00

So, there was a great backlash against the change in exam rules. Many people marched up to the dean's office to complain. Others simply stood around, complaining. Still others were jubilant that the exam would be shorter and could not see past their self interest to understand why their classmates were upset.

Isn't this the true reaction that most groups of people will have to adversity? Some complain and moan, but do nothing. Others see the change in their favor and belittle those who believe otherwise. Finally, some take action and go.

This time, I did not take action. For me, my interest lies in the shorter exam. A nine-hour exam steals my energy for two days afterward. However, as I mentioned in my previous post, I prepared for a take home exam. Either way, I gain in one respect and lose in another. So, I took no action.

The amount of drama and caucusing that resulted from this last minute change amazed me. You would think that the Dems and GOPers were fighting in the House of Representatives over funding the Iraq war. Name calling. Raised voices. Frustration. Note to the world: when it is exam time, do not provoke the law students.

***UPDATE***

Now, as I post this, I just received an email from our con law professor. She has declared that the exam is back to the original nine-hour-at-home format. However, she did mention writing more questions and "changing the exam." Call me paranoid, but it appears to me like we are going to be punished via more questions on the exam for our challenge to her authority.

The fun continues.

Friggin' Drama

2008-04-22T14:34:00.000-06:00

Today my con law professor announced a drastic change in the rules for our exam. Instead of an all-day, take-home exam, we would face a three-hour, in-class exam. Further, she was not sure if the exam would start at 8:00 or 13:15. (Side note, I use the 24 hour clock). All of this was announced at the end of class today— one week before the exam. We will only meet one more time before the exam.

To say the least, I prepare for a nine hour take-home exam much differently than an in-class exam of a third of the time. What bothered me more is how the exact exam time and length was left in the air. Since everything is in flux, I fear the exam even more. One week before exams is no time to change the rules.

If that was not enough, she refuses to answer “any questions of substance that may be part of the exam.” That means the con law professor will not answer questions about con law. One student did try to ask a question about the right to contract and the amount of judicial review the court would exercise on a law prohibiting contract provisions. He was flatly denied. Her reasoning:

“If I answer, then you will suppose that I will not ask such a question on the exam. If I refuse to answer, then you will deduce what will be on the exam by my silence. That would be unfair.”

Hopefully, we could reasonably deduce that some sort of con law doctrine will be on the con law exam. So, as long as she answers any and all questions on the substance of con law, we would still have no indication of what exactly the exam will cover. Of course, this is logical and this professor hates logic.

I am counting down the days…

One last note: I noticed that much of this blog has thus far dealt with my life at law school. This is because I literally live at the school right now as I study for the upcoming exams. Perhaps, once this semester is over, I will be able to explore other topics.

Hang in there with me.

In Demand

2008-04-21T23:36:00.000-06:00

So, I have two jobs line up for the summer. One is part time, the other has not been determined yet. One is with the Solicitor General for the state. The other is for a Justice on the state supreme court. Most likely, I will find a way to do both (if they are willing to share me). Both people will give FANTASTIC experience.

Who knew that I would be in such demand?

Who Am I?

2008-04-18T22:37:00.002-06:00

I am a Christian. More specifically, I am an Evangelical Christian. Christ is my Savior, Redeemer, King, and Friend. I strive to live my best for His glory. Yet, I am fallible and still a work in progress. I am a Baptist (more technically Anabaptist) theologically but I typically attend nondenominational churches. Paul’s doctrine of the “Liberty in Christ” guides my actions.

Politically, I stand at the line between “Very Conservative with Libertarian Leanings” and “Conservative Libertarian.” The government exists only to protect life, liberty, and property. The government should not attempt to socially engineer its subjects. Being a “Christian nation” is an effect of our culture and society following the truths of Christ, which cannot be effectively mandated by law alone (see Europe’s “state churches”). However, the practice of religion in the public sphere (schools, courts, etc.) is a fundamental right of liberty and ought not be banned by an elitist judiciary. Further, abortion is homicide, and needs to the condemnation of the law (i.e. the government would be protecting life).

I am a native Coloradoan. I am proud of my home state and the rugged individualist attitude it exemplifies. As the major outpost between the coasts, Denver offers most of amenities of a major city with the ability to drive twenty minutes and be in the middle of a beautiful national park. Unfortunately, Colorado is moving away from a Wyoming attitude and more towards a California mentality. This is unfortunate. Rather than valuing freedom and self reliance, citizens are moving towards government dependency and regulation.

I am a law student. At the time of this posting, I am the newly-elected president of the school’s chapter of the Federalist Society. As a law student, I am overworked, over-caffeinated, and argumentative.

More of me will come out as this blog goes along— that is the purpose of a blog. However, this is a good introduction for now.