My Thanksgiving Weekend

So I had a weird weekend. It wasn't as exciting as this Thanksgiving, but it was fun nonetheless. By the by, that site is about 6 years old and hasn't been updated in as long. Also, I was 8 went I wrote it. As for the names, well, I guess I was mad at my brother that day. Go figure.

Now onto 2005 Thanksgiving. I got off work early but had to stick around to pick up my dry cleaning. I picked it up at 6 and started toward San Angelo. Came to a complete stop about 15 minutes into the drive. After an hour, I had traveled a shade under a mile and I still hadn't gotten out of southwest Oklahoma City. So I just went home and crashed there with the intent of leaving early in the morning for San Angelo.

Thursday, I got up on time, loaded up my truck and turned the key. Nothing happened. Tried it again and nothing. Not an attempt to turn over. So, at 6:00 a.m. on Thanksgiving Day, I opened up the hood of my truck to look at the engine. But, since my dad only taught me how to check the oil, fluids and change the tires, I only did what the Y chromosome in me, and opened up the hood and stared at the engine. While that's not completely true, I did know that it was either the battery or the alternator. But, since no one was in sight as far as neighbors go, I was stuck there. So, I went inside and watched TV and played online poker. Thank goodness for football and the witty banter of a well-broadcasted parade. Nevermind the anchors failing to mention the sirens blaring behind them. My cats got turkey in gravy and I had myself a PB&J sandwich and some tortillas for desert. Mmm.

Friday, got our cooler younger neighbor to help me jump the truck and took it to get the source of the problem checked out. Autozone said it was the battery, so 40 bucks and a few wrench turns later and my truck was a good as new. I got back in time to hear that Donivan and Stephanie were making their way up to Mustang for the evening. They showed and promptly crashed.

Saturday, Stephanie and her puppy (a energetic Jack Russell named Porkchop) woke me up and had me turn the alarm off so the dog could go outside. Way too early for a Saturday. Took a nap and waited until Donivan got his happy ass up. Once we were all up, we partook in Stephanie's newest and most gooder hobby, Geocaching. Went to four places within a couple miles of the house, then I went back and watched OSU get the shit kicked out of them for 60 minutes while they went to her parents house for some dinner. Saturday night, went out with D&S, Cassandra and Miranda and saw Superfreak. The girls got tore up had some unspeakable fun. (At least none of them got a new nickname like last time, right Steph?) Sunday, I wrapped up a paper that was due on Monday. Not a very eventful weekend, but fun. Hope everyone's was good to them.

Well allow me to retort

I was asked for my feelings and/or response to the text of my brother's advice and consent hearing before the U.S. Senate. It's a good read, and I suggest reading it first before continuing here.

In my previous post, I mostly focused on why I like the law as a career. Granted, I'm torn between the lucrative attorney at law and the Josh Lyman-esque hard nosed political frontliner. I gotta admit while the ease and financial pluses of private practice are appealing, public service really entices me. That said, my idea of my chosen profession is entirely different than my interpretation of the Constitution and the role of the judiciary. I'll preface by saying that while I have been branded a Republican by some (merely for geography I feel), I do not conform to any particular party platform. While I do believe political parties are useful and necessary, especially now when there are so many issues out there, I do not subscribe wholly to any one.

That said, Nominee McKenzie and I are not that far off. Articles I-III clearly outline the roles, powers and duties of each branch of government. Article I is the most detailed and largest of the three. I believe this was done for two reasons. First, the Framers wanted the legislative branch, or the People's branch, to be the most powerful of the three. Second, power corrupts, and they knew that. That's why the institution of checks and balances was introduced into our system of government.

However, at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, the branches of government were not equal, despite the checks and balances. Not until Marbury v. Madison did the Court get any teeth. But, where did the Court, and in particular Marshall, get the power to declare anything unconstitutional in Marbury? Simply, it made it up. Judicial review isn't in the Constitution. Marshall and the Court simply invented (hoo hoo, tell em fred) the idea of judicial review. 201 years later, it's still regarded as a natural consequence of the judicial power given by the Constitution. Same goes with many other legal ideas.

Chris cited two of the biggies that his and my generation will be dealing with in the next couple decades - privacy and gender equality. There are those that say that since privacy isn't in the Constitution. That while your right to not be searched and seized absent just cause is protected, your privacy otherwise isn't. Now, I doubt the Framers had the internet, e-mail, instant tabloid tv (or the news as most call it) in mind when they excluded any reference to privacy, but these are also the same Framers who valued a minority at 3/5 a man. That said, I feel that the thoughts and ideas of the Framers are a good barometer when trying to interpret. As far a certain class of interpretation, put me inbetween the Originalist and the Modernist. I think reading and knowing the intent and ideas behind the Framers words will help someone now to put those ideas to work in this time period.

I believe the Constitution is a living document. It should be interpreted in the here and now with the words that the Framers wrote, along with knowing and understanding their original intent on the vague phrases and disputed meanings. That said, do not mistake that I'm saying what the Framers said or believed goes, or their thoughts should be used in weighing the interpretation of the Constitution.

Sociology 101 tells you that norms are rules of conduct that a society has deemed appropriate. Those norms, and thus, laws evolve over time. Its true, the judiciary has become a de facto lawmaker. Laws shouldn't be made by lawsuits and judicial ruling. Stare decisis poses many problems when there is no actual federal law to be ruling on. Recently, there have been instances where perceived judicial "activism" has produced amendments to some state's Constitutions. The fact that someone is forcing the people's hand is, in my mind, a natural balance of the three branches. States are beginning to amend their Constitutions, and sooner or later, the U.S. Congress will be forced into fufilling their obligations. Lets hope sooner than later.

Long time...

Well well well well well...looks like I haven't updated in a while. Guess it's high time I change that. So what do you want to know? What's new with me? Well..... oh, and..... um......::::scratching head:::

School is school. Work is work. Oh yeah. That's news, I got a raise. (No C&B, not that kind) :::shaking head::: More money means more gooder. Speaking of work, I'm fortunate to be able to get listen to my XM radio while working, and TMBG (Birdhouse in your Soul) and REM (can't remember, but one I had never heard before) came on today, back to back (and a belly to belly!! [inside joke]). You don't get too much TMBG on regular radio. But I've heard Triangle Man, Istanbul, and many other TMBG songs on this channel, Lucy, for those keeping track.

On the other front, school is slow and steady. Not enough classes to take at night, but I'll get there eventually.

I used to like sciences. Not as much as I liked math, but I did. Even though in 8th grade, my model rocket was the only one that didn't work (it was 3 feet tall and right as I pushed the ignition the wind blew it over and the engine ignited the entire rocket, and my week's worth of work became quite the fireball spectacle). Point? I don't like the sciences as much anymore. Certain sciences do, but natural and life sciences, I don't. Why? I've been racking my brain for a little while trying to figure it out. Maybe because "regular" sciences aren't, for the most part, arguable. When you have an experiment, you have two ideas - null and alternative hypothesis - but the experiment proves one over and above the other, most of the time. The science of law however, you always have two ideas, but there is almost always support for both. And the theory isn't based on an experiment. It's based on another person's interpretation of that same issue. Maybe its the human factor. The ability to make mistakes, and the ability of man to correct those same mistakes. Baseball, my favorite sport to play and watch, is all about the human factor. Umpires' strike zone, judgment calls. It's all human. There's no replay. All eyes and ears. Law has the same human factor. Judges, some good, most bad. Juries. All bad. Find me an attorney that wants his case in front of a jury, and I'll tell you that attorney is playing with fire while standing in gasoline. But its the human factor. The judge that agress with the law you're arguing but hates you. Or vice versa. The appellate court that doesn't give a damn about you or your case, just the law and/or the politics. And the U.S Supreme Court that only cares about the politics. :)

You can argue your case and your supporting law, and it doesn't matter if the facts support your case or not, you can still win with your ability. So does that mean I like it when the wrong guy wins? No, but O.J. and Michael are innocent. :) Sometimes your case is lost because your idea hasn't had its time yet. Granted, there aren't any segregation issues or abortion issues (there's no way that ever gets overturned), but one day, some appellate clerk will dig up the lone voice of opposition from 30 years ago and it will then become the law of the land. (I swear I heard that somewhere before, but I can't figure out where.) The history. The precedent. The evolution of ideas. The mistakes. The things we got right. The things unimagined by the Framers. The things not yet imagined by anyone.

Perhaps one day I'll sit down and really put my thoughts together on the legal profession and lawyers. This was just, well, blog worthy.

Quite the tangent there. My apologies. Work is work and school is school.

Til next time, and lets hope that it's not so long between posts. :)