Senator Benjamin Wade of Ohio.
Sure, he was a radical Republican, a leading figure in Johnson's impeachment saga, and so forth.
But that aside, before the Civil War, in an era when caning politicians was sport, many legislators carried revolvers on their persons. Senator Wade upped the ante - He seems to have customarily carried a sawed-off shotgun under his coat on the Senate floor.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Quote of the week
There seems to be something "hard-wired" with the XY chromosome that leads boys to glance at a small moss-covered branch and immediately see an air-cooled, camouflaged, fully automatic 50-caliber Browning rifle with attachable bayonet.
--Prof. Jonathan Turley (of GW Law), Washington Post Feb. 25, 2007, "My Boys Like Shootouts"
--Prof. Jonathan Turley (of GW Law), Washington Post Feb. 25, 2007, "My Boys Like Shootouts"
Non commercial plug
My good friend Mr. Krull has been published online recently defending Lewis's place as a thinker in an ecclesiastical era which is after quick, easy answers. If you haven't read it yet (or if you have already read it, but want to help increase the number of hits his article gets ;-), check it out here.
And keep reading good books.
And keep reading good books.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Quote of the week
"The things I want to carry can't really be concealed."
--A co-worker of mine, on firearms permits
--A co-worker of mine, on firearms permits
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Quote of the week
From The Lion in Winter:
Prince John: He's got a knife!
Eleanor of Aquitaine: Of course he has a knife. We all have knives. It's 1183 and we're barbarians.
There are two versions of the movie. Though in general, I like the latter better, particularly Patrick Stewart as (a hirsute!) Henry II, King Phillip of France was better played by Timothy Dalton than Jonathan Rhys-Meyers.
Prince John: He's got a knife!
Eleanor of Aquitaine: Of course he has a knife. We all have knives. It's 1183 and we're barbarians.
There are two versions of the movie. Though in general, I like the latter better, particularly Patrick Stewart as (a hirsute!) Henry II, King Phillip of France was better played by Timothy Dalton than Jonathan Rhys-Meyers.
Friday, February 09, 2007
It would be a mistake
It would be a mistake when drafting a will to name the testator and executor as the same person.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
New favorite motto
(reportedly used by an Oklahoma law firm)
And if you don't like the grammar, sue me ;-)
Calcitromus gluteas sordes vilis.
And if you don't like the grammar, sue me ;-)
Thursday, January 25, 2007
In Defense of Alberto Gonzalez (pt. 1 of 2)
In response to: Wileyman @ Trinity Station
which was citing: Gonzalez questions Habeas Corpus
How does the Attorney General of the United States get off talking about no right to Habeas Corpus? Where to start this discussion - I'll go with a brief overview of Habeas Corpus law.
Like any area of law, add enough lawyers or politicians (or journalists), and things can get very technical and messy. First off, the Writ of Habeas Corpus was created more than five and a half centuries before the U.S. Constitution. So its existence is not in any way created by or dependent on our grand little document. The Constitution didn't and couldn't grant the right to the Writ because that right pre-existed the Constitution and was, in some way, assumed by it when the common law was kept. So in a literal view, the Attorney General is right from a merely historical method. (Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black used essentially this reasoning to argue in his Griswold dissent to say there was no constitutional right to privacy as would later be claimed in Roe v. Wade; on this logic, Black would probably agree with Gonzalez about whether the Constitution creates a right to habeas.) Sensing this is not going to settle the matter, however, I continue.
There are two written components to U.S. Habeas law: constitutional and statutory provisions. The constitutional provisions dealing with Habeas are pretty sparse, stating merely that
The Writ, already in force and therefore not creatable by the Constitution, is given certain limitations and protections by this constitutional phrase. This provision is in Article I, Section 9, which has led some people to assert that only Congress can suspend the writ. Regardless of the merit of that argument, it has not been the practice.
Congress does, however, have considerable influence over how the writ is implemented. For instance, Congress has authority to (with certain limitations) regulate how the federal court system works. Pursuant to that power, it has passed a number of laws dealing with how habeas can be brought (e.g., 25 U.S.C. §1303 on how Indians can utilize habeas).
This, as I understand it, is the context for the Gonzalez's comments before the Senate Judiciary Committee: Sen. Specter and the AG were discussing Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004), which dealt with how Guantanamo detainees could file habeas writs. The two got into a discussion regarding whether the Supreme Court was discussing statutory or constitutional rights to habeas relief, with Gonzalez saying the court merely looked at whether the detainees could bring habeas petitions under what Congress had said was allowable habeas relief (above the constitutional/common law minimum). Specter favored the view that the Court was holding what the Constitutional minimum was. Gonzalez then, as best I can tell, attempted to refute Specter by saying that it had to be statutory, since the Constitution didn't create a habeas right. Habeas existed before the Constitution, so the Constitution could not inform us on what that right was; it can only speak to the circumstances where it can be suspended.
Well, I have covered the Gonzalez quote itself, but would like to get to some of the underlying issues; in part II of this post, look for:
Extraordinary tribunals, unlawful combatants, Geneva Convention, and Hamden
which was citing: Gonzalez questions Habeas Corpus
(Note also that this brief discussion will include much of the information I was thinking of putting in an Alberto Gonzalez post and must suffice as a substitute for the same.)
How does the Attorney General of the United States get off talking about no right to Habeas Corpus? Where to start this discussion - I'll go with a brief overview of Habeas Corpus law.
Like any area of law, add enough lawyers or politicians (or journalists), and things can get very technical and messy. First off, the Writ of Habeas Corpus was created more than five and a half centuries before the U.S. Constitution. So its existence is not in any way created by or dependent on our grand little document. The Constitution didn't and couldn't grant the right to the Writ because that right pre-existed the Constitution and was, in some way, assumed by it when the common law was kept. So in a literal view, the Attorney General is right from a merely historical method. (Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black used essentially this reasoning to argue in his Griswold dissent to say there was no constitutional right to privacy as would later be claimed in Roe v. Wade; on this logic, Black would probably agree with Gonzalez about whether the Constitution creates a right to habeas.) Sensing this is not going to settle the matter, however, I continue.
There are two written components to U.S. Habeas law: constitutional and statutory provisions. The constitutional provisions dealing with Habeas are pretty sparse, stating merely that
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
The Writ, already in force and therefore not creatable by the Constitution, is given certain limitations and protections by this constitutional phrase. This provision is in Article I, Section 9, which has led some people to assert that only Congress can suspend the writ. Regardless of the merit of that argument, it has not been the practice.
Congress does, however, have considerable influence over how the writ is implemented. For instance, Congress has authority to (with certain limitations) regulate how the federal court system works. Pursuant to that power, it has passed a number of laws dealing with how habeas can be brought (e.g., 25 U.S.C. §1303 on how Indians can utilize habeas).
This, as I understand it, is the context for the Gonzalez's comments before the Senate Judiciary Committee: Sen. Specter and the AG were discussing Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004), which dealt with how Guantanamo detainees could file habeas writs. The two got into a discussion regarding whether the Supreme Court was discussing statutory or constitutional rights to habeas relief, with Gonzalez saying the court merely looked at whether the detainees could bring habeas petitions under what Congress had said was allowable habeas relief (above the constitutional/common law minimum). Specter favored the view that the Court was holding what the Constitutional minimum was. Gonzalez then, as best I can tell, attempted to refute Specter by saying that it had to be statutory, since the Constitution didn't create a habeas right. Habeas existed before the Constitution, so the Constitution could not inform us on what that right was; it can only speak to the circumstances where it can be suspended.
Well, I have covered the Gonzalez quote itself, but would like to get to some of the underlying issues; in part II of this post, look for:
Extraordinary tribunals, unlawful combatants, Geneva Convention, and Hamden
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Entertaining stories
If you ever want a really good laugh, ask the driver of a late-night bus route about his experience with inebriated persons on his route. Besides the obvious ones about people who can't count change for the fare, or ask whether this is the bus they want, forget the answer, and come back a couple minutes later and ask again, here are some of the gems I got from my driver the other night:
So finally, I'll end this with a recipe. It isn't a particularly good recipe, but it has two virtues: it is simple, and it is the only palatable way I know of to get rid of extra Mountain Dew.
- One night a regular gets on the bus, and the driver stops at what he knows to be the guy's stop, even though the guy didn't pull the stop signal. The guy doesn't stir. The pause is getting uncomfortable, so the driver gets on the intercom and says something to the effect of, "Man in the back, this is your stop." Still nothing. Well, what can you do? About an hour later, the guy wakes up, comes to the front and asks, "did I miss my stop?" The driver let him know they would be around to his stop again in about ten minutes.
- The bus went around a corner one night, and a guy with excessive alcohol in his system slides off the seat and wham, hits the floor. The guy doesn't move, so the driver slows and calls back asking if everything is ok. After a minute, the guy raises his head and says yes, he's fine, he just is still thinking about getting up.
- The driver is over at the lost and found office one day when he hears a call come in. It soon becomes apparent that the guy had lost his wallet on the bus (since otherwise he wouldn't have had money for his fare), but had no idea which bus he had taken, what time, or any other useful information. (Besides which, at least on this transit system, most wallets lost on buses don't turn up.)
- One night a guy tries to board the bus, the driver asks him to pay the fare, the guy kind of looks at him puzzled; the driver knowing he hasn't gotten through says again, "Sir, you have to pay the fare to ride." Whereupon, the guy looks frustrated and wailingly slurs, "Why do I have to pay? All I want to do is go home." After a little more equally unsatisfying negotiation, the police ended up having to become involved.
So finally, I'll end this with a recipe. It isn't a particularly good recipe, but it has two virtues: it is simple, and it is the only palatable way I know of to get rid of extra Mountain Dew.
The Mountain-rita
8 oz. Mountain Dew, chilled
1.5 oz. Jose Cuervo Gold Tequila
Mix
Add chipped ice if desired
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Link of the day
Knife Rights, an advocacy and informational organization that finally asks, "um, why should it make a difference for law enforcement purposes whether my pocket knife is designed not to snap shut and take off my fingers when I use it?"
Thursday, January 11, 2007
On to the last semester
This law thing is about to wrap up. That is a good feeling. This semester will be busy, at least initially. I have two skills courses (which means doing things in and out of class like negotiating deals, etc.) which will be a little time intensive, particularly for the first few weeks of the semester. At least that is two fewer finals to take.
Additionally, two of the courses are "problem approach" (as opposed to Socratic, lecture, or any other teaching style you can think of), so I will actually have to be on the ball when attending those classes, since the class will require hard answers, not just intelligent talking about the issues.
Course list:
Then the bar next summer...
Additionally, two of the courses are "problem approach" (as opposed to Socratic, lecture, or any other teaching style you can think of), so I will actually have to be on the ball when attending those classes, since the class will require hard answers, not just intelligent talking about the issues.
Course list:
- Secured Transactions
- Corporate Taxation
- Law of the EU
- Agency & Partnership
- Negotiations
- Trial Advocacy
Then the bar next summer...
Friday, December 15, 2006
Advice for law students
If your professor ever uses the word "interplay" in class, the topic under discussion will be the exam. No exceptions.
One more to go (this afternoon)...
One more to go (this afternoon)...
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Bird songs changing to rap in urban environments
This being finals, I will provide a link and you get to do the legwork. While "rap" may be a bit of an overstatement, it is how the Beeb portrayed it, so I'll leave it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6209498.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6209498.stm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)