xtitsx: (Default)
( 18 Sep 2017 06:33 pm)
the alarm went off at 8:25am Monday morning for Week Four of Law School.
time goes quickly.
but not quickly enough.
if i had my druthers, i'd be done with this shit already, but i guess there is still a lot more i have to learn.
i tended to my morning things, kissed my girls goodbye and left the apartment at 9:10am, giving myself a half hour to get to school.
the ride to school is only about ten minutes, plus i need maybe another ten to get my stuff from my locker and get myself all set up, but, i wanted to budget another bit of time just in case my TITScycle gave me any shit.
last week, when i would try to start the TITScycle in the mornings the ignition wouldn't catch.
i would have to sit there for five minutes turning the thing on over and over again, revving the engine all the while until finally it stayed on.
this time, though, i wanted to experiment with “the choke” which is a switch they have on motorcycles and lawnmowers that people sometimes need to fiddle with under certain circumstances.
so i fiddled with the choke and it turns out the circumstance applied and on my second time trying to start the TITScycle, it started up just fine.
when the weather is cold, use the choke.
i learned something new.
then i went speeding off down the highway, trying not to crash and die.

in Constitutional Law at 9:40am we continued talking about the Dormant Commerce Clause, which is a subject we started the week previous.
as i explained before [or maybe i didn't] the Dormant Commerce Clause is everything that is left unregulated by the Federal government that the States can then step in and regulate.
then we talked about the analytical model for evaluating the Commerce Clause and the Dormant Commerce Clause and whether or not any given legislation on commerce will pass Constitutional muster.
for the Federal Government, whos power to regulate interstate commerce comes straight out of the constitution, legislation is considered to be constitutional by dealt.
when challenged, all courts get to ask is whether Congress had a rational basis for passing this legislation and if the Solicitor General doesn't offer any explanation in their own defense, the Courts will often offer one.
for States operating under the Dormant Commerce Clause, legislation cannot not be either discriminatory against interstate commerce on its face nor can it be economic protectionism.
we used the example of Texas passing a law saying that any barbecue sold in the state has to be beef and cannot be pork.
never mind that Texas-style beef barbecue is the correct form of barbecue, that kind of regulation would still be unconstitutional.
it would be discriminatory on its face if Texas said “any barbecue sold in in the state has to be beef and cannot be pork unless it is pork from Texas pigs...” and it would be economic protectionism if Texas said “any barbecue sold in the state has to be beef and cannot be pork” because the end result would be a barrier to economic activity between the states.
that kind of legislation would be subject to strict scrutiny from the Courts and likely would not stand.
finally, a third analytical model for evaluating the Commerce Clause and the Dormant Commerce Clause is somewhere in between Rational Basis and Strict Scrutiny, it is called the Pike's Balancing Test and it asks the Court to evaluate the interests of the State in regulating whatever it is trying to regulate against the interests of the people who want it to remain unregulated.
all of that makes pretty good sense to me, but we spent a good long while going over it because some of my classmates were being obtuse.

after a ten minute break in the middle of class we came back to talk about legitimate reasons a State might pass legislation that infringes on trade between the states.
health, safety and welfare of the citizenry are acceptable reasons to pass legislation regulating commerce that would pass both Pike's Balancing Test and Strict Scrutiny but, of course, the problem is that every legislature ever is going to say they are looking out for the health, safety and welfare of the citizenry in whatever the hell laws they are trying to pass, no matter how offensive to interstate trade they might be in practice.
Courts have to analyze the actual effect of the law in question, not the intent of the legislature.
as an example we talked about California's efforts at quarantining agriculture, how on every road and interstate leading into California they've got checkpoints set up where you've got to stop and turn over any produce you've got in your car.
though, the thing about quarantine laws is that they've got to be done in the least restrictive way possible and there has to be a way to do it that is less restrictive then that.
as a class we decided that California's agricultural checkpoints probably aren't Constitutional but i don't think we want to bother trying to smuggle a bushel of apples into the state as a test case.

after Constitutional Law i went down to the library to sit and work on some homework for an hour, then spent a half hour walking around the building chit-chatting with people and nibbling from a baggie of Cheerios that the PSE packed me for lunch.
in the student lunchroom i talked for a few minutes with a Mexican guy who was in my First Year section last year.
we weren't friends but we can chit-chat occasionally.
he was watching something on his phone without headphones, just playing it loud and obnoxious for all the rest of the lunchroom to hear.
i thought this was only a thing that poor trash did but this guy is obviously smart enough to get into Law School so i don't know what his problem was.
i went over to see what he was watching and it turned out to be a show on the YouTube where people watch Game Of Thrones.
he wasn't watching actual Game Of Thrones he was just watching a video of a room full of people all watching the show and having over-the-top reactions to things that happen.
which doesn't make a lick of sense, but apparently that's a thing now-a-days.
fucking Millennial. their need to be a part of something is pathological.

in Civil Procedure at 1:30pm we talked about Diversity Jurisdiction, which is where Federal Courts can rule on state law under certain circumstances.
there are two ways -and only two ways- to file a lawsuit in Federal court, the first is if it concerns a 'Federal question' that is, a Constitutional matter, and the second is Diversity Jurisdiction, where the parties to a law suit live in different states.
it gets complicated when you have multiple parties on either side, plaintiff and defendant.
some lawsuits can involve hundreds and thousands of people and not a single one of them can be from the same state as anybody on the other side.
well, they can be, but that's a different thing we haven't learned about.
for Diversity Jurisdiction, that's the way it's got to be.
also, or Diversity Jurisdiction, the monetary value of whatever is to be decided has to be over $75,000.
if you want to sue somebody who lives in a different state over an amount under $75,000, i don't know, i guess you're shit out of luck.

after Civil Procedure i had twenty minutes until my next class started so i went and walked around the building some more like i like to do.
in the vestibule near the elevators i found some cunts from LexusNexus had set up a table and were giving shit away.
LexusNexus is one of the two legal publishers that lawyers use to look up cases online.
LexusNexus and their competitor WestLaw charge lawyers thousands of dollars per year for access to their service so, in an effort to indoctrinate impressionable young law students into using their service and not the competitor's, periodically the LexusNexus and WestLaw people will turn up on campus with give-aways like a drug dealer or child-fiddler might do.
i went over to the LexusNexus table and grabbed a few pieces of candy and a banana.
they were also giving away Thermoses but i didn't take one. i don't need a Thermos that says LexusNexus on it.

in Legislation and Regulation at 3:10 we talked about different ways to think about meaning.
meaning can come from definitions, that is, a thing is made up of the way we describe it, or meaning can be prototypical, that is, a thing can be defined by how it compares to other things in the same category.
take a bird, for example.
when i say 'a bird,' you may think 'feathers' 'flies' 'lays eggs' 'gross feet' or you may just think of a Sparrow or a Robbin or a Parakeet or whatever your prototype of a bird is, and things that are kinda-sorta like it.
this is important for judicial interpretation, our Professor says, though i can't really see how.
the most noteworthy part of the day was when class was interrupted for nearly four long minutes as the entire class, all forty of us, stopped to watch an inordinately large insect buzz around the room.
then we were done for the day at 4:40pm.

//[ab irato ad astra]

October 2017

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 161718192021