|
1 0 . 2 6 . 0 6 Reading up on for con law the separations of powers and the more recent cases that have come down in the supreme court regarding the expansions of executive powers and the Military Commissions Act that just was recently passed. It was interesting to see another angle based on my readings while watching a late night cable news broadcast special on the current administration in regards to the VP's rumored quest to re-establish executive power of the presidency that was damaged fom watergate and the Iran-contra scandals. I continue to be baffled at people who think nothing of the broad authorization of power for the executive, or any one branch, especially those who seem to think that there is no risk involved. I was talking to a friend recently about the MCA legislation and he was quick to say that people are overreacting, that even if the government had been authorized to suspend habeas corpus and hold people indefinitely, there is no way that the government would go as far as to use that power. I didn't even bother explaining it to my friend that this sort of thing has already happened, at least twice in history (civil war, WWII) and apparently a third time in the days following 9-11. There are already reports now of as many as 14,000 individuals on American soil that apparently were rounded up and whisked away to secret federal prisons, and eventually sent to gitmo for interrogation and torture. Some of the stories from those that have been since released are starting to come out more in the mainstream media. Unless you've been living under a rock these past 5 yaers, it would be obvious that we have succumbed to a systmem of justice that is more willing to assign guilt by association, either by religion, ethinicity, or language. The concepts of due process are being eroded under the promise of security. The MCA legislation allows the executive branch to designate any individual, non-US citizen and citizen alike, to be deemed as an enemy combatant, provided the individual purposefully or knowingly provided material support to the enemy. The standard for this designation sounds like one that could be easily spinnable by a general counsel. Not to get too much into the mens rea (state of mind) arguements that comes with being a law student, purposefully and knowingly are supposedly at the higher end of a guilty mind, followed by reckless or negligent. The mens rea present a standard of which the prosecution must prove a case. The higher the standard, (P,K,R,N) required by the law corresponds with the level of intent that the defendant had in committing the crime. I've read some right-wing bloggers disregard the MCA comprimise provision when it comes to holding American citizens as enemy combatants on the basis that P,K is a high standard to meet. Unfortunately like anything else in law, standards and theories argued in the abstract are always vulnerable to the poltical, economic, and social signs of the times, all disguised as a well crafted legal argument, which is what lawyers are trained to do. Besides this misses the original point - Why allow this broad and seemingly limitless expansion of power in the first place? Do we want to live in fear of our own government as well as the terrorists? The constitution adheres to several systems of checks and balances of power for any branch, and at least the first two times were deemed constitutional by the judiciary in part because the country was at war, and ruled that it came under the president's wartime powers of being able to temporarily suspend habeas corpus in times of war, or national emergency. This time around it was up to congress to excercise their check on power by recognizing the unconstituional nature of this law and not vote for it. It seems like a little more than half of congress fell assleep at the wheel on this on. Lets see what the judiciary will do when this comes up for appeal. Having a decent weeks with class, I'm feeling like everything is clicking in my brain and I'm getting a good handle on all the recent material that is being covered. I suspect it has to do with the unit topics that we're covering. 1 0 . 1 9 . 0 6 Trying to make it a point to post at least once a week. I recall back in my grad school and undergrad days writing down the day to day in this online journal or "blog" was a welcome break from the trials of academia. I suppose this time around it is a little different with me going to school at night now while working full time, but I think the occaisional post here and there is actually beneficial, maybe even theraputic. Life is moving along. A lot of stuff going on in the world, I'm anxiously waiting for an October surprise, mainly in the form of a new invasion, or worse yet, a major terrorist hit of sorts that would embolden the extremists both abroad and at home. I say extremists at home largely due to the recent legislation that has passed that has essentially put all Americans in a legal classification that might possible lead them to being designated terrorists or enemy combatants. I really and honestly do not understand those people who blindly support the president as if he is a symbol of America itself. I think that he has crossed so many lines that he vaugely resembles any of the principles or values that this country was supposedly founded on. yet at the same time I'm extremely cynical in that if the American people decide to vote this election year to maintain the status quo in partisan structure AGAIN, then maybe it is all deserved. There's a really good article in this national law journal free news-magazine that is distributed at probably every law school in the country. I recall seeing one at UH, UW-Madison, Georgetown, GW, AU and CUA all at one point or another, sitting in a nice black wire basket. The article has to do with the ups and downs in moods that law students experience throughout their experience in training to become attorneys. Aside from some very realistic examples from classes and studying, the author had a very good graphical representation of the psychological highs and lows that are rampant in law school, ranging from elation to utter dispair. The article closes in telling future employers (or aspiring law students I presume) some advice when talking to graduates of any law program who seem overly enthusiastic about their experiences. Sure, highs and lows are to be expected in any discipline, but I'd argue that they are much more extreme in law school, simply in the level of willingness that the material (and the professor) are willing to fuck with your head. I say this after a relatively good week in which I feel like I'm not just keeping up with the class, but am actually exceeding expectations. things are just clicking along, readings, assignments, I even found myself frowning to myself after hearing the gunners in my classes volunteer their answers only to be shot down by the professor. Of course we'll see what next week brings. Maybe I'll feel like a total dumbass and question why I'm putting myself through all of this. its a vicious cycle, I tell you. dont' let anyone convince you otherwise. there will be time of doubt while you're in law school, and telling yourself that this is just "another way of thinking" will only get you so far. I tell the numerous people and family friends I run into asking me about my take on law school that simply It's a shark pool, be ready to swim. 1 0 . 1 2 . 0 6 Another week or so, life goes on. I relocated my workspace to a desk with a window, its only been a couple of days but I think the change in scenery is a big morale booster. I got so used to being walled in padded cubicle land its a good change of pace to see some blue sky and sunlight again. I have a nice view of the church on the corner, its funny I've walked by it so many times but never really noticed how big it was until a couple of days ago. In other news, N Korea tests a nuclear bomb in an underground blast, causing a lot of panic and concern in the region. Some of the more irresponsible bloggers are trying to downplay US reports that based on the richter scale readings in the region it may have been a dud, or a cache of conventional weapons used as a bluff. The same bloggers are the ones to point out the limits of N Korean missle technology, or the inability to miniturize a nuclear warhead as reasons for the US not to be concerned. I don't see why anyone should be trying to downplay a threat to peace and stability in an entire region. Either way, at least the immediate response looks like economic sanctions. Japan was the first to start banning N Korean ships from port, and all imports. Meanwhile the N Korea rhetoric in response is very odd, I guess it goes to show that even your mortal enemies can be trade partners in this globalized economy. Its almost like trade with me or I'll attack. Or more like give me my UN sanctioned rations or I'll attack. Lingering over all of this is the 60+ year grudge of Japanese-Korean relations, most recently the Japanese occupation during WWII. I remember reading once that N Korea said that they would nuke Tokyo before Seoul. I picked up a graphic novel from Kramerbooks about a week ago (before the test) about a western animator working for two months in Pyongyang. Apparently a lot of cartoon animation is being outsourced to N Korea now, and it gives people a glimpse of life in the hermit state. It makes for quick and easy reading which is a good change of pace from the thick case books I've been lugging around. More and more I'm seeing little reminders of my undergraduate experiences, my first fromal introduction to the graphic novel medium was in a comparative lit class as a sophomore. It might be the age I'm reaching, or maybe this grueling method by which law is taught, but in many ways I miss the inspriration of certain undergraduate classes. Reading and learning about concepts for the first time that I now dismissed as common sense, being mentally energetic to think about something in depth, and then dig deeper. 1 0 . 6 . 0 6 Busy couple of weeks in the world and around town. Latest DC gossip is about the congressman who resigned after his online transgressions with 16 year old boys came out in the news. Kind of sad, a blatant abuse of position and power, even sicker is that the allegations go back as far as 1995, and through the impeachment hearings of a certain president who was having another scandal of his. Its also pretty fucking hypocritical that the party of supposed values is now forced to explain a statutory criminal in their leadership. Don't get started on how the Democrats are just as bad. They've had their share of scandels, but as Bill Maher on CNN said it pretty well, the Dems aren't the ones preaching from a high horse, trying to legislate morals into law. Now it seems like the whole thing is becoming a big gay bashing event for the republicans, its almost as if they're more offended that they had a mahu in their midst as opposed to a potential child-fucker. Thats sick if you ask me. all around sick. Of course adding to the irony was that he was some chair or high member of the commision for exploited and abused children. Did it ever occur to him that his nighttime excursions online might've been adding to the problem? Another run into the socratic method, and I'm still batting a pretty low average on performance in front of the crowd. If there is a consolation, I am actually getting this stuff down pretty well conceptually, its just that I'm not used to answering in citation (never was, maybe never will be). I got stumped on not citing the obvious - namely, the definition of what cause of action I was arguing. Kind of dumb, I figured that theres no need to state the obvious, but thats not that obvious afterall. Irony is that the prof had earlier talked about how many of us the class could be really learning the law but not do well on any law exams since we haven't mastered how to present an argument like a law student would, in legalese, in statute citation form. This time I had actually read up and was prepared enough to give an answer, but I think more significant is that I'm getting a little numb on the anxiety of getting called on in class, it just doesn't seem to rattle me like it used to. I don't know if I'm starting to reject the method entirely given its shortcomings that I've been observing lately, or maybe I'm actually getting into the mode of things. maybe a few more topics to at to that short list from September - there is a "right" answer that most profs are looking for, and by the time they've taught the staple classes to more than a few groups of 1L and 2Ls they expect people to get it a lot quicker than last year's class did. There really isn't any of the "there's no such thing as a stupid answer/question/comment" in law school. if you dont' answer right the first time around, the professor will look at you strangely and pause if they're nice, maybe lightly scold you at your lack of depth in answering the question on the spot, or maybe even scream at you for a few minutes - it varies by school and class I'm sure. Not a very relaxed or friendly environment for learning thats for sure. More like fire under the okole, which is good since it motivates you. I guess I don't think it should be too friendly, but honestly after a couple of weeks of being on the edge of your seat, it gets kind of old. |