Yes, we all know you're not supposed to care about rankings. But they exist, and, if nothing else, they make for fun conversation.
The TaxProf Blog posed an interesting question recently: how much is a law school helped or hurt by the university of it is a part? "Of the Top 100 (105 with ties) law schools in the most recent ranking, all but 13 are affiliated with national universities." He posted a list of the biggest positive spread and the biggest negative spread schools. I'm proud to say that Indiana Law is #27 on the biggest positive spread list, with a spread of 39 ranks (#36 law school with a #75 undergrad). Maybe we're holding them up.
Although the administration of our law school officially shuns the rankings, it's good to know that we continue to make upwards strides. We are consistently ranked in all sorts of rankings, from U.S. News and World Reports to TaxProf to Professor's Articles Receiving Citations. I'm glad I made a good choice in law school.
11.20.2007
Hoosier Gun Owner?
As expected, the Supreme Court has granted cert in the D.C. gun ownership case. The court phrased the granting issue as: “Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”
Not wanting to get into a debate about Second Amendment rights quite yet (my undergrad Constitutional Law course helps, but perhaps I'll debate after ConLaw next semester), I just want to point out an interesting quirk in that phrasing and how it impacts Indiana law.
Certainly such a case wouldn't arise in Indiana (assuming that this state is, in fact, a "red state"). But if it did, the phrasing that the Court chose would provide a pretty clear answer. In Indiana, "a militia shall be provided and shall consist of all persons over the age of seventeen (17) years, except those persons who may be exempted by the laws of the United States or of this State." Ind. Const. Art. 12, § 1 (emphasis added)*. Male, female, old, young. Basically everyone that doesn't have a note from the Governor (or are conscientiously opposed to bearing arms) is part of a militia. Perhaps that is why our state takes such a strong stance on the Second Amendment. That's why a D.C. style law won't come about here, and why such a law certainly wouldn't survive our courts.
The phrasing of the question in front of the Supreme Court says that it applies to individuals without no affiliations to a state-regulated militia but who want to possess guns in their homes. In Indiana, the only persons not in the state-regulated militia are those who are conscientiously opposed to bearing arms. Seems unlikely that those folks would want to bring guns into their homes anyway.
*In the original 1851 Constitution of Indiana, the section read "The Militia shall consist of all able-bodied white male persons, between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years, except such as may be exempted by the laws of the United States, or of this state; and shall be organized, officered, armed, equipped, and trained, in such manner as may be provided by law." A 1936 amendment deleted "white". A 1974 amendment rewrote the section to its current version.
Not wanting to get into a debate about Second Amendment rights quite yet (my undergrad Constitutional Law course helps, but perhaps I'll debate after ConLaw next semester), I just want to point out an interesting quirk in that phrasing and how it impacts Indiana law.
Certainly such a case wouldn't arise in Indiana (assuming that this state is, in fact, a "red state"). But if it did, the phrasing that the Court chose would provide a pretty clear answer. In Indiana, "a militia shall be provided and shall consist of all persons over the age of seventeen (17) years, except those persons who may be exempted by the laws of the United States or of this State." Ind. Const. Art. 12, § 1 (emphasis added)*. Male, female, old, young. Basically everyone that doesn't have a note from the Governor (or are conscientiously opposed to bearing arms) is part of a militia. Perhaps that is why our state takes such a strong stance on the Second Amendment. That's why a D.C. style law won't come about here, and why such a law certainly wouldn't survive our courts.
The phrasing of the question in front of the Supreme Court says that it applies to individuals without no affiliations to a state-regulated militia but who want to possess guns in their homes. In Indiana, the only persons not in the state-regulated militia are those who are conscientiously opposed to bearing arms. Seems unlikely that those folks would want to bring guns into their homes anyway.
*In the original 1851 Constitution of Indiana, the section read "The Militia shall consist of all able-bodied white male persons, between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years, except such as may be exempted by the laws of the United States, or of this state; and shall be organized, officered, armed, equipped, and trained, in such manner as may be provided by law." A 1936 amendment deleted "white". A 1974 amendment rewrote the section to its current version.
"Oeniphiles Rejoice" Redux
On August 29, I posted a story about Professor Pat Baude's victory in an Indiana wine shipping case. The case was decided by Judge John Tinder, an Indiana Law alumni and District Court judge.
The state of Indiana is appealing the decision to the Seventh Circuit (see briefs here). In a delightful turn of fate, Judge Tinder is awaiting Senate confirmation for his appointment to that court.
On a side note, I usually like what my state is doing. But in this case, I certainly hope that Indiana fails. Professor Baude et al are representing the freedoms of Hoosiers. Fortunately, the Seventh Circuit is fairly libertarian, and hopefully will affirm the decision of its future comrade.
The state of Indiana is appealing the decision to the Seventh Circuit (see briefs here). In a delightful turn of fate, Judge Tinder is awaiting Senate confirmation for his appointment to that court.
On a side note, I usually like what my state is doing. But in this case, I certainly hope that Indiana fails. Professor Baude et al are representing the freedoms of Hoosiers. Fortunately, the Seventh Circuit is fairly libertarian, and hopefully will affirm the decision of its future comrade.
11.13.2007
One Month Left
It occurred to me, as I checked my official Indiana Law day planner, that my finals are in less than a month. This must explain why I haven't been posting much. I have two papers to write (one would best be described as an undergrad touchy-feely paper that has little place in a law school curriculum, but I digress) in the next week, and eventually I'll have to solidify some sort of outline for my four finals. So far I've felt that law school has been, well, exactly what I thought it would be. I don't think I came in with inordinate fear, but I don't think I was sugarcoating what life would be like in a Tier 1 law school either. I've seen a lot of people start to fall apart from the stress, and a lot of folks have been getting sick lately. I don't know if my general comfort with the process is aided by my summer start or not, but I suspect that my nature is helping keep my sanity.
On top of all that, I've been working incessantly to secure myself a job for my first summer. Somewhere along the line I decided that I would best fit into bigger law firms in Indianapolis (where I intend to stay after graduation), so I've been looking into all of them, along with a few government agencies. I'm hoping for the best, and the few hiring partners I've had casual conversations with seemed interested in my business experience. I'll be happy anywhere I work, but I certainly have my preferred places.
Lastly, I've met a few potential 1Ls at various law school events, and I've noticed an increase in traffic coming from searches by sundry students. I'll try to keep both in mind over the next few weeks, as prime application season begins, and as more seek advice on which law school to attend. I certainly vouch for the quality of Indiana Law. I'm sure my comrades in the blogroll to the right will certainly agree.
On top of all that, I've been working incessantly to secure myself a job for my first summer. Somewhere along the line I decided that I would best fit into bigger law firms in Indianapolis (where I intend to stay after graduation), so I've been looking into all of them, along with a few government agencies. I'm hoping for the best, and the few hiring partners I've had casual conversations with seemed interested in my business experience. I'll be happy anywhere I work, but I certainly have my preferred places.
Lastly, I've met a few potential 1Ls at various law school events, and I've noticed an increase in traffic coming from searches by sundry students. I'll try to keep both in mind over the next few weeks, as prime application season begins, and as more seek advice on which law school to attend. I certainly vouch for the quality of Indiana Law. I'm sure my comrades in the blogroll to the right will certainly agree.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)