JSA Georgetown Summer Session II, 2010
Congressional Law, Dr. Marty Sheffer
I. Judicial Liberalism
a. The first term was synonymous with Judicial Restraint.
b. However, you can’t do your job if you’re not doing anything activist. No decision is going to be non-activist.
II. Selective Incorporation
a. The Framers of incorporation believed that the first Amendment was particularly more important than any of the others.
i. All of this is a game of balancing whether rights in a particular case more important to an ordered free society than the free hand the government has to use.
III. Sherbert v. Warner
a. Even though there are rules and stuff for working hours and wages and all, no matter what the intent was, the fact is that the 1st amendment free practice is more important than any policing of any corporation.
IV. Caroine Products Co. Case (1938)
a. Footnote 4 – the possibility that when the first Amendment is at stake in the litigation, you actually reverse the presumption of constitutionality. An act of legislature that directly infringes will be presumed unconstitutional, and the full burden of proof will be placed on the government. This footnote becomes the “Preferred Freedom Test”. Freedom will always be preferred.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Constitutuional Law Notes: 07/29/10
JSA Georgetown Summer Session II, 2010
Congressional Law, Dr. Marty Sheffer
I. Rights/Liberties
a. Liberties are guaranteed without the need for government confirmation. Rights are enumerated to the people by the government.
i. Liberty: Freedom of speech
ii. Right: Right to remain Silent.
b. The Miranda warning is simply moving the constitutional guarantees are protected in the court an also on the street.
II. Liberties
a. You will find that the liberty debates in the notes change a lot in the language. Madison’s language is very different. The 1st amendment has the most significant changes.
i. 1st Amendment included the right of conscience, the right of religious believe or akin that doesn’t necessarily have to be directly tied to religion. This disappears.
III. Barron v. Baltimore (1833)
a. Marshall rules that the Bill of Rights were intended as limitations on the central government. Technically correct.
i. On two centuries of hind sight, he would’ve said that the state v. federal limitations by the bill of rights is not applied to both equally, so it needs to be incorporated.
IV. Civil Rights Act of 1866
a. Struck down by the Supreme Court, but the same text was later recycled for the 14th Amendment.
b. Civil Rights Cases of 1883 – only state action violates the law. These say nothing about individual discrimination.
V. Incorporation
a. Total Incorporation – through the due process clause of section I of the 14th amendment, the bill of rights gets incorporated, and made applicable to the states at the same level of coverage as in the federal government.
i. Some rights are incorporated at different times because some are simply more important.
b. Case by case – fundamental fairness.
VI. Free Exercise of Religion Clause
a. Two things with respect: Belief and action. In the great scheme of legal things in the U.S., the free exercise of religious belief is pretty much absolutely guaranteed. The practice or action is a problem.
i. Belief: Private faith.
ii. Worship: Practice of faith in a designated time and place.
iii. Action: Most forms of religious action are protected. Polygamy was the first that was not protected. Handling live copperhead snakes during religious ceremonies.
iv. Proselytizing: Vigorous conversion by any and all means.
b. Minersville School District v. Gorbitis -
c.
Cuts off here...
Congressional Law, Dr. Marty Sheffer
I. Rights/Liberties
a. Liberties are guaranteed without the need for government confirmation. Rights are enumerated to the people by the government.
i. Liberty: Freedom of speech
ii. Right: Right to remain Silent.
b. The Miranda warning is simply moving the constitutional guarantees are protected in the court an also on the street.
II. Liberties
a. You will find that the liberty debates in the notes change a lot in the language. Madison’s language is very different. The 1st amendment has the most significant changes.
i. 1st Amendment included the right of conscience, the right of religious believe or akin that doesn’t necessarily have to be directly tied to religion. This disappears.
III. Barron v. Baltimore (1833)
a. Marshall rules that the Bill of Rights were intended as limitations on the central government. Technically correct.
i. On two centuries of hind sight, he would’ve said that the state v. federal limitations by the bill of rights is not applied to both equally, so it needs to be incorporated.
IV. Civil Rights Act of 1866
a. Struck down by the Supreme Court, but the same text was later recycled for the 14th Amendment.
b. Civil Rights Cases of 1883 – only state action violates the law. These say nothing about individual discrimination.
V. Incorporation
a. Total Incorporation – through the due process clause of section I of the 14th amendment, the bill of rights gets incorporated, and made applicable to the states at the same level of coverage as in the federal government.
i. Some rights are incorporated at different times because some are simply more important.
b. Case by case – fundamental fairness.
VI. Free Exercise of Religion Clause
a. Two things with respect: Belief and action. In the great scheme of legal things in the U.S., the free exercise of religious belief is pretty much absolutely guaranteed. The practice or action is a problem.
i. Belief: Private faith.
ii. Worship: Practice of faith in a designated time and place.
iii. Action: Most forms of religious action are protected. Polygamy was the first that was not protected. Handling live copperhead snakes during religious ceremonies.
iv. Proselytizing: Vigorous conversion by any and all means.
b. Minersville School District v. Gorbitis -
c.
Cuts off here...
Constitutuional Law Notes: 07/28/10
JSA Georgetown Summer Session II, 2010
Congressional Law, Dr. Marty Sheffer
I. Economics
a. Four Periods of Economic Development
i. Marshall Period 1789-1835
1. There is a national economy and as such it is best to be regulated controlled, and it’s parameters enlarged by the national government. Congressional power comprehends all aspects of commercial life.” it is plenary, absolute, and it is complete power. It allows the legislature, to prescribe the rules in which commerce would be governed. Its exercise, would supersede any state attempts to regulate commerce. It included the regulation of economic activity even if conducted wholly within one state.
a. Taney period was possible because Marshall left out the word exclusive. The battle royal begins. The court is part of the national government and it takes sides.
ii. Taney Period 1835-1865
1. Taney Period: Taney is states’ rightist and argument for dual federalism reflects that. He said that this nation was one of constituently equal state. In Taney’s mind, it is “we the states” rather than “we the people.” Call him Lockian to the extreme. Believed in compact theory, but compact of states, not people.
a. What rights did the states retain? What’s left over goes to federal or central govt. Sovereignty has to be somewhere.
b. Dual federalism turns history upside down to the articles of confederation. Taney begins to allow state to regulate “intra state” commerce.
c. There’s very little of what we call “stream of commerce” that federal government can actually regulate.
c. Industrial Growth 1865-1932
i. Corporate America goes unregulated. Sugar Trust Case: 1890, first comprehensive anti-trust act. First attempt at national regulation on mega-scale. Things like monopolies would be questioned seriously. BC company is sugar trust monopoly, and Supreme Court rules that act doesn’t apply to sugar monopoly. Years later, rules that meat company out of Chicago does apply to the Sherman act.
ii. Cooley v. Port of Port Wardens: In the absence of national legislation, the states may temporarily regulate commerce until the national government properly enters the field. Under supremacy clause, national supremacy supersedes state supremacy. If we’re talking about something that requires national regulation and the national government is regulating, than an area of life goes unregulated.
iii. It is the court that will determine the legality of action taken by government and by the states. Set itself up as group of platonic guardians.
i. Think about what the government does: it’s main contribution to the economy during the latter part of the 19th century: building of the transcontinental railroads. Laissez-faire (Let alone) Did the government let the economy alone? Do you think these railroads would have been built if money hadn’t been given?
iv. EC Knight- government using Sherman act to pull back monopoly. Supreme Court had problems here. Is it the physical trip across numerous state lines?
i. When an issue comes up, major issues will remained unresolved. If production of something takes place within one state, it can’t be regulated as interstate commerce.
ii. The minute the court recognizes national economy, congress can regulate the national economy. It doesn’t matter if goods are manufactured with the intention on going to another state, it only becomes interstate commerce when it begins its journey in interstate commerce.
iii. According to the courts, the Sherman Act didn’t address monopolies or this issue. It was just to restrain states from forming together to make monopolies.
d. New Deal 1933-N/A
i. 1933-1935 Relief Acts were completely upheld by the Supreme Court.
i. 1935 – Unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the executive finally forced the courts to rule unconstitutional.
ii. Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton Railroad Company (1935) – the idea was that the company challenged the board that thought it would be appropriate for Railroad workers to put them under retirement funds. Because this is just a beneficiary to the worker, it’s not commerce at all! Finally there is something that you can’t rule away with the Commerce Clause.
iii. Checter Poultry v. U.S. (Hot Chicken Case) – the NIRA is declared unconstitutional.
Two Economic Systems – Socialism for the rich and Capitalism for everybody else.
Note: Primaries were instituted by the time Regan was in business because it is such a big business! When only state legislatures determine the candidates, it’s such a lack of revenue.
II. Property
a. From the genesis of this nation, property defined everything.
b. 1654 – Harrington wrote a book, The Commonwealth of Oceana, mostly talking about New England. He sets up a standard as to what a government from scratch should be doing in order to have some chance at a successful experiment.
i. If you’re going to create a democratic form, understand that you need to base it on a long term stability guarantee. Democracy on its own is not a stable government.
ii. His argument is to look around you, at the things that exist, and ask yourself, of all of the things that exist, what is the single most stable quality? By stable, Harrington is the one that is the most acceptable, appreciated, and is desirable to protect. PRIVATE PROPERTY.
1. Build democracy on private property.
III. Moarhead v. New York (1936) – five justices strike down the laws that establish the machinery to establish the wages for women and children in all industries. You can’t regulate industry in America!? Our freedom to establish contracts is unconstitutional by the due process clause.
IV. Heart of Atlanta Hotel v. -
Cuts off right there...
Congressional Law, Dr. Marty Sheffer
I. Economics
a. Four Periods of Economic Development
i. Marshall Period 1789-1835
1. There is a national economy and as such it is best to be regulated controlled, and it’s parameters enlarged by the national government. Congressional power comprehends all aspects of commercial life.” it is plenary, absolute, and it is complete power. It allows the legislature, to prescribe the rules in which commerce would be governed. Its exercise, would supersede any state attempts to regulate commerce. It included the regulation of economic activity even if conducted wholly within one state.
a. Taney period was possible because Marshall left out the word exclusive. The battle royal begins. The court is part of the national government and it takes sides.
ii. Taney Period 1835-1865
1. Taney Period: Taney is states’ rightist and argument for dual federalism reflects that. He said that this nation was one of constituently equal state. In Taney’s mind, it is “we the states” rather than “we the people.” Call him Lockian to the extreme. Believed in compact theory, but compact of states, not people.
a. What rights did the states retain? What’s left over goes to federal or central govt. Sovereignty has to be somewhere.
b. Dual federalism turns history upside down to the articles of confederation. Taney begins to allow state to regulate “intra state” commerce.
c. There’s very little of what we call “stream of commerce” that federal government can actually regulate.
c. Industrial Growth 1865-1932
i. Corporate America goes unregulated. Sugar Trust Case: 1890, first comprehensive anti-trust act. First attempt at national regulation on mega-scale. Things like monopolies would be questioned seriously. BC company is sugar trust monopoly, and Supreme Court rules that act doesn’t apply to sugar monopoly. Years later, rules that meat company out of Chicago does apply to the Sherman act.
ii. Cooley v. Port of Port Wardens: In the absence of national legislation, the states may temporarily regulate commerce until the national government properly enters the field. Under supremacy clause, national supremacy supersedes state supremacy. If we’re talking about something that requires national regulation and the national government is regulating, than an area of life goes unregulated.
iii. It is the court that will determine the legality of action taken by government and by the states. Set itself up as group of platonic guardians.
i. Think about what the government does: it’s main contribution to the economy during the latter part of the 19th century: building of the transcontinental railroads. Laissez-faire (Let alone) Did the government let the economy alone? Do you think these railroads would have been built if money hadn’t been given?
iv. EC Knight- government using Sherman act to pull back monopoly. Supreme Court had problems here. Is it the physical trip across numerous state lines?
i. When an issue comes up, major issues will remained unresolved. If production of something takes place within one state, it can’t be regulated as interstate commerce.
ii. The minute the court recognizes national economy, congress can regulate the national economy. It doesn’t matter if goods are manufactured with the intention on going to another state, it only becomes interstate commerce when it begins its journey in interstate commerce.
iii. According to the courts, the Sherman Act didn’t address monopolies or this issue. It was just to restrain states from forming together to make monopolies.
d. New Deal 1933-N/A
i. 1933-1935 Relief Acts were completely upheld by the Supreme Court.
i. 1935 – Unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the executive finally forced the courts to rule unconstitutional.
ii. Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton Railroad Company (1935) – the idea was that the company challenged the board that thought it would be appropriate for Railroad workers to put them under retirement funds. Because this is just a beneficiary to the worker, it’s not commerce at all! Finally there is something that you can’t rule away with the Commerce Clause.
iii. Checter Poultry v. U.S. (Hot Chicken Case) – the NIRA is declared unconstitutional.
Two Economic Systems – Socialism for the rich and Capitalism for everybody else.
Note: Primaries were instituted by the time Regan was in business because it is such a big business! When only state legislatures determine the candidates, it’s such a lack of revenue.
II. Property
a. From the genesis of this nation, property defined everything.
b. 1654 – Harrington wrote a book, The Commonwealth of Oceana, mostly talking about New England. He sets up a standard as to what a government from scratch should be doing in order to have some chance at a successful experiment.
i. If you’re going to create a democratic form, understand that you need to base it on a long term stability guarantee. Democracy on its own is not a stable government.
ii. His argument is to look around you, at the things that exist, and ask yourself, of all of the things that exist, what is the single most stable quality? By stable, Harrington is the one that is the most acceptable, appreciated, and is desirable to protect. PRIVATE PROPERTY.
1. Build democracy on private property.
III. Moarhead v. New York (1936) – five justices strike down the laws that establish the machinery to establish the wages for women and children in all industries. You can’t regulate industry in America!? Our freedom to establish contracts is unconstitutional by the due process clause.
IV. Heart of Atlanta Hotel v. -
Cuts off right there...
Constitutuional Law Notes: 07/26/10
JSA Georgetown Summer Session II, 2010
Congressional Law, Dr. Marty Sheffer
I. Federalism
a. When you create a system of government that is divided between central authority and the people, you have to realize that one of the two must emerge more supreme.
b. Article VI, Clause 2 is the Federal supremacy, in Amendment X the states are supreme. If they conflict, it refers to Article VI.
i. Marshall - National Federalism/Supremacy.
1. Marshall’s system is built on the proposition that the federal government conflict with each other in a world of superior and subordinate government respectively. This is to protect national power from state encroachment.
a. He also realized that the Supreme Court is an agency of the government, so therefore the Supreme Court must win. These decisions of the contest between the states and national aren’t state friendly.
2. This theory is dropped after his death and re-emerges after FDR’s attack.
3. Gibbons v. Ogden – he left out the word “exclusive” which meant that the states did have a role to play.
ii. Taney – dual supremacy.
1. According to Taney’s view, the U.S. came up with the idea that there are totally sovereign states. The Constitution is a compact of the separate states, not an ordinance of the people. (Kinda contradictory?) The National Government and the states face each other as equals across a fine line. Basically argues that the Supreme Court is the final say on the constitutionality of any action.
a. Strange, there is nothing mentioned in the original constitution about states…
2. N.Y. v. Miln (1837) – “The authority of the state is complete, unqualified, and exclusive.”
a. This basically states by Taney that the states define first what their power is. When their power is determined, the federal government picks up the leftovers.
3. Chism v. Georgia – does the Supreme Court have the ability to decide something between an individual and the states? The court says yes. The power of the court to hear a question extends to controversies between an individual and a state. 11th amendment is quickly passed.
4. Note that if there should be Federal influence where there is nothing yet, the states operate until the Federal regulation can come in and the Federal Regulation supersedes it.
5. Hammer v. Dagenhart – mining and stuff is not commerce, but when it crosses state lines, it is inevitably commerce.
II. Printz v. U.S.
a. The court strikes down provisions on the basis that the federals may not compel the states to act a federal regulatory program, and in this case regulation of gun use.
III. National League of ___ v. Usery (1976) – Fair Labor Standards Act, Overtime pay clause. The original act specifically excluded the states form its coverage. 1974 added more provisions. By these amendments, Congress extended the minimum wage to all public jobs and political subdivisions. Rehnquist’s opinion – while the 10th amendment has been characterized as a truism, stating merely that all is retained what is not surrendered, the amendment expressly declares the constitutional policy that Congress may to exercise power that impairs the states’ integrity or the ability to function affectively in the federal system. We have repeatedly recognized that there are different attributes of sovereignty that are attached to the state governments that may not apply to Congress because the constitution prohibits it from exercising the authority in that manner.
IV. Pensylvania v. Nelson (1956) – Pennsylvania Sedition Act statute states that sedition against the state or the federal government is punishable, the dude is charged for federal threat of Communism. Does the Smith Act of 1940 (Not intended for Communism, just Nazism) supersede the Pennsylvania Sedition Act? They ruled yes. This was a Federal decision, not a Taney Dual Federalism decision.
V. New York and Saratoga Springs Commission v. U.S. (1946) – Issue is over bottled water. Can you put a federal tax on a state drawn resource of water? Yes. The Federal government is of all the states, so therefore they have to be under laws passed by Congress, so therefore the states had already approved it. Dual federalism can’t be applied.
Congressional Law, Dr. Marty Sheffer
I. Federalism
a. When you create a system of government that is divided between central authority and the people, you have to realize that one of the two must emerge more supreme.
b. Article VI, Clause 2 is the Federal supremacy, in Amendment X the states are supreme. If they conflict, it refers to Article VI.
i. Marshall - National Federalism/Supremacy.
1. Marshall’s system is built on the proposition that the federal government conflict with each other in a world of superior and subordinate government respectively. This is to protect national power from state encroachment.
a. He also realized that the Supreme Court is an agency of the government, so therefore the Supreme Court must win. These decisions of the contest between the states and national aren’t state friendly.
2. This theory is dropped after his death and re-emerges after FDR’s attack.
3. Gibbons v. Ogden – he left out the word “exclusive” which meant that the states did have a role to play.
ii. Taney – dual supremacy.
1. According to Taney’s view, the U.S. came up with the idea that there are totally sovereign states. The Constitution is a compact of the separate states, not an ordinance of the people. (Kinda contradictory?) The National Government and the states face each other as equals across a fine line. Basically argues that the Supreme Court is the final say on the constitutionality of any action.
a. Strange, there is nothing mentioned in the original constitution about states…
2. N.Y. v. Miln (1837) – “The authority of the state is complete, unqualified, and exclusive.”
a. This basically states by Taney that the states define first what their power is. When their power is determined, the federal government picks up the leftovers.
3. Chism v. Georgia – does the Supreme Court have the ability to decide something between an individual and the states? The court says yes. The power of the court to hear a question extends to controversies between an individual and a state. 11th amendment is quickly passed.
4. Note that if there should be Federal influence where there is nothing yet, the states operate until the Federal regulation can come in and the Federal Regulation supersedes it.
5. Hammer v. Dagenhart – mining and stuff is not commerce, but when it crosses state lines, it is inevitably commerce.
II. Printz v. U.S.
a. The court strikes down provisions on the basis that the federals may not compel the states to act a federal regulatory program, and in this case regulation of gun use.
III. National League of ___ v. Usery (1976) – Fair Labor Standards Act, Overtime pay clause. The original act specifically excluded the states form its coverage. 1974 added more provisions. By these amendments, Congress extended the minimum wage to all public jobs and political subdivisions. Rehnquist’s opinion – while the 10th amendment has been characterized as a truism, stating merely that all is retained what is not surrendered, the amendment expressly declares the constitutional policy that Congress may to exercise power that impairs the states’ integrity or the ability to function affectively in the federal system. We have repeatedly recognized that there are different attributes of sovereignty that are attached to the state governments that may not apply to Congress because the constitution prohibits it from exercising the authority in that manner.
IV. Pensylvania v. Nelson (1956) – Pennsylvania Sedition Act statute states that sedition against the state or the federal government is punishable, the dude is charged for federal threat of Communism. Does the Smith Act of 1940 (Not intended for Communism, just Nazism) supersede the Pennsylvania Sedition Act? They ruled yes. This was a Federal decision, not a Taney Dual Federalism decision.
V. New York and Saratoga Springs Commission v. U.S. (1946) – Issue is over bottled water. Can you put a federal tax on a state drawn resource of water? Yes. The Federal government is of all the states, so therefore they have to be under laws passed by Congress, so therefore the states had already approved it. Dual federalism can’t be applied.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Constitutuional Law Notes: 07/24/10
JSA Georgetown Summer Session II, 2010
Congressional Law, Dr. Marty Sheffer
I. Executive Power Cases
a. In re Negal (1890) – there is nothing in the federal statutes that allows for an US Marshall to be assigned to a sitting justice to act as a bodyguard. Furthermore the appointment was made by the Attorney General. However, since the Attorney General, an inferior executive officer did it, the President must be able to do it, so therefore it is legal. It is ultimately that the President should preserve national peace, so the ruling was that the Marshall was protecting the Justice, therefore protecting justice, therefore protecting peace.
i. This established the domestic peace of the United States.
b. In re Debbs (1895) – Socialist Eugene v. Debbs was arrested for publicly speaking against World War I and therefore used his ability as the head of the unions to stop the train system and so on despite warnings by the mayor and governor. The Supreme Court hears the case yet on the grounds of regulating commerce. Turns out, it was U.S. Mail that was trucking along those railroad lines, so therefore the executive must protect the trains, therefore Debbs’ arrest was constitutional.
i. The President has to maintain the welfare of the country, and therefore can use the full force of the nation to enforce it.
ii. Add the Prize Cases, which deals with war, automatically shows how the President’s power has grown.
iii. Ways to set Precedent:
1. Supreme Court Case
2. President does something illegal, yet no one stopped him.
c. Youngstown Sheet v. U.S. – the Steel workers left their jobs and Truman replaced them and socialized the steel industry. The Supreme Court ruled against this despite the precedents that during war times, the President can seize private property. May the president relying on inherent powers and relies on Commander in Cheif, can it usurp the authority of Congress? No.
i. Justice Jackson – delineates presidential power and determines when the power can be used. He bases the whole thing based on separation of powers has been violated. The president lacked the power to seize them based on Congressional consent. (Foot in mouth:) If the principle of separation of power prevents the president from doing anything the Congress may do, then by the very same token, it bares the Supreme Court from doing anything that Congress may do! That means that this entire case is kindof invalid.
ii. There are too many incoherent opinions, so it’s not a good precedent.
Note: The Courts can say what the Constitution is in any case during domestic tranquility. In an emergency, they have absolutely no say about what Article II, the powers of the President. The President determines over time and precedent what the Article II stipulates.
d. Humphrey’s Executor v. US – quasi-executive agencies, otherwise known as the bureaucracy or the 4th branch, have elements of both executive authority, and legislative authority. Humphrey on the Federal Trade Commission. According to Roosevelt, Humphrey should resign so that Roosevelt can appoint someone more aligned. So Roosevelt removes the poor basterd. Supreme Court ruled that you can fire them, but only with cause, not to have alignment. Because they are not purely executive, you can’t have purely removal. Myers was overturned and was changed to non-absolute.
i. Myers v. US (1926) – precedent that appointment and removal are absolute powers of the Chief executive.
e. US v. Belmont – Russia had invested some money in Belmont’s bank. So had the expropriation been recognized by treaty, he would have no case. There was no treaty, so therefore the laws of the State of New York prevailed. This was an executive agreement. This next time that this problem happened, there was a treaty. This treaty acts as though it is an amendment to the constitution. You can do the same thing with an executive agreement that you can do with a treaty. Does that also mean that an executive treaty could be an amendment to the Constitution? Does this increase the presidential power?
f. Ex parte Merryman – the decision in this that the suspension of habeas corpus is legal is not a good precedent because Lincoln completely disregarded it.
g. Korematsu v. United States (1944) – Presidential order 9066 was made, making the containment camps. Basically says that in time of war, the government can make any means to emerge victorious in a military conflict. (Legal racism?) This all happened due to haste, but if haste was the justification for the government, then look at the time chart.
i. Justice Jackson Opinion – A military commander may overturn the bounds of constitutionality and it is an incident, but if we review and approve of that passing incident, it will become the doctrine of the constitution. All that it creates will be of its own image, cease to exist as law, and only as war power.
h. Duncan v. Hawaiian Person – was the President's institution of Marshal Law after 1941 constitutional? Yes. Hawaii was just attacked at 1941. The war was over for a year when this case was heard, so they rendered the decision as FDR was dead.
i. New York Times v. U.S. – The government seeks an injunction from preventing the Pentagon Papers from being printed in 3 newspapers. Two highly placed people, Nixon as VP and Senate Majority leader LBJ didn’t agree with Eisenhower’s refusal to send ground troops to Vietnam.
j. Hamdi v. (2004) – Hamdi is an American citizen, is labled an enemy combatant. The question, does due process require that a held citizen as an enemy combatant be given a chance to explain himself?
i. Anyone detained as an enemy combatant is treated as if they were citizens.
True meaning of the Constitution (according to Merryman decision): “The constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people equally in war and peace and covers with its shield of protection under all times and under all circumstances… [none] of its great provisions can be suspended during the great energies of war.
Congressional Law, Dr. Marty Sheffer
I. Executive Power Cases
a. In re Negal (1890) – there is nothing in the federal statutes that allows for an US Marshall to be assigned to a sitting justice to act as a bodyguard. Furthermore the appointment was made by the Attorney General. However, since the Attorney General, an inferior executive officer did it, the President must be able to do it, so therefore it is legal. It is ultimately that the President should preserve national peace, so the ruling was that the Marshall was protecting the Justice, therefore protecting justice, therefore protecting peace.
i. This established the domestic peace of the United States.
b. In re Debbs (1895) – Socialist Eugene v. Debbs was arrested for publicly speaking against World War I and therefore used his ability as the head of the unions to stop the train system and so on despite warnings by the mayor and governor. The Supreme Court hears the case yet on the grounds of regulating commerce. Turns out, it was U.S. Mail that was trucking along those railroad lines, so therefore the executive must protect the trains, therefore Debbs’ arrest was constitutional.
i. The President has to maintain the welfare of the country, and therefore can use the full force of the nation to enforce it.
ii. Add the Prize Cases, which deals with war, automatically shows how the President’s power has grown.
iii. Ways to set Precedent:
1. Supreme Court Case
2. President does something illegal, yet no one stopped him.
c. Youngstown Sheet v. U.S. – the Steel workers left their jobs and Truman replaced them and socialized the steel industry. The Supreme Court ruled against this despite the precedents that during war times, the President can seize private property. May the president relying on inherent powers and relies on Commander in Cheif, can it usurp the authority of Congress? No.
i. Justice Jackson – delineates presidential power and determines when the power can be used. He bases the whole thing based on separation of powers has been violated. The president lacked the power to seize them based on Congressional consent. (Foot in mouth:) If the principle of separation of power prevents the president from doing anything the Congress may do, then by the very same token, it bares the Supreme Court from doing anything that Congress may do! That means that this entire case is kindof invalid.
ii. There are too many incoherent opinions, so it’s not a good precedent.
Note: The Courts can say what the Constitution is in any case during domestic tranquility. In an emergency, they have absolutely no say about what Article II, the powers of the President. The President determines over time and precedent what the Article II stipulates.
d. Humphrey’s Executor v. US – quasi-executive agencies, otherwise known as the bureaucracy or the 4th branch, have elements of both executive authority, and legislative authority. Humphrey on the Federal Trade Commission. According to Roosevelt, Humphrey should resign so that Roosevelt can appoint someone more aligned. So Roosevelt removes the poor basterd. Supreme Court ruled that you can fire them, but only with cause, not to have alignment. Because they are not purely executive, you can’t have purely removal. Myers was overturned and was changed to non-absolute.
i. Myers v. US (1926) – precedent that appointment and removal are absolute powers of the Chief executive.
e. US v. Belmont – Russia had invested some money in Belmont’s bank. So had the expropriation been recognized by treaty, he would have no case. There was no treaty, so therefore the laws of the State of New York prevailed. This was an executive agreement. This next time that this problem happened, there was a treaty. This treaty acts as though it is an amendment to the constitution. You can do the same thing with an executive agreement that you can do with a treaty. Does that also mean that an executive treaty could be an amendment to the Constitution? Does this increase the presidential power?
f. Ex parte Merryman – the decision in this that the suspension of habeas corpus is legal is not a good precedent because Lincoln completely disregarded it.
g. Korematsu v. United States (1944) – Presidential order 9066 was made, making the containment camps. Basically says that in time of war, the government can make any means to emerge victorious in a military conflict. (Legal racism?) This all happened due to haste, but if haste was the justification for the government, then look at the time chart.
i. Justice Jackson Opinion – A military commander may overturn the bounds of constitutionality and it is an incident, but if we review and approve of that passing incident, it will become the doctrine of the constitution. All that it creates will be of its own image, cease to exist as law, and only as war power.
h. Duncan v. Hawaiian Person – was the President's institution of Marshal Law after 1941 constitutional? Yes. Hawaii was just attacked at 1941. The war was over for a year when this case was heard, so they rendered the decision as FDR was dead.
i. New York Times v. U.S. – The government seeks an injunction from preventing the Pentagon Papers from being printed in 3 newspapers. Two highly placed people, Nixon as VP and Senate Majority leader LBJ didn’t agree with Eisenhower’s refusal to send ground troops to Vietnam.
j. Hamdi v. (2004) – Hamdi is an American citizen, is labled an enemy combatant. The question, does due process require that a held citizen as an enemy combatant be given a chance to explain himself?
i. Anyone detained as an enemy combatant is treated as if they were citizens.
True meaning of the Constitution (according to Merryman decision): “The constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people equally in war and peace and covers with its shield of protection under all times and under all circumstances… [none] of its great provisions can be suspended during the great energies of war.
Constitutuional Law Notes: 07/23/10
JSA Georgetown Summer Session II, 2010
Congressional Law, Dr. Marty Sheffer
Government by Congress does not work well in abnormal times.
You can’t campaign as if you were president already, you have to campaign as a people person, and as president assert yourself higher as soon as you get to be president.
Coyle v. Smith (1911) – Oklahoma was admitted as a state into the Union in 1906. Congress provided that the capital would be located in Guthery in 1913. The State Congress moved the capital to Oklahoma City. If this territory wants to become a part of the states, then Congress has the complete authority to make whatever they want in order to make it a state. The Court asks a second question. Will those limitations be binding after admition as a state? No. So Guthery had to be the capital as a territory, but as soon as it was a state, it could change its mind.
So if Congress can impose its authority before a state becomes a state, why can it not maintain that authority after the territory becomes a co-equal state? It’s all up to Congress. So long as Congress doesn’t have the intent, you will have a power vaccum to be filled by executive authority. You better pray that he’s able.
I. Presidential power
a. Boils down to several items: executive power (mainly an introduction clause), commander in chief, “take care”, recognition, treaties, executive agreements.
b. It is apparent however that Congress is the most powerful branch. The Framers were mostly considering the equality of ability to abuse power.
i. Lincoln takes the top three, makes it a resulting power (add powers together and get more power than its components) called war power. Go to Section 50 of U.S. Code and you will see emergency statutes from 1792. Gives the President absolute power with a kiss of legality.
ii. Emergency is where any of the regular procedures of government cannot operate the way they should.
c. The development of presidential power was not really inherited through evolution of the Constitution. Presidents have simply broken the law at times and were supported by the people and other branches.
Prize Caseo (1863) – a blockade is an international declaration of war.
Clinton v. New York (1997) –
US v. Nixon (1997) -
Line Item Veto Act of 1996 – allows the president to veto individual sections of bills.
The President’s immunity begins the day he takes office and leaves the day he leaves. There will be a degree after he leaves.
When a President takes an action that is unconstitutional and it gets contested in the courts, the lower courts would be upheld except in emergency declarations.
Kendal v. US (1839) – 6 votes, but 6 different opinions. It has no precedential weight.
In re Negal – there is nothing in the federal statutes that allows for an US Marshall to be assigned to a sitting justice to act as a bodyguard. Furthermore the appointment was made by the Attorney General. However, since the Attourney General, an inferior executive officer did it, the President must be able to do it, so therefore it is legal. It is ultimately that the President should preserve national peace, so the ruling was that the Marshall was protecting the Justice, therefore protecting justice, therefore protecting peace.
Congressional Law, Dr. Marty Sheffer
Government by Congress does not work well in abnormal times.
You can’t campaign as if you were president already, you have to campaign as a people person, and as president assert yourself higher as soon as you get to be president.
Coyle v. Smith (1911) – Oklahoma was admitted as a state into the Union in 1906. Congress provided that the capital would be located in Guthery in 1913. The State Congress moved the capital to Oklahoma City. If this territory wants to become a part of the states, then Congress has the complete authority to make whatever they want in order to make it a state. The Court asks a second question. Will those limitations be binding after admition as a state? No. So Guthery had to be the capital as a territory, but as soon as it was a state, it could change its mind.
So if Congress can impose its authority before a state becomes a state, why can it not maintain that authority after the territory becomes a co-equal state? It’s all up to Congress. So long as Congress doesn’t have the intent, you will have a power vaccum to be filled by executive authority. You better pray that he’s able.
I. Presidential power
a. Boils down to several items: executive power (mainly an introduction clause), commander in chief, “take care”, recognition, treaties, executive agreements.
b. It is apparent however that Congress is the most powerful branch. The Framers were mostly considering the equality of ability to abuse power.
i. Lincoln takes the top three, makes it a resulting power (add powers together and get more power than its components) called war power. Go to Section 50 of U.S. Code and you will see emergency statutes from 1792. Gives the President absolute power with a kiss of legality.
ii. Emergency is where any of the regular procedures of government cannot operate the way they should.
c. The development of presidential power was not really inherited through evolution of the Constitution. Presidents have simply broken the law at times and were supported by the people and other branches.
Prize Caseo (1863) – a blockade is an international declaration of war.
Clinton v. New York (1997) –
US v. Nixon (1997) -
Line Item Veto Act of 1996 – allows the president to veto individual sections of bills.
The President’s immunity begins the day he takes office and leaves the day he leaves. There will be a degree after he leaves.
When a President takes an action that is unconstitutional and it gets contested in the courts, the lower courts would be upheld except in emergency declarations.
Kendal v. US (1839) – 6 votes, but 6 different opinions. It has no precedential weight.
In re Negal – there is nothing in the federal statutes that allows for an US Marshall to be assigned to a sitting justice to act as a bodyguard. Furthermore the appointment was made by the Attorney General. However, since the Attourney General, an inferior executive officer did it, the President must be able to do it, so therefore it is legal. It is ultimately that the President should preserve national peace, so the ruling was that the Marshall was protecting the Justice, therefore protecting justice, therefore protecting peace.
Her Majesty Has Spoken.
It has been called to my attention during the JSA Constitutional Law class that I haven't updated my blog in a week. That is striking! But at the same time, has a poor explanation for it. I have been SOOO lazy, it really hasn't been funny and I have also been working intermittently on some case briefs and other things. But thank you, Lia Cromwell, for "respectfully" reminding me to get on my stuff.
Rehash of the last week? TOO many things. In fact, if I told you everything that has happened to me, I would have to kill you. And the sad fact is, that is completely true. I have made some new friends along the way, really great people, but have experienced JSA drama on an unprecedented level. Oh, and the cliques are solidifying at an exponential rate.
I will be announcing the Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Public Affair Phillip Crowley's entrance today as we are going to the State Department for the speakers program. Here's my manuscript as to what I'm going to say:
"Hello fellow Junior Statesmen of America. It is my distinct pleasure and honor to introduce to you a man of great character and history. As a man of the people, he is the Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau for Public Affairs, but as a man of government, he is a politician with teeth. Having experience in the Department of Homeland Security, the Presidential Clinton administration, and currently the Senatorial Clinton administration tank, he has also served in our Nation's Air Force, and a retired colonel after 26 years. Without any further delay, and as they occasionally say in the UAF, I welcome death from above, the honorable Philip Crowley."
I will be uploading all of my class notes in separate consecutive notes. Peace.
Chris Carl
"A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both." - Dwight Eisenhower
P.S. Happy birthday to Hillary Swank and Arnold Schwarzenegger, two of the hottest people alive.
Rehash of the last week? TOO many things. In fact, if I told you everything that has happened to me, I would have to kill you. And the sad fact is, that is completely true. I have made some new friends along the way, really great people, but have experienced JSA drama on an unprecedented level. Oh, and the cliques are solidifying at an exponential rate.
I will be announcing the Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Public Affair Phillip Crowley's entrance today as we are going to the State Department for the speakers program. Here's my manuscript as to what I'm going to say:
"Hello fellow Junior Statesmen of America. It is my distinct pleasure and honor to introduce to you a man of great character and history. As a man of the people, he is the Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau for Public Affairs, but as a man of government, he is a politician with teeth. Having experience in the Department of Homeland Security, the Presidential Clinton administration, and currently the Senatorial Clinton administration tank, he has also served in our Nation's Air Force, and a retired colonel after 26 years. Without any further delay, and as they occasionally say in the UAF, I welcome death from above, the honorable Philip Crowley."
I will be uploading all of my class notes in separate consecutive notes. Peace.
Chris Carl
"A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both." - Dwight Eisenhower
P.S. Happy birthday to Hillary Swank and Arnold Schwarzenegger, two of the hottest people alive.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
There's Not Enough Time for Indulgences
I will be blogging less and less, but note taking more and more. In fact, now I'm also going to be posting Supreme Court Briefs as they appear.
Today we had a speakers program in the Capital Building! This time it was with Congressmen
Congressman Glenn Nye (VA) talked much about the problems involving the return of troops without homes and mental issues in addition to the reason behind the molasses pace withdrawal of troops.
Senator Lisa Murkowski (AK) drilled us on the merits of having oil drilling in Alaska despite the fact that environmentalists do not realize the lack of problems drilling causes while also forwarding proponents of new energy sources and integrating them into life without an abrupt switch.
Congressman Chaka Fattah (PE) spoke to us about education, its issues, and his own personal amendments that he forwarded for decades, and that it is because the largest educational problem is teachers who are teaching subjects that they do not have degrees for.
Congressman James Clyburn (SC) pretty much opened the floor to questions and ensured us that there is no reason to believe that there is going to be a party power switch, and that there will be seats lost, but not significant enough.
Congressman William Pascrell (NJ) ... can't remember? He was great though.
Senator Bernie Sanders (VT) was incredible. He is an independent but believes in Democratic Socialism philosophy. His greatest arguments were that the distribution of wealth is caused by complacency and greed. It is the natural progression of those who want indefinitely. He also focused on one phrase, "I want you to think about this." This summed up what we were there for.
...
JSA Georgetown Summer Session II, 2010
Congressional Law, Dr. Marty Sheffer
Dr. Bonham’s Case (1610) – there was a period of time in which the courts had enormous power. The High Justice Cooks applied the common law to the king for the first time. This was an instance of Judicial Review. This lead to the eventual rise of power in Parliament, and if an act of Parliament is supreme, no court can refute it.
Privy Council (during colonial period) – any time a colonial legislature passed a statute, on the boat to England, it had to be reviewed by this council. Another sense of Judicial Review.
State courts under Articles of Confederation – every state exercised Judicial Review.
Federalist #78 – Hamilton says stuff taken from Dr. Bonham’s Case and Marshall steals from Hammy in Marbury v. Madison. If you look carefully, the only thing that Madison and Hamilton have in common is that the Constitution has to be ratified. Hamilton believes that the Constitution is all for the central government, and that it’s not going to be the only powers. You make power as you need power. Madison believes that all of the power is definitely listed in the Constitution. If it is not listed, suck it up and hope for the best. The only power is listed power.
I. Marbury v. Madison (1803)
a. History
i. Judiciary Act of 1789 - creates the federal court system. This establishes appellate jurisdiction in addition to the original jurisdiction granted in Article 3. Section 13 of this Act gives the supreme courts under original jurisdiction the writ of mandamus (someone can bring up a case to the courts). This allowed Marbury to immediately go to the Supreme Court instead of going to the district circuit. Had it been in Section 13 under appellate jurisdiction, Marbury would’ve had to go through the system legitimately. The guy was Oliver Ellsworth who brought this to the floor. 2nd Chief Justice.
ii. The case comes before the court. We all know that Marbury is entitled to his commission. His commission letter was never physically delivered to him. This is a wrong by the Jefferson Administration. Is the remedy a mandamus issue from the Supreme Court? No. This would imply that Marbury would need to go to a higher power for justice. Impossible.
b. Would it have been possible to not establish Judicial Review?
i. It was not. This would’ve undermined the Supreme Court. So, Judicial Review was established, but was not used until Dred Scott v. Sanford (1854).
c. Marshall’s Opinion
i. What gives the Judiciary the authority to become philosopher kings? Don’t the people who write the law understand the law as much as judges do? Why wasn’t it included? One way is that it was so damn obvious and commonplace to the generation of the framers that the Courts were assumed to always exercise Judicial Review. However, how can you get this without appellate jurisdiction prior to this!? Can’t.
ii. There is one place where you can have judicial review in the constitution. The “supremacy clause”. The Court is the only one who can decide between the states and Federal system. This is the only hint at judicial review in the Constitution.
iii. Marshall literally pulls it out of the hat. “The supreme court of the united states has no power to issue a mandamus to the secretary of state since this would be an exercise of original jurisdiction, warranted by the constitution.” You’re asking us to do something that we legally do not have the power to do. Marbury couldn’t get his pension at all from the courts because the courts do not have the power, so therefore, we need to make the power. Judicial Review is the only way to do its job, that was before not able to do. Congress has no power to grant the courts original jurisdiction except when stated in the constitution.
1. Here’s the problem. The judges are supposed to be apolitical, but have to participate in a practical political world. All political issues become legal issues in America. The judicial concept is to determine whether they were indefinitely right under the law! People confuse this principle by calling decisions liberal or conservative.
Fletcher v. Peck (1810) – gave the power to use Judicial Review to State Legislative Parties
Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816) – state government
Cohens v. Virginia (1821) – state courts
Prize Cases/Ex parte Milligan – how the hell can those two cases stand as precedent when they are contradictory to one another?
McCulloch v. Maryland - What is the question? Does the federal government actually have implied powers? It breathed life into the constitution. Implied power is as far as Congress’s imagination. There is no limit to what Congress can do. See Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, 3, and 18. Congress has the power to tax, regulate commerce, and everything else. This is pretty much all that Congress does. lawlz
US Term Limits v. Thornton – Federalism. Why should the rules be different for state legislators than federal legislators? The state does not have the authority to have the ability to limit the tenure of these legislators.
Arkansas Case – the Arkansas law was unconstitutional. We’re not violating the laws on how to elect someone, there are no rules into how many terms you can have in office.
Congress has the power to remove courts appellate jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court also has the duty to eliminate legal confusion. Note that exceptions to the rules stand as that, and forevermore cannot be treated as anything besides an exception, therefore the correct law no longer applies.
Note: Concise rule of law is the question for the courts, their answer, and lumping the two into a positive statement.
You cannot talk about commerce without understanding Federalism.
FDR’s thing, Golden Rule: We should do the greatest good for the greatest number.
Framers made one fundamental mistake. They thought that every generation would have the same intelligence capabilities as they. They had no backup plan.
We need to settle for the best, not for anything less, because then it’s a disservice. You know, race admittance just for admittance is a complete waste of talent.
...
The last parts of the notes are more or less ambiguous rambling that isn't sortable.
How to develop a speech coming up soon! Peace.
Chris Carl
"Taco Bell is delicious. Claim of Fact." - Dr. Dewberry
Today we had a speakers program in the Capital Building! This time it was with Congressmen
Congressman Glenn Nye (VA) talked much about the problems involving the return of troops without homes and mental issues in addition to the reason behind the molasses pace withdrawal of troops.
Senator Lisa Murkowski (AK) drilled us on the merits of having oil drilling in Alaska despite the fact that environmentalists do not realize the lack of problems drilling causes while also forwarding proponents of new energy sources and integrating them into life without an abrupt switch.
Congressman Chaka Fattah (PE) spoke to us about education, its issues, and his own personal amendments that he forwarded for decades, and that it is because the largest educational problem is teachers who are teaching subjects that they do not have degrees for.
Congressman James Clyburn (SC) pretty much opened the floor to questions and ensured us that there is no reason to believe that there is going to be a party power switch, and that there will be seats lost, but not significant enough.
Congressman William Pascrell (NJ) ... can't remember? He was great though.
Senator Bernie Sanders (VT) was incredible. He is an independent but believes in Democratic Socialism philosophy. His greatest arguments were that the distribution of wealth is caused by complacency and greed. It is the natural progression of those who want indefinitely. He also focused on one phrase, "I want you to think about this." This summed up what we were there for.
...
JSA Georgetown Summer Session II, 2010
Congressional Law, Dr. Marty Sheffer
Dr. Bonham’s Case (1610) – there was a period of time in which the courts had enormous power. The High Justice Cooks applied the common law to the king for the first time. This was an instance of Judicial Review. This lead to the eventual rise of power in Parliament, and if an act of Parliament is supreme, no court can refute it.
Privy Council (during colonial period) – any time a colonial legislature passed a statute, on the boat to England, it had to be reviewed by this council. Another sense of Judicial Review.
State courts under Articles of Confederation – every state exercised Judicial Review.
Federalist #78 – Hamilton says stuff taken from Dr. Bonham’s Case and Marshall steals from Hammy in Marbury v. Madison. If you look carefully, the only thing that Madison and Hamilton have in common is that the Constitution has to be ratified. Hamilton believes that the Constitution is all for the central government, and that it’s not going to be the only powers. You make power as you need power. Madison believes that all of the power is definitely listed in the Constitution. If it is not listed, suck it up and hope for the best. The only power is listed power.
I. Marbury v. Madison (1803)
a. History
i. Judiciary Act of 1789 - creates the federal court system. This establishes appellate jurisdiction in addition to the original jurisdiction granted in Article 3. Section 13 of this Act gives the supreme courts under original jurisdiction the writ of mandamus (someone can bring up a case to the courts). This allowed Marbury to immediately go to the Supreme Court instead of going to the district circuit. Had it been in Section 13 under appellate jurisdiction, Marbury would’ve had to go through the system legitimately. The guy was Oliver Ellsworth who brought this to the floor. 2nd Chief Justice.
ii. The case comes before the court. We all know that Marbury is entitled to his commission. His commission letter was never physically delivered to him. This is a wrong by the Jefferson Administration. Is the remedy a mandamus issue from the Supreme Court? No. This would imply that Marbury would need to go to a higher power for justice. Impossible.
b. Would it have been possible to not establish Judicial Review?
i. It was not. This would’ve undermined the Supreme Court. So, Judicial Review was established, but was not used until Dred Scott v. Sanford (1854).
c. Marshall’s Opinion
i. What gives the Judiciary the authority to become philosopher kings? Don’t the people who write the law understand the law as much as judges do? Why wasn’t it included? One way is that it was so damn obvious and commonplace to the generation of the framers that the Courts were assumed to always exercise Judicial Review. However, how can you get this without appellate jurisdiction prior to this!? Can’t.
ii. There is one place where you can have judicial review in the constitution. The “supremacy clause”. The Court is the only one who can decide between the states and Federal system. This is the only hint at judicial review in the Constitution.
iii. Marshall literally pulls it out of the hat. “The supreme court of the united states has no power to issue a mandamus to the secretary of state since this would be an exercise of original jurisdiction, warranted by the constitution.” You’re asking us to do something that we legally do not have the power to do. Marbury couldn’t get his pension at all from the courts because the courts do not have the power, so therefore, we need to make the power. Judicial Review is the only way to do its job, that was before not able to do. Congress has no power to grant the courts original jurisdiction except when stated in the constitution.
1. Here’s the problem. The judges are supposed to be apolitical, but have to participate in a practical political world. All political issues become legal issues in America. The judicial concept is to determine whether they were indefinitely right under the law! People confuse this principle by calling decisions liberal or conservative.
Fletcher v. Peck (1810) – gave the power to use Judicial Review to State Legislative Parties
Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816) – state government
Cohens v. Virginia (1821) – state courts
Prize Cases/Ex parte Milligan – how the hell can those two cases stand as precedent when they are contradictory to one another?
McCulloch v. Maryland - What is the question? Does the federal government actually have implied powers? It breathed life into the constitution. Implied power is as far as Congress’s imagination. There is no limit to what Congress can do. See Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, 3, and 18. Congress has the power to tax, regulate commerce, and everything else. This is pretty much all that Congress does. lawlz
US Term Limits v. Thornton – Federalism. Why should the rules be different for state legislators than federal legislators? The state does not have the authority to have the ability to limit the tenure of these legislators.
Arkansas Case – the Arkansas law was unconstitutional. We’re not violating the laws on how to elect someone, there are no rules into how many terms you can have in office.
Congress has the power to remove courts appellate jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court also has the duty to eliminate legal confusion. Note that exceptions to the rules stand as that, and forevermore cannot be treated as anything besides an exception, therefore the correct law no longer applies.
Note: Concise rule of law is the question for the courts, their answer, and lumping the two into a positive statement.
You cannot talk about commerce without understanding Federalism.
FDR’s thing, Golden Rule: We should do the greatest good for the greatest number.
Framers made one fundamental mistake. They thought that every generation would have the same intelligence capabilities as they. They had no backup plan.
We need to settle for the best, not for anything less, because then it’s a disservice. You know, race admittance just for admittance is a complete waste of talent.
...
The last parts of the notes are more or less ambiguous rambling that isn't sortable.
How to develop a speech coming up soon! Peace.
Chris Carl
"Taco Bell is delicious. Claim of Fact." - Dr. Dewberry
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
GTown, Day Three
So basically we're all screwed.
I mean, I've got summer assignments from my school, notes to take from Dr. Sheffer, library stuff to research briefs and Supreme Court cases, blogging, working out to get ridiculously buff, I mean, it's tough stuff!
I don't have too much to say besides the fact that I've already been in the library when we're supposed to go on a mandatory tour or something, but I will take handy notes during the class for the day.
Today was pretty sihk, I mean, it's not every day that you go to D.C. to hear congressional committee meetings on the BP oil disaster. But at the same token, I realize that anyone can be a news reporter like CSPAN and just go to one of the meetings in the public section. But, then again, if all 30 people do an opening speech of 3-5 minutes, I think I'd pass on that endeavour. I didn't get to go to any of the Senator or Representative offices due to hanging with all the NES awesome kids, but I think I'll just do that Thursday.
Didn't go to the White House (Eisenhower Office) on my own accord because some year round JSR's were asked not to go so that they could do the maximum 150 kids when there were only 180, so I just chilled and finished the notes from the earlier post, and now some notes on Parliamentary debate done today.
......
Notes on Parliamentary Style Debate in JSA Georgetown Session II, 2010 – Dr. DuBerry 07/20/10
Argumentation is about reason giving.
Compromise doesn't actually solve a problem because it is simply the selfish act of humans who cede some aspects to gain others in an action.
The best speech is not one that puts reason or logic into the heads of the listeners, but rather encourages the listeners to use their own logic and arrive at the same conclusion as the speaker.
I. Main Basic Parliamentary Debate Rules, Regulation, and Flow
a. The moderator calls the session to order, introduces the resolution (or what is being debated), and introduces the affirmative main speaker and the negative main speaker.
b. The main affirmative speaker proceeds to deliver his speech, questioning, and cross-referencing.
i. Speaker may not speak for more than six (6) minutes and in JSA Summer Academy is required a minimum of four (4) speaking minutes. Once the speech is done, the speaker motions one of two:
1. “I now yield my time to the chair.” –remaining time is absorbed by the chair and the moderator proceeds to the cross examination.
2. “I now yield my time to questions.” –remaining time is used by questioners, whose questions are counted in the remaining time. Once this remaining time is exhausted, the moderator moves on to cross examination.
ii. Cross examination of the main affirmative speaker commences, in which the main negative speaker questions the main affirmative speaker for a maximum of two (2) minutes. The same process of subsection Ib. repeats vice versa for the main negative speaker.
c. The moderator proceeds to request for any affirmative subsequent speeches.
d. The affirmative subsequent speaker proceeds to deliver his speech and questioning.
i. Speaker may not speak for more than three (3) minutes and in JSA Summer Academy is required a minimum of one (1) minute. Once the speech is done, the speaker motions one of two:
1. “I now yield my time to the chair.” –remaining time is absorbed by the chair and the moderator proceeds to the cross examination.
2. “I now yield my time to questions.” –remaining time is used by questioners, whose questions are counted in the remaining time. Once this remaining time is exhausted, the moderator moves on to cross examination.
ii. The same process of section I., subsection d. repeats vice versa for the subsequent negative speaker. This process repeats itself indefinitely until the amount of time allotted for the debate is approaching exhaustion.
e. Once all subsequent speakers have gone, or the time remaining for the debate is near exhaustion, the moderator moves to the final vote on the resolution. The resolution is read again, and the members who vote affirmative either raise their hands or stand waiting to be counted, the same process for the negative sympathizers, and any members who abstained from voting. The tallies are accounted for and the announcement is made whether the resolution passes or fails. The moderator then adjourns the debate.
f. At any time during the debate, not including during ongoing speeches where noted, any member on the floor may raise his hand for the moderator to acknowledge and motion for one of these. Some require another member on the floor to second the notion after it is made, and some require a vote of “yay” or “nay”, ½ or 2/3:
1. “Motion to previous question.” – immediately ends the cycle of speeches and the final vote is conducted. Requires a second, and 2/3 vote.
2. “Rise to point of order.” – can only be made during speeches, is a correction by a member of the floor to an incorrect fact. Requires no second or vote.
3. “Rise to point of personal privilege.” – polite and quiet request of a member of the floor to be excused to use the “necessities”. Requires no second or vote.
4. “Rise to point of parliamentary procedure.” – can only be made during the orders of the moderator, is a correction of moderation procedure by a member of the floor. Requires no second or vote.
5. “Motion to adjourn.” – moderator adjourns the debate without voting. Requires second and 2/3 vote.
6. “Motion to recess.” – moderator excuses the floor to recess for a period of five (5) minutes. Requires a second and ½ vote.
7. “Move to caucus.” – moderator allows for the collaboration of floor members for five (5) minutes when a side of the resolution is obviously not equally represented. For example, three subsequent affirmative speeches are made, and time for the debate has not expired. Requires second and ½ vote.
8. “Motion to suspend the rules.” – moderator allows for a suspension of the rules. Requires no second or vote. Of the many possible suspensions, this is the most common.
i. “Motion to suspend the speaker’s time by thirty (30) seconds/one (1) minute.” – In JSA Summer Academy, this suspension is prohibited for any portion of the main speaker’s phase, and can only be applied to the subsequent speakers.
II. Speech Types
a. Main – puts for the main arguments of the resolution affirmative or negative. Must be well prepared and appropriately timed.
b. Subsequent – purposes include to expand on main argument, or to bring in a new argument. The subsequent speech does not require prior preparation.
c. Closing – summary of both points brought forth by speeches, yet delivers an evaluation of which side (affirmative/negative) in their mind is the best argument.
d. Question – while not orthodox, there is a lot to be said of speeches being buttressed or undermined due to questions. In fact, main or subsequent speeches may be elaborated questions.
III. Briefs
a. Heading – Name, House Number, Resolution Number, Resident Assistant
b. Single paragraph delivering a brief history of the major challenges of the resolution. Biased or unbiased is without preference.
c. Notes that outline the argument.
i. All-encompassing less than a page.
“You want to deliver a speech like you’re making out.” – Dr. DuBerry
......
Until tomorrow's real notes, peace.
Chris Carl
"California girls , we're unforgettable;
Daisy Dukes , bikinis on top .
Sun-kissed skin, so hot, we'll melt your popsicle!
Oooooh! Oh! Oooooh!
California girls, we're undeniable;
Fine, fresh, fierce, we got it on lock.
Westcoast represent, now put your hands up!
Oooooh! Oh! Oooooh!"
- "California Gurls", Katy Perry (feat. Snoop Dog)
I mean, I've got summer assignments from my school, notes to take from Dr. Sheffer, library stuff to research briefs and Supreme Court cases, blogging, working out to get ridiculously buff, I mean, it's tough stuff!
I don't have too much to say besides the fact that I've already been in the library when we're supposed to go on a mandatory tour or something, but I will take handy notes during the class for the day.
Today was pretty sihk, I mean, it's not every day that you go to D.C. to hear congressional committee meetings on the BP oil disaster. But at the same token, I realize that anyone can be a news reporter like CSPAN and just go to one of the meetings in the public section. But, then again, if all 30 people do an opening speech of 3-5 minutes, I think I'd pass on that endeavour. I didn't get to go to any of the Senator or Representative offices due to hanging with all the NES awesome kids, but I think I'll just do that Thursday.
Didn't go to the White House (Eisenhower Office) on my own accord because some year round JSR's were asked not to go so that they could do the maximum 150 kids when there were only 180, so I just chilled and finished the notes from the earlier post, and now some notes on Parliamentary debate done today.
......
Notes on Parliamentary Style Debate in JSA Georgetown Session II, 2010 – Dr. DuBerry 07/20/10
Argumentation is about reason giving.
Compromise doesn't actually solve a problem because it is simply the selfish act of humans who cede some aspects to gain others in an action.
The best speech is not one that puts reason or logic into the heads of the listeners, but rather encourages the listeners to use their own logic and arrive at the same conclusion as the speaker.
I. Main Basic Parliamentary Debate Rules, Regulation, and Flow
a. The moderator calls the session to order, introduces the resolution (or what is being debated), and introduces the affirmative main speaker and the negative main speaker.
b. The main affirmative speaker proceeds to deliver his speech, questioning, and cross-referencing.
i. Speaker may not speak for more than six (6) minutes and in JSA Summer Academy is required a minimum of four (4) speaking minutes. Once the speech is done, the speaker motions one of two:
1. “I now yield my time to the chair.” –remaining time is absorbed by the chair and the moderator proceeds to the cross examination.
2. “I now yield my time to questions.” –remaining time is used by questioners, whose questions are counted in the remaining time. Once this remaining time is exhausted, the moderator moves on to cross examination.
ii. Cross examination of the main affirmative speaker commences, in which the main negative speaker questions the main affirmative speaker for a maximum of two (2) minutes. The same process of subsection Ib. repeats vice versa for the main negative speaker.
c. The moderator proceeds to request for any affirmative subsequent speeches.
d. The affirmative subsequent speaker proceeds to deliver his speech and questioning.
i. Speaker may not speak for more than three (3) minutes and in JSA Summer Academy is required a minimum of one (1) minute. Once the speech is done, the speaker motions one of two:
1. “I now yield my time to the chair.” –remaining time is absorbed by the chair and the moderator proceeds to the cross examination.
2. “I now yield my time to questions.” –remaining time is used by questioners, whose questions are counted in the remaining time. Once this remaining time is exhausted, the moderator moves on to cross examination.
ii. The same process of section I., subsection d. repeats vice versa for the subsequent negative speaker. This process repeats itself indefinitely until the amount of time allotted for the debate is approaching exhaustion.
e. Once all subsequent speakers have gone, or the time remaining for the debate is near exhaustion, the moderator moves to the final vote on the resolution. The resolution is read again, and the members who vote affirmative either raise their hands or stand waiting to be counted, the same process for the negative sympathizers, and any members who abstained from voting. The tallies are accounted for and the announcement is made whether the resolution passes or fails. The moderator then adjourns the debate.
f. At any time during the debate, not including during ongoing speeches where noted, any member on the floor may raise his hand for the moderator to acknowledge and motion for one of these. Some require another member on the floor to second the notion after it is made, and some require a vote of “yay” or “nay”, ½ or 2/3:
1. “Motion to previous question.” – immediately ends the cycle of speeches and the final vote is conducted. Requires a second, and 2/3 vote.
2. “Rise to point of order.” – can only be made during speeches, is a correction by a member of the floor to an incorrect fact. Requires no second or vote.
3. “Rise to point of personal privilege.” – polite and quiet request of a member of the floor to be excused to use the “necessities”. Requires no second or vote.
4. “Rise to point of parliamentary procedure.” – can only be made during the orders of the moderator, is a correction of moderation procedure by a member of the floor. Requires no second or vote.
5. “Motion to adjourn.” – moderator adjourns the debate without voting. Requires second and 2/3 vote.
6. “Motion to recess.” – moderator excuses the floor to recess for a period of five (5) minutes. Requires a second and ½ vote.
7. “Move to caucus.” – moderator allows for the collaboration of floor members for five (5) minutes when a side of the resolution is obviously not equally represented. For example, three subsequent affirmative speeches are made, and time for the debate has not expired. Requires second and ½ vote.
8. “Motion to suspend the rules.” – moderator allows for a suspension of the rules. Requires no second or vote. Of the many possible suspensions, this is the most common.
i. “Motion to suspend the speaker’s time by thirty (30) seconds/one (1) minute.” – In JSA Summer Academy, this suspension is prohibited for any portion of the main speaker’s phase, and can only be applied to the subsequent speakers.
II. Speech Types
a. Main – puts for the main arguments of the resolution affirmative or negative. Must be well prepared and appropriately timed.
b. Subsequent – purposes include to expand on main argument, or to bring in a new argument. The subsequent speech does not require prior preparation.
c. Closing – summary of both points brought forth by speeches, yet delivers an evaluation of which side (affirmative/negative) in their mind is the best argument.
d. Question – while not orthodox, there is a lot to be said of speeches being buttressed or undermined due to questions. In fact, main or subsequent speeches may be elaborated questions.
III. Briefs
a. Heading – Name, House Number, Resolution Number, Resident Assistant
b. Single paragraph delivering a brief history of the major challenges of the resolution. Biased or unbiased is without preference.
c. Notes that outline the argument.
i. All-encompassing less than a page.
“You want to deliver a speech like you’re making out.” – Dr. DuBerry
......
Until tomorrow's real notes, peace.
Chris Carl
"California girls , we're unforgettable;
Daisy Dukes , bikinis on top .
Sun-kissed skin, so hot, we'll melt your popsicle!
Oooooh! Oh! Oooooh!
California girls, we're undeniable;
Fine, fresh, fierce, we got it on lock.
Westcoast represent, now put your hands up!
Oooooh! Oh! Oooooh!"
- "California Gurls", Katy Perry (feat. Snoop Dog)
JSA Georgetown Summer Session II, 2010
Hey guys once again!
I am now a part of another geek camp! First Congressional Academy, which was the time of my life, to JSA at Georgetown University for the second time of my life! So far I have met so many new people, quite a few friends I feel, and I know that this experience will once again change my life, definitely for the better.
07/18/10
I got on the plane after waking at 4:30 in the morning, arrived at Tampa, waited two hours, transferred, and landed at around 1. Thankfully, I found the graceful Lauren Schenone from the Southeast Territory or SET, and very soon, her friend Tess Yerbit! Kinda sat around for a few hours at the airport, no biggie, but then also met a whole bunch more people as they piled in. Then I found out that most people were for International Relations. WTF!!!
My arrival to Georgetown initially took my breath away. It was as if I had stumbled across a modern castle of knowledge. I felt a connection to the place, and I found after trucking my two luggage up a few hills and helping out an unfortunate Sarah's duffel bag, I found my meal card, dorm key, and a few other things, all the while talking to people that I never knew before! (They thought I was a freak, probably.)
I also met my roommate Max Patterson, who hails from Houston, Texas! He's so great, chill, awesome at Ultimate Frisbee, knowledgeable, and all around amazing bro. I'm looking forward to some awesome times.
Dinner sucked crap though. The Alfredo sauce was made of powder, and tasted like moldy cottage cheese or something gruesome like that. And finally I met Joe Campagna. So sweet, so tall, kinda reminds me of Joe back at home.
07-19-10
Basically I woke up wanting to run, but my sleep instinct got the best of me, so I neglected running. Breakfast was alright, talked more with Joe, and then made better acquaintance with a bro named Paul. Hailing from New Jersey, I love his freaking accent. I can't remember his position in JSA for the life of me, but it's all good. This powerhouse team trekked through the tour, involving the book store, paraphernalia, classroom tour, and when it was all over, we checked out the Gym. HOLY SMOKES. It's LA Fitness on steroids, if that's even possible.
Now after a whole class unto ourselves with Dr. Marty Sheffer, the craziest, most vulgar, amazing senior I've ever met. I'm in Congressional Law, undoubtedly the most elite, small, power-housing school of thought, learning about the purpose of the supremacy courts and lawmaking. The notes are soon to follow.
Afterward, the library. OH MY GOD. It was literally heaven in a building. Five floors of incredible resource, I swear it must've been 20 acres in area, then the five floors. Each floor hosted many things, in the underground first floor, government papers, declassified of the CIA, mini reels of secrets of the 1930s, manuscript of supreme court decisions, and the Attorney General's Guide to Pornography? It's actually quite legit.
Then about 100 paces away, the BIGGEST source of authors I have ever seen. Locke, Montesquieu, Darwin, Freud, Newton, Einstein, Kant, Euclid, Aristotle, Ptolemy, Copernicus, Kepler, Berkeley, Swift, Voltaire, Twain, Dickinson, Marx, Dewey, Plank, Heisenberg, Bohr, just TOO MANY! That's not even a shelf worth of knowledge yet. And there were what, about 500 shelves per section? three sections per floor? five floors? My God.
And then more research, gym, dinner, orientation for tomorrow, and then "sleep now". And did I mention that we're going to the Capital Hill tomorrow to meet our reps, then a White House tour of the Eisenhower complex next door? HOYAH (The GTown motto btws.)!
......
JSA Georgetown Summer Session II, 07/19/2010
Congressional Law, Dr. Marty Sheffer
I. Theories of Law
1. Law is a process that gives stability, provides continuity with the past, and allows people to predict the consequences of their actions. Law is an instrument of the status-quo.
2. Law is an instrument of transition, changing the old into the new. Democracies say that laws should progress humanity.
The Constitution is essentially what the judges say it is. [See Positive Law Theory]
II. Ideal of Judging – all who come before the courts are equal under the law, or else the 14th Amendment.
a. To adhere to equality in public law, people must have a standard of justice.
i. Don’t think of the Supreme Court justices as demi-god guardians of the constitution. They are humans. They too have opinions, and thus laws change not always for the sake of progress.
III. Conflicting Views of the Nature of Laws
1. Natural Law Theory – Locke-ian idea, intrinsic laws that govern humans in the “natural state”. Laws are made on principle. Two prime dissenting examples.
a. Nuremburg War Trials – formed for trials against humanity by establishing that these violators are prosecuted regardless of military order and command.
b. Tokyo War Trials - formed for trials against humanity by establishing that these violators are prosecuted by military order and command. Example: In Re Yamashita was convicted of ordering his men to slaughter Filipinos while retreating after a battle, yet there is tangible proof that he had lost all contact and did not know what his men were doing. It was assumed that the commanding officer is responsible because it is collective guilt.
i. Dissenting opinion at the time was if one would apply this in the event of an American doing the violating, the President is ultimately responsible.
2. Positive Law Theory –maintains that law is whatever the supreme authority (as society dictates) can make and enforce.
ii. Traffic laws are thought to be positive laws, yet it CAN’T be enforced. What!?
3. Legal Realism/Social Law Theory – there is a gradual and organic growth of law in specific, individual societies to adjust conflicting interests peacefully. [Moderate theory of the three.]
IV. Judge Relation to Other Judges (Stories)
a. Associate Justice Sovelin hated Jewish Associate Justice Brandeis so much that their picture for the court placed both at either end despite the long-held tradition of placement by nomination, and in their 30 years of simultaneous service, had not said one word to each other.
b. Associate Justice Day O’Connor hated Associate Justice Scalia’s guts and so risked being called a flaming liberal simply by consistently voting in opposite of Justice Scalia.
The three branches are supposed to possess checks, balances, and political power. Until judicial review, the constitution literally hadn’t granted anything besides checks and balances to the Supreme Court. In fact, Marbury v. Madison is not what established judicial review, it was the obscure case United States v. Yale Todd (1794) that had first struck down an executive act unconstitutional. It was discovered as a precedent in a footnote reference in the Marbury v. Madison decision files.
V. How the Supreme Court Makes Law
1. Passively – brings out constitutional changes based on traditions and precedents. (Potentially controversial) Example: Roe v. Wade
2. Negatively – Court says to Congress, “your law is unconstitutional.” Example: Marbury v. Madison
3. Positively – extending the provisions of the constitution into the institutions of government where the instances did not initially apply. Essentially, encroachment of the Supreme Court, limiting the other branches. Example: Miranda Warning
Note: What real power could a court have over a truly motivated institution such as Congress? For example, the ability to institute a national income tax has been proclaimed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on six occasions, yet it says that taxation is constitutional by Congress in Article I. So, Congress got the 16th Amendment ratified, thereby shutting up the Supreme Court opinion forever. (The check on a Supreme Court ruling is either an overturn by the court itself or a Constitutional amendment.)
Note II: All Supreme Court criticisms have been whether or not judges should be the ones making the laws.
VI. Incorporation
a. Selective Incorporation is to essentially use one of the first ten Amendments, use the 14th Amendment, Section I, Clause 2 (“due process”), and force it into the constitutions of the states.
i. John Marshall confronted this by saying that the Bill of Rights was a Federal government restriction, not a state restriction. If you don’t like your lack of rights in a state, move, hun.
ii. 1st Amendment Incorporation: Right to Speech (1925), Right to Assembly (1937), Right to Religion (1940)
iii. 6th Amendment Incorporation: Right to Fair Trial (1932), Right to an Attorney (1942)
iv. 9th Amendment Incorporation: Right to Privacy (1965)
1. First Marital Privacy through Griswold v. Connecticut. It was read as a penumbra through the 1st Amendment, then through the 14th Amendment, then to the states.
2. Justice Black at the time dissented by saying that the 4th and 5th Amendment clauses of “no unreasonable searches and seizures” plus “no self-incrimination” respectively already secured privacy.
VII. Three Theories of Incorporation
1. Non-Incorporation/Fundamental Fairness – If you are ruthlessly abused and unusually punished for exercising rights by your state, the Supreme Court would then incorporate.
2. Literalists – Fourteenth Amendment was to get rid of Barron v. Baltimore, and that all rights should be fully incorporated at once.
3. Selective Incorporation – not all amendments are identically important.
i. If the 7th Amendment was incorporated, that every civil suit in excess of $20 would be settled by a Jury, Judge Judy would have no job! Bad idea.
VIII. Two Levels of Incorporation
1. Incorporating a right gives you that right, but now this is for the Federal level and State level. Originally it was mutually exclusive, so a State court had to apply state laws, and a Federal circuit had to apply Federal laws.
2. Keeping the rights in sync with the Federal laws.
......
Completed notes so far, peace.
Chris Carl
"There is no native criminal class in America besides Congress." - Mark Twain
I am now a part of another geek camp! First Congressional Academy, which was the time of my life, to JSA at Georgetown University for the second time of my life! So far I have met so many new people, quite a few friends I feel, and I know that this experience will once again change my life, definitely for the better.
07/18/10
I got on the plane after waking at 4:30 in the morning, arrived at Tampa, waited two hours, transferred, and landed at around 1. Thankfully, I found the graceful Lauren Schenone from the Southeast Territory or SET, and very soon, her friend Tess Yerbit! Kinda sat around for a few hours at the airport, no biggie, but then also met a whole bunch more people as they piled in. Then I found out that most people were for International Relations. WTF!!!
My arrival to Georgetown initially took my breath away. It was as if I had stumbled across a modern castle of knowledge. I felt a connection to the place, and I found after trucking my two luggage up a few hills and helping out an unfortunate Sarah's duffel bag, I found my meal card, dorm key, and a few other things, all the while talking to people that I never knew before! (They thought I was a freak, probably.)
I also met my roommate Max Patterson, who hails from Houston, Texas! He's so great, chill, awesome at Ultimate Frisbee, knowledgeable, and all around amazing bro. I'm looking forward to some awesome times.
Dinner sucked crap though. The Alfredo sauce was made of powder, and tasted like moldy cottage cheese or something gruesome like that. And finally I met Joe Campagna. So sweet, so tall, kinda reminds me of Joe back at home.
07-19-10
Basically I woke up wanting to run, but my sleep instinct got the best of me, so I neglected running. Breakfast was alright, talked more with Joe, and then made better acquaintance with a bro named Paul. Hailing from New Jersey, I love his freaking accent. I can't remember his position in JSA for the life of me, but it's all good. This powerhouse team trekked through the tour, involving the book store, paraphernalia, classroom tour, and when it was all over, we checked out the Gym. HOLY SMOKES. It's LA Fitness on steroids, if that's even possible.
Now after a whole class unto ourselves with Dr. Marty Sheffer, the craziest, most vulgar, amazing senior I've ever met. I'm in Congressional Law, undoubtedly the most elite, small, power-housing school of thought, learning about the purpose of the supremacy courts and lawmaking. The notes are soon to follow.
Afterward, the library. OH MY GOD. It was literally heaven in a building. Five floors of incredible resource, I swear it must've been 20 acres in area, then the five floors. Each floor hosted many things, in the underground first floor, government papers, declassified of the CIA, mini reels of secrets of the 1930s, manuscript of supreme court decisions, and the Attorney General's Guide to Pornography? It's actually quite legit.
Then about 100 paces away, the BIGGEST source of authors I have ever seen. Locke, Montesquieu, Darwin, Freud, Newton, Einstein, Kant, Euclid, Aristotle, Ptolemy, Copernicus, Kepler, Berkeley, Swift, Voltaire, Twain, Dickinson, Marx, Dewey, Plank, Heisenberg, Bohr, just TOO MANY! That's not even a shelf worth of knowledge yet. And there were what, about 500 shelves per section? three sections per floor? five floors? My God.
And then more research, gym, dinner, orientation for tomorrow, and then "sleep now". And did I mention that we're going to the Capital Hill tomorrow to meet our reps, then a White House tour of the Eisenhower complex next door? HOYAH (The GTown motto btws.)!
......
JSA Georgetown Summer Session II, 07/19/2010
Congressional Law, Dr. Marty Sheffer
I. Theories of Law
1. Law is a process that gives stability, provides continuity with the past, and allows people to predict the consequences of their actions. Law is an instrument of the status-quo.
2. Law is an instrument of transition, changing the old into the new. Democracies say that laws should progress humanity.
The Constitution is essentially what the judges say it is. [See Positive Law Theory]
II. Ideal of Judging – all who come before the courts are equal under the law, or else the 14th Amendment.
a. To adhere to equality in public law, people must have a standard of justice.
i. Don’t think of the Supreme Court justices as demi-god guardians of the constitution. They are humans. They too have opinions, and thus laws change not always for the sake of progress.
III. Conflicting Views of the Nature of Laws
1. Natural Law Theory – Locke-ian idea, intrinsic laws that govern humans in the “natural state”. Laws are made on principle. Two prime dissenting examples.
a. Nuremburg War Trials – formed for trials against humanity by establishing that these violators are prosecuted regardless of military order and command.
b. Tokyo War Trials - formed for trials against humanity by establishing that these violators are prosecuted by military order and command. Example: In Re Yamashita was convicted of ordering his men to slaughter Filipinos while retreating after a battle, yet there is tangible proof that he had lost all contact and did not know what his men were doing. It was assumed that the commanding officer is responsible because it is collective guilt.
i. Dissenting opinion at the time was if one would apply this in the event of an American doing the violating, the President is ultimately responsible.
2. Positive Law Theory –maintains that law is whatever the supreme authority (as society dictates) can make and enforce.
ii. Traffic laws are thought to be positive laws, yet it CAN’T be enforced. What!?
3. Legal Realism/Social Law Theory – there is a gradual and organic growth of law in specific, individual societies to adjust conflicting interests peacefully. [Moderate theory of the three.]
IV. Judge Relation to Other Judges (Stories)
a. Associate Justice Sovelin hated Jewish Associate Justice Brandeis so much that their picture for the court placed both at either end despite the long-held tradition of placement by nomination, and in their 30 years of simultaneous service, had not said one word to each other.
b. Associate Justice Day O’Connor hated Associate Justice Scalia’s guts and so risked being called a flaming liberal simply by consistently voting in opposite of Justice Scalia.
The three branches are supposed to possess checks, balances, and political power. Until judicial review, the constitution literally hadn’t granted anything besides checks and balances to the Supreme Court. In fact, Marbury v. Madison is not what established judicial review, it was the obscure case United States v. Yale Todd (1794) that had first struck down an executive act unconstitutional. It was discovered as a precedent in a footnote reference in the Marbury v. Madison decision files.
V. How the Supreme Court Makes Law
1. Passively – brings out constitutional changes based on traditions and precedents. (Potentially controversial) Example: Roe v. Wade
2. Negatively – Court says to Congress, “your law is unconstitutional.” Example: Marbury v. Madison
3. Positively – extending the provisions of the constitution into the institutions of government where the instances did not initially apply. Essentially, encroachment of the Supreme Court, limiting the other branches. Example: Miranda Warning
Note: What real power could a court have over a truly motivated institution such as Congress? For example, the ability to institute a national income tax has been proclaimed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on six occasions, yet it says that taxation is constitutional by Congress in Article I. So, Congress got the 16th Amendment ratified, thereby shutting up the Supreme Court opinion forever. (The check on a Supreme Court ruling is either an overturn by the court itself or a Constitutional amendment.)
Note II: All Supreme Court criticisms have been whether or not judges should be the ones making the laws.
VI. Incorporation
a. Selective Incorporation is to essentially use one of the first ten Amendments, use the 14th Amendment, Section I, Clause 2 (“due process”), and force it into the constitutions of the states.
i. John Marshall confronted this by saying that the Bill of Rights was a Federal government restriction, not a state restriction. If you don’t like your lack of rights in a state, move, hun.
ii. 1st Amendment Incorporation: Right to Speech (1925), Right to Assembly (1937), Right to Religion (1940)
iii. 6th Amendment Incorporation: Right to Fair Trial (1932), Right to an Attorney (1942)
iv. 9th Amendment Incorporation: Right to Privacy (1965)
1. First Marital Privacy through Griswold v. Connecticut. It was read as a penumbra through the 1st Amendment, then through the 14th Amendment, then to the states.
2. Justice Black at the time dissented by saying that the 4th and 5th Amendment clauses of “no unreasonable searches and seizures” plus “no self-incrimination” respectively already secured privacy.
VII. Three Theories of Incorporation
1. Non-Incorporation/Fundamental Fairness – If you are ruthlessly abused and unusually punished for exercising rights by your state, the Supreme Court would then incorporate.
2. Literalists – Fourteenth Amendment was to get rid of Barron v. Baltimore, and that all rights should be fully incorporated at once.
3. Selective Incorporation – not all amendments are identically important.
i. If the 7th Amendment was incorporated, that every civil suit in excess of $20 would be settled by a Jury, Judge Judy would have no job! Bad idea.
VIII. Two Levels of Incorporation
1. Incorporating a right gives you that right, but now this is for the Federal level and State level. Originally it was mutually exclusive, so a State court had to apply state laws, and a Federal circuit had to apply Federal laws.
2. Keeping the rights in sync with the Federal laws.
......
Completed notes so far, peace.
Chris Carl
"There is no native criminal class in America besides Congress." - Mark Twain
Friday, July 9, 2010
I AM SO SAD!!!
Hey guys,
You know that feeling that you get when you want to cry because you'll never see any of these great people ever again? Yeah, that's what I'm feeling right now. I'm going to post up the notes that I took for the final exam, and you're going to have a look at it! Anyways, I think that this montage of webcam videos aught to demonstrate more or less the rush of emotions that I have been feeling.
Congressional Academy Log #7: 7/07/10, We're All Going to Slit Our Wrists
Congressional Academy Log #8: 7/08/10, Packing is Sweet Sorow.
Congressional Academy Log #9: 7/09/10, Signing Off, Congressional Academy
From the Sheraton Hotel in Arlington, VA, this is Chris Carl, signing off.
Peace,
Chris Carl
You know that feeling that you get when you want to cry because you'll never see any of these great people ever again? Yeah, that's what I'm feeling right now. I'm going to post up the notes that I took for the final exam, and you're going to have a look at it! Anyways, I think that this montage of webcam videos aught to demonstrate more or less the rush of emotions that I have been feeling.
Congressional Academy Log #7: 7/07/10, We're All Going to Slit Our Wrists
Congressional Academy Log #8: 7/08/10, Packing is Sweet Sorow.
Congressional Academy Log #9: 7/09/10, Signing Off, Congressional Academy
From the Sheraton Hotel in Arlington, VA, this is Chris Carl, signing off.
Peace,
Chris Carl
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Only At Congressional Academy
Woe is me,
Just kidding. Lots of stuff has happened so far, and I've pretty much fallen in love with Monticello, much more so than the over-visited Mount Vernon. So much prettier, much less accessible, and so much more intellectual. Unfortunately I could not get any pictures of the insides due to copyright whatevers, so I shall point out some interesting stuff about it.
It's made with the Pantheon in mind, with columns and arches freaking everywhere in the house, including windows, living quarters, and hallways.
He retained 1000 books for personal enjoyment when he donated his remaining collection of 6000 to the Library of Congress.
He is fascinated with time, and has eight clocks in the house, eight more than in any other colonial house of the time.
He was an astrologist, a philosopher, an archaeologist, a biologist, a literary artist, family owner, inventor, and architect. Jeez.
He died in his bed, amidst pink sheets and tools of writings and stargazing.
Trivia:
His chess set is missing the white king, of whose fate was never determined.
His flooring is octagonal wooden panels as well as the shape of one of the guest rooms.
He has a naked picture of the Mary Magdalene in the living room.
He wrote over 1900 letters during his life.
Oh, and just a little interesting stuff that's going on for me personally. Notes to follow shortly.
Congressional Academy Log #6: 7/03/10, CA is Life Changing for Me
Peace,
Chris Carl
"Intelligence is just the ability to verbally express one's self in a language that is understood." - Lane Erickson
Just kidding. Lots of stuff has happened so far, and I've pretty much fallen in love with Monticello, much more so than the over-visited Mount Vernon. So much prettier, much less accessible, and so much more intellectual. Unfortunately I could not get any pictures of the insides due to copyright whatevers, so I shall point out some interesting stuff about it.
It's made with the Pantheon in mind, with columns and arches freaking everywhere in the house, including windows, living quarters, and hallways.
He retained 1000 books for personal enjoyment when he donated his remaining collection of 6000 to the Library of Congress.
He is fascinated with time, and has eight clocks in the house, eight more than in any other colonial house of the time.
He was an astrologist, a philosopher, an archaeologist, a biologist, a literary artist, family owner, inventor, and architect. Jeez.
He died in his bed, amidst pink sheets and tools of writings and stargazing.
Trivia:
His chess set is missing the white king, of whose fate was never determined.
His flooring is octagonal wooden panels as well as the shape of one of the guest rooms.
He has a naked picture of the Mary Magdalene in the living room.
He wrote over 1900 letters during his life.
Oh, and just a little interesting stuff that's going on for me personally. Notes to follow shortly.
Congressional Academy Log #6: 7/03/10, CA is Life Changing for Me
Peace,
Chris Carl
"Intelligence is just the ability to verbally express one's self in a language that is understood." - Lane Erickson
Friday, July 2, 2010
My Sincerest Apologies, But I Can Make Up For It
Oh man,
In a word, I've been busy, but in three words, I have been "busy being lazy". Essentially, so many things have happened since I last posted, which does feel like forever, but it hasn't been for nothing. It has been AMAZING (as usual).
Sites that we have visited:
06/30/10:
Library of Congress
U.S. Supreme Court
White House
Ford's Theater
Lincoln Assassination Museum
07/01/10:
Independence Hall Visitor Center
National Constitution Center
Liberty Bell
Independence Hal
07/02/10:
Thomas Jefferson Memorial
Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial
Abraham Lincoln Memorial
Korean War Memorial
Vietnam War Memorial
World War II Memorial
Some Notes Up to 06/30/10:
06/28/10:
Readings:
The Federalist Papers, #9, #15, #39 (para. 1), #53 (para 1-3)
Articles of Confederation (1777)
Vices of the Political System of the United States no. 11 (1787), James Madison
Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, James Madison
Common Session #5 – Professor Sikkenga
I. Purpose of Government
a. To provide for its people and its interests.
i. For a committed Nazi, the purpose of government is to provide only for German race people or at least Aryans. They took back the lands that were once German, and they also purified the people through mass Genocide.
ii. The Soviets truly wanted to spread Communism and create the New Soviet.
iii. For the American Founders, government’s purpose is to be instituted among consenting men to secure Natural Rights.
1. This shows a different intent from the other countries.
b. The Best Government
i. Consent – men must consent to be ruled, doesn’t mean that the men do the ruling.
II. Federalist #9
a. What about ancient [popularly ruled] governments?
i. Rome had extremes, anarchism and dictatorship, and when looking back in history at these guys, you should be disgusted by this behavior. Neither extreme protects Natural Rights, anarchism because no one knows what it is, and dictatorship which is designed to deprive people of their natural rights.
1. When its “beams of glory” shined through, it was great, so you’ve got to cure the problems with Republicanism’s weaknesses.
2. Note, if popular government didn’t work in the past, why institute self-government now? It works now at this time because we are educated.
III. Federalist #39
a. Republican for is what we need because the Americans have a different style of thinking, a different and unique genius.
Class meeting #4 – Professor Portteus, Professor Hess
I. Federalist #53
a. Elections keep consent in and less corruption due to set term limits.
b. Note: Parliament is pretty much a continual constitutional Convenstion with absolutely no written constituton, so reign is completely in the hands of the parliament.
II. Articles of Confederation
a. Traits
i. No executive,
ii. State sovereignty
iii. Equal representation/votes in congress
iv. Congress cannot raise or levy taxes
v. No internal trade regulations
vi. States can’t mae alliances with two or more states.
vii. Congress works a s an arbiter of the states
viii. States coin their own money.
Class Meeting #5 – Professor Portteus, Professor Hess
I. Hamilton’s Plan
a. There will be an electorate college, chosen by the people.
i. President for life.
ii. Established a cabinet.
iii. Bi-cameral Congress into the Assembly and Senate Houses.
iv. Senators elected through state legislators.
06/30/10:
Readings:
Letter to Samuel Kercheval, Jefferson
The Federalist Papers, #10, #49, #51, #84 (paras. 8-12)
Letter to Thomas Jefferson, Madison
Common Session #7 – Professor Sikkenga
I. Admiration
a. The public ought to participate in government, and in doing so, they usually come to revere a public hero.
b. A constitutional republic shows that inherently we are governed by the written “rule of law”, and judgment is inherently before the law as opposed to before another human being. This is not inherent in a monarchy or a dictatorship.
i. Our laws are the laws we give ourselves by believing that the constitution is valid. Therefore, by obeying the laws, we actually obey ourselves because we technically made the laws by approving the constitution.
II. Letter to Samuel Kerchival
a. We can change the constitutions because:
i. We are wiser than the previous Generation.
ii. Each Generation has new interests, so you must change the constitution to fit the next Generation’s needs.
III. Federalist #49
a. Criticizes Jefferson's “Of the State of Virginia”
b. To ensure good government, you cannot keep altering the constitution because if it seems to be full of flaws, then so are the practical laws that stem from the constitutional provisions for law making.
Class Meeting #6
I. The Small Republic Argument
a. A big republic can’t connect well enough to its people because of the fact that it is big. A prime example would be Rome; as it expanded it changed from a Republic to an Empire.
i. A big republic allows for extremes of class due to a lack of true representation.
ii. This complicate system is too hard to understand and thus political powers can easily
b. In short, a Republic can only work if it’s small.
II. Federalist #10
a. A Faction is agroup of people united by passions or ideals.
b. Factions form between everyone has different means of acquiring estate or posessions.
i. The ways to control factions are through eliminating the causes or controlling the effects, and the first will eliminate liberty to choice while the latter will eliminate liberty of exercise.
1. Two types of factions exist, the majority and the minority.
ii. A truly determined majority will always win, so the real controlling effects question involves the majority faction – how to protect the minority from rights encroachment. Size is the solution.
c. When you have size, ideals get watered down, and it’s easier to sway the people on the outside of the majority who have the most diluted ideals and get them to defect from the cause.
i. It is this effect that controls factions. Majority factions are lethargic to act, and therefore usually solve themselves if the interests are varied in the peoples of the faction.
ii. We can’t assume people to be virtuous, so relying on factions instead of fearing them plays to its weakness.
Class Meeting #7
I. Federalist 84
a. A Bill of Rights is between a monarch and subjects, not persons and a constitution per say.
i. A bill is not necessary and is dangerous.
II. Federalist #51
a. We need effective checking security.
i. Justices are protected from the wills of the people at large because they are chosen by the President and therefore Congress.
ii. One problem is the salaries of all office holders.
1. Congress determines them all for everyone, but for one thing, Justice wages cannot be lowered, only raised. The Presidential Salary is static. Congressional salaries are changed when the next term arises.
iii. If you create powerful offices, that ambition will make the holders want to keep it, and therefore won’t attempt to alter someone else's office for fear of his own office getting altered.
1. Effectively, greed protects from greed.
III. Letter to Thomas Jefferson
a. Madison was a Federalist author, but he eventually supported the Bill of Rights and authored most of it.
i. We didn’t give up free speech to the federal government, therefore it is reserved, and pointless to protect on paper.
ii. On the flip side, written words serve as something citable, ad would add more to arguments as a credible source. “Half a loaf of bread is better than no bread at all.” – Thomas Jefferson
Congressional Academy Log #5: 7/02/10, This is Using Hard Drive Space...
That should be all for now.
Peace,
Chris Carl
“Too many people expect wonders from democracy, when the most wonderful thing of all is just having it.” — Walter Winchell
P.S. I should go over this more when I have some more free time...
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Dood... I am Pooed
Yeah, so I don't feel like posting right now? It's figgin late, and the people that I talk to are psychopaths, so good morning, and peace.
Chris Carl
Chris Carl
Monday, June 28, 2010
Greetings Earthlings
Greetings Earthings.
You know, so far, I have been pretty ambiguous about what actually happens at the Congressional Academy, so I've decided to actually give you a good representation of what is actually going on here. I'm giving you the abridged tour of what Congressional Academy is offering as far as actual learning is concerned. Here's a summary of what I got from the AMAZING readings today!
Readings:
The Declaration of Independence (1st Sentence) (1776)
Locke, Second Treatise of Government, Sections 4-8, 54, and 123.24 (1690)
Resolves of Boston (1772)
Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted (1775)
Class Meeting #2
Common Session 2
a. “What makes America one people?” – not blood, religion, but ideals and shared common principles.
i. Other countries have trouble dealing with the idea of many different people but one body, and have immigration trouble because all of their citizens are so because of blood.
b. Self-Evidence – evidence that is given in the proposition, e.g. Pythagorean Theorem
i. Self-evidence is only so once the person is educated. Jefferson asserted that everyone must be first enlightened to it, and then continually educated to it, lest it be forgotten.
Seminar #2
b. 2nd Treatise of Civil Government, Locke
i. State of Nature – a primal state of lack of all government, which entitles perfect, theoretical freedom. In this state, everyone is a king to another. This realm is guided by Natural Laws.
c. A Farmer Refuted, Hamilton
i. Natural laws:
1. Universal, instantly understood, existent everywhere, unalienable, immutable, and eternal.
2. Dictated by the God or Maker and superior to human laws.
3. You can give up these natural laws in practice for the sake of practicality, but you still have it built in.
b. Reason is an impressive faculty, but some laws (like divine laws) cannot be understood through human reason. It must be taught.
i. As species, our capacity for “smarts” is the same, but the level or content of education changes.
c. Aristocratic Theory (Three levels of being):
i. Gods – pure reason and super-dimentional existence.
ii. Beasts – purely irrational and instinctual.
iii. Humans – mediation between, both God faculties and Beast faculties.
d. What Natural Law Stipulates
i. Equality – all have same natural rights and natural obligations.
1. In everything besides natural rights and obligations, we can be different in any aspect, and there’s nothing unjust about that.
ii. Natural Rights (among those, there might be more)
1. Life
2. Liberty
3. Estate
4. Pursuit of Happiness
5. Property
iii. Property
1. Property encompasses everything that you give value to, have a right to, and does not infringe on someone else’s property.
2. The most important rights are not estate, so the class divide dissolves and equality surface. It’s not equal ownership, but equal opportunity to be potential owners.
Today we actually visited the National Archives and apparently that is where the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is. However, there was a time when cameras were actually allowed. Apparently, sometime in February of this year, some guy was told that his camera would be taken away because had the flash on. Turns out, this guy flipped out and assaulted the cop. SO no, no photography AT ALL!!! Anyways, it was absolutely amazing, lovely documents, and I got a poster of the Declaration of Independence, and a poster of Rosie the Riveter, both of which I will promptly hang once I get home.
So yeah doods! I can't wait till the next string of notes.
Congressional Academy Log #4: 6/28/10, Greetings Earthlings
Peace,
Chris Carl
You know, so far, I have been pretty ambiguous about what actually happens at the Congressional Academy, so I've decided to actually give you a good representation of what is actually going on here. I'm giving you the abridged tour of what Congressional Academy is offering as far as actual learning is concerned. Here's a summary of what I got from the AMAZING readings today!
Readings:
The Declaration of Independence (1st Sentence) (1776)
Locke, Second Treatise of Government, Sections 4-8, 54, and 123.24 (1690)
Resolves of Boston (1772)
Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted (1775)
Class Meeting #2
Common Session 2
a. “What makes America one people?” – not blood, religion, but ideals and shared common principles.
i. Other countries have trouble dealing with the idea of many different people but one body, and have immigration trouble because all of their citizens are so because of blood.
b. Self-Evidence – evidence that is given in the proposition, e.g. Pythagorean Theorem
i. Self-evidence is only so once the person is educated. Jefferson asserted that everyone must be first enlightened to it, and then continually educated to it, lest it be forgotten.
Seminar #2
b. 2nd Treatise of Civil Government, Locke
i. State of Nature – a primal state of lack of all government, which entitles perfect, theoretical freedom. In this state, everyone is a king to another. This realm is guided by Natural Laws.
c. A Farmer Refuted, Hamilton
i. Natural laws:
1. Universal, instantly understood, existent everywhere, unalienable, immutable, and eternal.
2. Dictated by the God or Maker and superior to human laws.
3. You can give up these natural laws in practice for the sake of practicality, but you still have it built in.
b. Reason is an impressive faculty, but some laws (like divine laws) cannot be understood through human reason. It must be taught.
i. As species, our capacity for “smarts” is the same, but the level or content of education changes.
c. Aristocratic Theory (Three levels of being):
i. Gods – pure reason and super-dimentional existence.
ii. Beasts – purely irrational and instinctual.
iii. Humans – mediation between, both God faculties and Beast faculties.
d. What Natural Law Stipulates
i. Equality – all have same natural rights and natural obligations.
1. In everything besides natural rights and obligations, we can be different in any aspect, and there’s nothing unjust about that.
ii. Natural Rights (among those, there might be more)
1. Life
2. Liberty
3. Estate
4. Pursuit of Happiness
5. Property
iii. Property
1. Property encompasses everything that you give value to, have a right to, and does not infringe on someone else’s property.
2. The most important rights are not estate, so the class divide dissolves and equality surface. It’s not equal ownership, but equal opportunity to be potential owners.
Today we actually visited the National Archives and apparently that is where the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is. However, there was a time when cameras were actually allowed. Apparently, sometime in February of this year, some guy was told that his camera would be taken away because had the flash on. Turns out, this guy flipped out and assaulted the cop. SO no, no photography AT ALL!!! Anyways, it was absolutely amazing, lovely documents, and I got a poster of the Declaration of Independence, and a poster of Rosie the Riveter, both of which I will promptly hang once I get home.
So yeah doods! I can't wait till the next string of notes.
Congressional Academy Log #4: 6/28/10, Greetings Earthlings
Peace,
Chris Carl
Sunday, June 27, 2010
First Contact
Oh man,
I'm just telling you, every time I go to D.C., it is a whole other experience no matter from what angle it is coming from. It is spectacular, the approach over Regan National Airport is superb, with a grand view of the Pentagon, Washington Monument and Lincoln Memorial, just amazing. I can't ever get over that. Out of 14,000 High Schools that applied, only 112 students got in, 1 declined. Jeebus.
At the airport, the chaperons were well ready to greet us, very obvious amidst the gray backdrops of Regan's Baggage Claim, but the ride to the hotel was sweet and to the point, and I mingled with kids from literally every state, and I know for a fact that we have a good group as a whole.
I'm an icebreaker, so I pulled out the game of Egyptian Rat Screw and that totally softened the mood, and we talked about colleges, the program, how much we didn't read, who was valedictorian of the class, etcetera, etcetera.
The opening session by Professor Sikkenga was really superb, after dinner of course. He allowed us to analyze the first few texts that we had in much different detail, by analyzing Jefferson's words slowly in his two letters detailing his perception of the Declaration of Independence's significance. In his "Letter to Henry Lee" (May 8, 1825), Jefferson is crystalizing that the Declaration was not just random ideologies just to speak them, but to imortalize that what is common sense. In his "Letter to Roger Weightman" (June 24, 1826), Jefferson is musing that this document will actually be the pillar for a revolution of reason and self-government, particularly in light that the War of 1812 had effectively secured this idea.
We have been split into groups, deemed Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison. Obviously I'm in the kool kid's club with Washington and we are so going to tear butt at this.
We had our group tackle the next question with Professors Hess and Portteus who are amazing people by far. We tried to cover the entire session, but we ran out of time for study sake. We will continue tomorrow, but the National Archives are also coming up. SO PUMPED!!!
I need to go now, and it's pretty frikin late, but I will definitely upload photos and whatever I can to make this even better!
Congressional Academy Log #3: 6/27/10, First Contact
Peace,
Chris Carl
"The true meaning of life is to plant trees under whose shade you do not expect to sit." - Nelson Henderson (Roomate's [Gavin] Quote)
I'm just telling you, every time I go to D.C., it is a whole other experience no matter from what angle it is coming from. It is spectacular, the approach over Regan National Airport is superb, with a grand view of the Pentagon, Washington Monument and Lincoln Memorial, just amazing. I can't ever get over that. Out of 14,000 High Schools that applied, only 112 students got in, 1 declined. Jeebus.
At the airport, the chaperons were well ready to greet us, very obvious amidst the gray backdrops of Regan's Baggage Claim, but the ride to the hotel was sweet and to the point, and I mingled with kids from literally every state, and I know for a fact that we have a good group as a whole.
I'm an icebreaker, so I pulled out the game of Egyptian Rat Screw and that totally softened the mood, and we talked about colleges, the program, how much we didn't read, who was valedictorian of the class, etcetera, etcetera.
The opening session by Professor Sikkenga was really superb, after dinner of course. He allowed us to analyze the first few texts that we had in much different detail, by analyzing Jefferson's words slowly in his two letters detailing his perception of the Declaration of Independence's significance. In his "Letter to Henry Lee" (May 8, 1825), Jefferson is crystalizing that the Declaration was not just random ideologies just to speak them, but to imortalize that what is common sense. In his "Letter to Roger Weightman" (June 24, 1826), Jefferson is musing that this document will actually be the pillar for a revolution of reason and self-government, particularly in light that the War of 1812 had effectively secured this idea.
We have been split into groups, deemed Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison. Obviously I'm in the kool kid's club with Washington and we are so going to tear butt at this.
We had our group tackle the next question with Professors Hess and Portteus who are amazing people by far. We tried to cover the entire session, but we ran out of time for study sake. We will continue tomorrow, but the National Archives are also coming up. SO PUMPED!!!
I need to go now, and it's pretty frikin late, but I will definitely upload photos and whatever I can to make this even better!
Congressional Academy Log #3: 6/27/10, First Contact
Peace,
Chris Carl
"The true meaning of life is to plant trees under whose shade you do not expect to sit." - Nelson Henderson (Roomate's [Gavin] Quote)
Saturday, June 26, 2010
The Adventures Have Not Begun [Yet]
Dear LOYAL readers,
No, the adventures have not started yet, but I have a few details that I feel like I should outline about my journey. I truly am so pumped right now that I actually have butterflies in my stomach as I am reading this. But no matter. Currently as I type, I have strewn all of the materials that I am packing across several rooms and have not yet brought that all around into a few suit cases.
Here are all of my travel details so that you may stalk me (further):
American Airlines Flight 1068, Departing from Miami Airport at 9:35 A.M.
Sheraton Crystal City Hotel, 1800 Jefferson Davis Highway; Arlington, VA
Duration: Sunday, June 27th 6:00 P.M. to Friday, July 19 12:30 P.M.
My packing includes for these thirteen days:
2 Suits
2 Pairs of Dress Pants
6 Ties
3 Silk Squares
7 T-Shirts
5 Undershirts
4 Overshirts
2 Tropical Shirts
3 Pairs of Shorts
2 Pairs of Blue Jeans
1 Pair of Black Jeans
7 Boxers
7 Pairs of Socks
3 Pairs of Shoes
Tangerines
Chewey Bars
Doritos
HP dv6t Laptop
Panasonic Lumix DMC-Z56
RIM Blackberry Curve 8520 Black
Apple iPod Classic 160GB Black
Oh, and my Pocket Knife for good luck (if I can find it...).
The adventure starts tomorrow, and here are a few links of some live action of my musings for your pleasure.
Congressional Academy Log #1: 6/26/10, The Adventure Has Not Begun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvLZ4GYJ0cw
Congressional Academy Log #2: 6/26/10, The Adventure Has [Still] Not Begun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk2aTE8RCkA
Peace,
Chris Carl
"A fool talks just to say something. a wise man talks because he has something to say." - Albert Einstein
No, the adventures have not started yet, but I have a few details that I feel like I should outline about my journey. I truly am so pumped right now that I actually have butterflies in my stomach as I am reading this. But no matter. Currently as I type, I have strewn all of the materials that I am packing across several rooms and have not yet brought that all around into a few suit cases.
Here are all of my travel details so that you may stalk me (further):
American Airlines Flight 1068, Departing from Miami Airport at 9:35 A.M.
Sheraton Crystal City Hotel, 1800 Jefferson Davis Highway; Arlington, VA
Duration: Sunday, June 27th 6:00 P.M. to Friday, July 19 12:30 P.M.
My packing includes for these thirteen days:
2 Suits
2 Pairs of Dress Pants
6 Ties
3 Silk Squares
7 T-Shirts
5 Undershirts
4 Overshirts
2 Tropical Shirts
3 Pairs of Shorts
2 Pairs of Blue Jeans
1 Pair of Black Jeans
7 Boxers
7 Pairs of Socks
3 Pairs of Shoes
Tangerines
Chewey Bars
Doritos
HP dv6t Laptop
Panasonic Lumix DMC-Z56
RIM Blackberry Curve 8520 Black
Apple iPod Classic 160GB Black
Oh, and my Pocket Knife for good luck (if I can find it...).
The adventure starts tomorrow, and here are a few links of some live action of my musings for your pleasure.
Congressional Academy Log #1: 6/26/10, The Adventure Has Not Begun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvLZ4GYJ0cw
Congressional Academy Log #2: 6/26/10, The Adventure Has [Still] Not Begun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk2aTE8RCkA
Peace,
Chris Carl
"A fool talks just to say something. a wise man talks because he has something to say." - Albert Einstein
Friday, June 25, 2010
Let the Chronicles Begin
Hello, my name is Christopher Carl, and I am currently a student at Dreyfoos School of the Arts. I find that this blogging stuff may prove to be super useful, so I decided hell, I'll try it. I intend to use this for a personal database of my thoughts, adventures, and musings, although some other social networking sites have already portrayed a wide variety of that already.
I intend to make this blog witty, humorous, slanderous, raw, and occasionally questionable. Reading my blog is your choice alone, and you shouldn't expect anything out of it because I intend to make it very "unexpectable".
If you are an aquaintance of mine, welcome to my world. Hopefully this will only encourage you to stay any thing like acquaintance or maybe even good friend?
If you are an enemy of mine, or just simply don't like me, I can assure you that this will only make you hate me more, and probably give you a laugh at the same time.
If you are a friend, don't be surprised.
Oh, and if you're a college admissions dude or dudette, welcome to my world (just try not to consider this aspect of me in the application? Unless you want crazy people, of course)!
Regards,
Chris Carl
P.S. I'm gonna regret this in ten years.
"Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry, 1775
I intend to make this blog witty, humorous, slanderous, raw, and occasionally questionable. Reading my blog is your choice alone, and you shouldn't expect anything out of it because I intend to make it very "unexpectable".
If you are an aquaintance of mine, welcome to my world. Hopefully this will only encourage you to stay any thing like acquaintance or maybe even good friend?
If you are an enemy of mine, or just simply don't like me, I can assure you that this will only make you hate me more, and probably give you a laugh at the same time.
If you are a friend, don't be surprised.
Oh, and if you're a college admissions dude or dudette, welcome to my world (just try not to consider this aspect of me in the application? Unless you want crazy people, of course)!
Regards,
Chris Carl
P.S. I'm gonna regret this in ten years.
"Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry, 1775
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
