What is going on in Allen County's courts?
This week we got news that a state panel cited Judge Kenneth R. Scheibenberger for official misconduct. Apparently, back in November, he put on his robe and walked into another judge's courtroom (misstep number one). Then he listened to an alleged drug dealer get sentenced by the other judge. He then threw a bit of a fit and started swearing the the family of the defendant (misstep number two). He claims that the drug dealer sold his son drugs that resulted in his son's death.
Well, today's News-Sentinel reports that the Circuit Court judge in Fort Wayne, Judge Thomas J. Felts, was operating his vehicle while drunk, and let it "coast backward" into a police cruiser in Indianapolis. He was pulled over near Monument Circle, and instead of putting the vehicle into park, he put it in reverse. This is his re-election year, but is running unopposed.
I have to wonder what the voters in Allen County think about all this. Fort Wayne is one of the busiest court systems in Indiana, and they really can't afford to lose their Circuit judge and one of their Superior judges.
Further, what were these judges thinking? Scheibenberger couldn't have thought anything good would come of going to this sentencing in his robe. In doing so he tarnished the reputation of judges everywhere. To swear up a storm while in your robe just looks bad all around.
I'm glad I work for a Judge this summer. I'm also glad it's not in Allen County, which has to be in chaos right now.
7.19.2008
7.11.2008
More on: The Real Reason for Number Two
Kyle Michael at KMitB was kind enough to post a response to my previous post praising the Heller decision. Always in the mood for a good discussion, I want to respond to his response.
Michael writes:
You may have noticed that you don’t see many good militias these days; I suspect they’re hard to get together. Blair sticks to his guns (so to speak) here, maintaining that this is still a relevant purpose. That’s fine, if silly, but it fails to account for the use of guns for other purposes. Where does hunting fit in? Or, for that matter, why should you be allowed to use a gun to defend yourself against any threat other than an “oppressive government” or an invasion? The 2nd Amendment doesn’t mention anything about any of this; you’d think Scalia would have a problem with that.
I should first point out that I don't believe that the Second Amendment exists solely for the purpose of protection from an oppressive government. While that may be its most important purpose, there are certainly others - anything from self-defense to sport hunting. The language of the Amendment doesn't even mention invasion or self-defense.
Presumably, Michael is making the ill-fated grammar-based interpretation of the Second Amendment, that suggests that the preamble of the Amendment (i.e. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a Free state,") means that it applies only to organized militias and the security of the state. George Mason law professor Nelson Lund destroyed this position in his amicus brief in Heller. One need only examine other documents from the same time period to know that writing preambles was the fad, and that those preambles are not all-inclusive.
For example, one can look at Article 3 of the Northwest Ordinance ("Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged"). I doubt many people will argue that the only reason we encourage schools in this nation is because education makes for good government and happiness, or that religion, morality, and knowledge are their only purpose. Sure, those are pretty good reasons, but they are not the only reasons.
Michael continues:
Like Blair, Scalia combines the 2nd Amendment with a common law right to self defense. In doing so, and in endorsing the dipshit view that keeping handguns in the home for self-defense is a good idea, Scalia writes (and I swear I am not making this up): "[a handgun] can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police."
The Cato Institute's amicus brief in Heller discusses the English roots of the right to bear arms, which does cover the fact that the common law right to bear arms is derived from, and must be understood with, the common law right to self-defense. The English Bill of Rights of 1689 supports it, as does Blackstone and a variety of other English sources. Whether it is a "good idea" is a separate matter. Michael falls back on tired rhetoric to argue that kids will find the gun and do harm with it. Even if you take that position and do intelligent things, like putting the gun away and teaching kids about gun responsibilities from a young age, the point is irrelevant. The Second Amendment doesn't cover stupid parents; it covers a right that cannot be taken away from an individual.
I do, however, agree with Michael about one point. Justice Scalia's reliance on the notion that I will call the police while holding a gun is a poor choice in his opinion. I will shoot first with both hands (as you're taught to do in firing ranges), then call the police with both hands.
Michael writes:
You may have noticed that you don’t see many good militias these days; I suspect they’re hard to get together. Blair sticks to his guns (so to speak) here, maintaining that this is still a relevant purpose. That’s fine, if silly, but it fails to account for the use of guns for other purposes. Where does hunting fit in? Or, for that matter, why should you be allowed to use a gun to defend yourself against any threat other than an “oppressive government” or an invasion? The 2nd Amendment doesn’t mention anything about any of this; you’d think Scalia would have a problem with that.
I should first point out that I don't believe that the Second Amendment exists solely for the purpose of protection from an oppressive government. While that may be its most important purpose, there are certainly others - anything from self-defense to sport hunting. The language of the Amendment doesn't even mention invasion or self-defense.
Presumably, Michael is making the ill-fated grammar-based interpretation of the Second Amendment, that suggests that the preamble of the Amendment (i.e. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a Free state,") means that it applies only to organized militias and the security of the state. George Mason law professor Nelson Lund destroyed this position in his amicus brief in Heller. One need only examine other documents from the same time period to know that writing preambles was the fad, and that those preambles are not all-inclusive.
For example, one can look at Article 3 of the Northwest Ordinance ("Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged"). I doubt many people will argue that the only reason we encourage schools in this nation is because education makes for good government and happiness, or that religion, morality, and knowledge are their only purpose. Sure, those are pretty good reasons, but they are not the only reasons.
Michael continues:
Like Blair, Scalia combines the 2nd Amendment with a common law right to self defense. In doing so, and in endorsing the dipshit view that keeping handguns in the home for self-defense is a good idea, Scalia writes (and I swear I am not making this up): "[a handgun] can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police."
The Cato Institute's amicus brief in Heller discusses the English roots of the right to bear arms, which does cover the fact that the common law right to bear arms is derived from, and must be understood with, the common law right to self-defense. The English Bill of Rights of 1689 supports it, as does Blackstone and a variety of other English sources. Whether it is a "good idea" is a separate matter. Michael falls back on tired rhetoric to argue that kids will find the gun and do harm with it. Even if you take that position and do intelligent things, like putting the gun away and teaching kids about gun responsibilities from a young age, the point is irrelevant. The Second Amendment doesn't cover stupid parents; it covers a right that cannot be taken away from an individual.
I do, however, agree with Michael about one point. Justice Scalia's reliance on the notion that I will call the police while holding a gun is a poor choice in his opinion. I will shoot first with both hands (as you're taught to do in firing ranges), then call the police with both hands.
6.27.2008
The Real Reason for Number Two
The past few days have given the blogosphere much to talk about in regards to the Supreme Court, and in due time I plan to get to the ones I care about. The one that I care the most about, Heller, is the main focus of this post.
For the past 28 hours or so, I have seen plenty of status updates from friends who are upset by the ruling, wishing that it could have been decided after some of Obama's appointments were on the Court. Completely disregarding the chickens-hatching time quandry presented there, I can't help but ask my friends where they put their copy of the Bill of Rights. In case you lost it, the words "shall not be infringed" are still there.
One columnist in northern Indiana posed this question: "If our forefathers lived in 21st century America - with its ungodly crime and murder rates, its wealth of deadly weaponry, and its attempt to interpret a document written more than two centuries ago - would they be celebrating or castigating Thursday's landmark ruling?"
I'm fairly certain the answer to that question is an obvious "celebrate, but with hesitation". Yes, they would have been quite pleased with the outcome of the case. They would have been less pleased that an originalist believed that there are some acceptable firearm regulations.
Certainly the Second Amendment refers to a militia, like the National Guard in New York, or the entire population in Indiana. Taking weapons away from a militia would be counter-productive and wonderfully ironic. The concept of a universal (all free white men) militia can be traced back to at least 12th century England. But the more vital American interpretation of the right to bear arms became abundantly clear during the years preceding the American Revolution.
The British government couldn't help but notice those pesky colonists arming their militias while talking about how much they disliked the Crown. Parliament sought to disarm their militias, despite the Declaration of Rights and the common law right to self-defense. Conveniently, they had no problem with the right to self-defense (in fact, John Adams used the defense in the Boston Massacre trials), just with colonists possessing firearms.
It was those very firearms that allowed Americans to throw off the chains of British rule. The newly formed United States owed their freedom to their firearms. So they enshrined their right to firearms in their most important document, the Constitution.
This leads me to my main point, that the real reason for the Second Amendment was not solely to arm and regulate a militia. Yes, we wanted our citizens armed in case Britain, or Canada, or Mexico, or anyone else, tried to invade (indeed, this may have been the primary reason Congress passed the Second Amendment). But the reason the States ratified the Second Amendment was because they remembered the oppression of the last all-powerful government. Their firearms were the only thing that saved them.
Yes, the main reason to support the Second Amendment is because, if and when our government becomes too oppressive, our firearms will be the only thing stopping them from crushing us. When the firearms go, so too does the rest of the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment is the one the ensures the rest.
For the past 28 hours or so, I have seen plenty of status updates from friends who are upset by the ruling, wishing that it could have been decided after some of Obama's appointments were on the Court. Completely disregarding the chickens-hatching time quandry presented there, I can't help but ask my friends where they put their copy of the Bill of Rights. In case you lost it, the words "shall not be infringed" are still there.
One columnist in northern Indiana posed this question: "If our forefathers lived in 21st century America - with its ungodly crime and murder rates, its wealth of deadly weaponry, and its attempt to interpret a document written more than two centuries ago - would they be celebrating or castigating Thursday's landmark ruling?"
I'm fairly certain the answer to that question is an obvious "celebrate, but with hesitation". Yes, they would have been quite pleased with the outcome of the case. They would have been less pleased that an originalist believed that there are some acceptable firearm regulations.
Certainly the Second Amendment refers to a militia, like the National Guard in New York, or the entire population in Indiana. Taking weapons away from a militia would be counter-productive and wonderfully ironic. The concept of a universal (all free white men) militia can be traced back to at least 12th century England. But the more vital American interpretation of the right to bear arms became abundantly clear during the years preceding the American Revolution.
The British government couldn't help but notice those pesky colonists arming their militias while talking about how much they disliked the Crown. Parliament sought to disarm their militias, despite the Declaration of Rights and the common law right to self-defense. Conveniently, they had no problem with the right to self-defense (in fact, John Adams used the defense in the Boston Massacre trials), just with colonists possessing firearms.
It was those very firearms that allowed Americans to throw off the chains of British rule. The newly formed United States owed their freedom to their firearms. So they enshrined their right to firearms in their most important document, the Constitution.
This leads me to my main point, that the real reason for the Second Amendment was not solely to arm and regulate a militia. Yes, we wanted our citizens armed in case Britain, or Canada, or Mexico, or anyone else, tried to invade (indeed, this may have been the primary reason Congress passed the Second Amendment). But the reason the States ratified the Second Amendment was because they remembered the oppression of the last all-powerful government. Their firearms were the only thing that saved them.
Yes, the main reason to support the Second Amendment is because, if and when our government becomes too oppressive, our firearms will be the only thing stopping them from crushing us. When the firearms go, so too does the rest of the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment is the one the ensures the rest.
6.12.2008
Freedom to Spank your Brats
On Tuesday, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled in Willis v. State that parents have the legal right to discipline their children physically, even if it leaves marks or bruises. In the case, the defendant was a mother of a son who had a history of lying and stealing. The boy stole some of his mother's clothes and gave them away at school. As a punishment, the mother struck him five to seven times with a belt. The school nurse saw the bruises, the son told the nurse from where they came, and the nurse called the police, who charged the mother with battery, a D felony.
Corporal punishment is sometimes acceptable. The Model Penal Code says so. The Second Restatement of Torts says so. Blackstone says so. Heck, the last four thousand years of human history says so.
It is a sad state of affairs that any time a parent tries to punish a child, the state thinks it should come to the child's aid. How long has this been going on? When did we become a nation of wimps? The sad truth is that American kids feel entitled to do whatever they want, and they have been too eager to complain to authorities when they get a spanking. Is it any wonder that, as the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette reports, Indiana is 6th in the nation for juveniles locked up? When parents don't punish appropriately, the law will eventually have to.
I don't mean to suggest that child abuse is acceptable. I have seen many CHINS cases this summer, and there are some parents that really are doing it wrong. And punishment that leads to permanent or severe injuries should be, and is still, illegal. But I am glad to see that Indiana is taking a step back in the proper direction of letting parents punish their children as they see fit.
Corporal punishment is sometimes acceptable. The Model Penal Code says so. The Second Restatement of Torts says so. Blackstone says so. Heck, the last four thousand years of human history says so.
It is a sad state of affairs that any time a parent tries to punish a child, the state thinks it should come to the child's aid. How long has this been going on? When did we become a nation of wimps? The sad truth is that American kids feel entitled to do whatever they want, and they have been too eager to complain to authorities when they get a spanking. Is it any wonder that, as the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette reports, Indiana is 6th in the nation for juveniles locked up? When parents don't punish appropriately, the law will eventually have to.
I don't mean to suggest that child abuse is acceptable. I have seen many CHINS cases this summer, and there are some parents that really are doing it wrong. And punishment that leads to permanent or severe injuries should be, and is still, illegal. But I am glad to see that Indiana is taking a step back in the proper direction of letting parents punish their children as they see fit.
5.18.2008
In re Marriage Cases
A friend asked me today what I thought about the result in the recent California Supreme Court decision overturning the same-sex marriage ban in that state.
I must admit that I'm somewhat torn. On one hand, I don't like courts stepping in to overturn the will of the electorate. Prop 22 passed, and that seems to suggest that at least half of Californians didn't want same-sex marriage recognized by the state. However, the legislature twice passed bills legalizing same-sex marriage that were vetoed by the governor (who, incidentally, said that if they wanted gay marriage, then they would have to take it to the state Supreme Court). So "the will of the people" here seems a bit cloudy.
On the other hand, as any long-time reader of this blog could tell you, I am a pretty big supporter of gay rights, and I do personally believe that if government recognizes marriage at all, it should do so for any type of couple (not that I believe that government should be in the business of recognizing marriages). To me, it seems like most arguments against same-sex marriage are based on religion, which makes me squeamish in government. In fact, very few counterarguments that I have heard when debating this topic end up relying on anything other than morality.
I don't feel like beating this to death right now, mostly because I have made my position very clear in the past, and because the rest of the blogosphere seems to be discussing it just fine without me. For a particularly interesting set of discussions, try looking at the Volokh Conspiracy's stream of posts. So, to answer my friend's question, I agree with the general outcome of the case (giving the right to marry to gays) but disagree with the method (in court, rather than democratically).
I must admit that I'm somewhat torn. On one hand, I don't like courts stepping in to overturn the will of the electorate. Prop 22 passed, and that seems to suggest that at least half of Californians didn't want same-sex marriage recognized by the state. However, the legislature twice passed bills legalizing same-sex marriage that were vetoed by the governor (who, incidentally, said that if they wanted gay marriage, then they would have to take it to the state Supreme Court). So "the will of the people" here seems a bit cloudy.
On the other hand, as any long-time reader of this blog could tell you, I am a pretty big supporter of gay rights, and I do personally believe that if government recognizes marriage at all, it should do so for any type of couple (not that I believe that government should be in the business of recognizing marriages). To me, it seems like most arguments against same-sex marriage are based on religion, which makes me squeamish in government. In fact, very few counterarguments that I have heard when debating this topic end up relying on anything other than morality.
I don't feel like beating this to death right now, mostly because I have made my position very clear in the past, and because the rest of the blogosphere seems to be discussing it just fine without me. For a particularly interesting set of discussions, try looking at the Volokh Conspiracy's stream of posts. So, to answer my friend's question, I agree with the general outcome of the case (giving the right to marry to gays) but disagree with the method (in court, rather than democratically).
A Quick Catch-Up
I recently realized that it has been a month since I last posted, and that makes me seem at the very least forgetful, and possibly even negligent in my duties as a blogger. However, I had to make it through a final LRW assignment, several difficult finals, a job search, planning next semester's courses, and a basic maintenance of sanity. In the end, blogging seemed like the least of my worries. I'll try to catch you all up to date with where I am with regard to these various tasks.
My final exams were certainly more difficult than those in the Fall, despite that I have done this process twice before. I think it was the subject matter rather than the procedure that made them more difficult. This semester I has coursework in Property and Constitutional Law rather than Torts and Ethics, in addition to substantially different material in LRW, Contracts, and Civil Procedure. I really enjoy the topics of Property and ConLaw, and I feel like I'm fairly knowledgeable in those arenas, but I tend to do what some consider foolish: I try to learn and understand the law rather than learn for the exam. This may harm my scores in the end, but at least I can feel like I know something, and can discuss it in ordinary conversation (when non-lawyers are willing to listen or make the mistake of asking me my opinion on something). In the end, I think the finals went well. Probably no A*s, but good nonetheless.
I did find and accept a job for this summer, though it is unpaying, which meant more loans. I will be working for a Circuit Court judge in southern Indiana. I think for the purposes of this blog my exact court and position will be confidential, but I expect to have interesting work to post about when I can find the time (the School requires these touchy-feely essays about what I'm doing, which will probably consume my spare time). The downside is that there is a considerable commute, and gas prices are hovering at $4. The upside is that I get to work inside one of the beautiful old courthouses of Indiana.
I have a full plate in the Fall. In addition to participating in Moot Court, I will be taking six courses for fifteen credit hours. Included in that reading-laden schedule are Federal Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure I, Constitutional Law II, Evidence, Secured Transactions, and Appellate Advocacy. I am used to taking exorbitant numbers of credit per semester, but not in law school. If I disappear completely in the Fall, you'll know why.
I spent this weekend in Louisville, Kentucky, for the 11th Annual National Firearms Law Seminar, hosted by the NRA Foundation. It was a worthwhile experience to learn about law from various professors and practitioners. Some of the topics included discussions about Heller, federal firearms laws, civil rights and guns, and an enjoyable keynote speech by Lt. Col. Oliver North about the Rules of Engagement. Afterwards, we spent some time at the Expo Center and I experienced my first NRA exhibition. We also drove over the Sherman Minton Bridge, mostly to get good luck in the Moot Court named after him at IU, as well as to celebrate the only Hoosier to ever sit on the Supreme Court.
This August I will be attending the ABA Annual Meeting in New York. Any of my readers that will also be in New York can feel free to drop me a line if they'd like to chat or go out. After this weekend, I think I can find interesting things to do just about anywhere.
My final exams were certainly more difficult than those in the Fall, despite that I have done this process twice before. I think it was the subject matter rather than the procedure that made them more difficult. This semester I has coursework in Property and Constitutional Law rather than Torts and Ethics, in addition to substantially different material in LRW, Contracts, and Civil Procedure. I really enjoy the topics of Property and ConLaw, and I feel like I'm fairly knowledgeable in those arenas, but I tend to do what some consider foolish: I try to learn and understand the law rather than learn for the exam. This may harm my scores in the end, but at least I can feel like I know something, and can discuss it in ordinary conversation (when non-lawyers are willing to listen or make the mistake of asking me my opinion on something). In the end, I think the finals went well. Probably no A*s, but good nonetheless.
I did find and accept a job for this summer, though it is unpaying, which meant more loans. I will be working for a Circuit Court judge in southern Indiana. I think for the purposes of this blog my exact court and position will be confidential, but I expect to have interesting work to post about when I can find the time (the School requires these touchy-feely essays about what I'm doing, which will probably consume my spare time). The downside is that there is a considerable commute, and gas prices are hovering at $4. The upside is that I get to work inside one of the beautiful old courthouses of Indiana.
I have a full plate in the Fall. In addition to participating in Moot Court, I will be taking six courses for fifteen credit hours. Included in that reading-laden schedule are Federal Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure I, Constitutional Law II, Evidence, Secured Transactions, and Appellate Advocacy. I am used to taking exorbitant numbers of credit per semester, but not in law school. If I disappear completely in the Fall, you'll know why.
I spent this weekend in Louisville, Kentucky, for the 11th Annual National Firearms Law Seminar, hosted by the NRA Foundation. It was a worthwhile experience to learn about law from various professors and practitioners. Some of the topics included discussions about Heller, federal firearms laws, civil rights and guns, and an enjoyable keynote speech by Lt. Col. Oliver North about the Rules of Engagement. Afterwards, we spent some time at the Expo Center and I experienced my first NRA exhibition. We also drove over the Sherman Minton Bridge, mostly to get good luck in the Moot Court named after him at IU, as well as to celebrate the only Hoosier to ever sit on the Supreme Court.
This August I will be attending the ABA Annual Meeting in New York. Any of my readers that will also be in New York can feel free to drop me a line if they'd like to chat or go out. After this weekend, I think I can find interesting things to do just about anywhere.
3.29.2008
IU Law Tuition... this better be worth it
Well, it was bound to happen. We got an e-mail from the dean alerting us that tuition would be going up a bit this year, despite the $25 million gift that we recieved from Lilly. More money for professors, in turn leaving us with more money for scholarships. But scholarships for next year's class, not for me. So I don't care.
I hear that last year the tuition for out-of-staters (60% of our population) went up dramatically, and many were angry. Well, now it's my turn. My in-state tuition is going up 12%, while the out-of-staters get a mere 8.5%. Granted, my tuition is still only half as much as their tuition, but still. 12%! I want to work in government, and these student loans are soon going to make doing so rather difficult.
On the plus side, our dean basically guaranteed us that the tuition increase will be used to improve our rankings drastically in the next two years. I suppose that's good, since IU-Indy moved up twenty spots this year. And Notre Dame went up 6. If we don't move up soon then it'll start getting much harder to compete to get native Hoosier law students.
And yes, I'm aware that rankings are a thing to be shunned. Too bad lawyers don't think so.
I hear that last year the tuition for out-of-staters (60% of our population) went up dramatically, and many were angry. Well, now it's my turn. My in-state tuition is going up 12%, while the out-of-staters get a mere 8.5%. Granted, my tuition is still only half as much as their tuition, but still. 12%! I want to work in government, and these student loans are soon going to make doing so rather difficult.
On the plus side, our dean basically guaranteed us that the tuition increase will be used to improve our rankings drastically in the next two years. I suppose that's good, since IU-Indy moved up twenty spots this year. And Notre Dame went up 6. If we don't move up soon then it'll start getting much harder to compete to get native Hoosier law students.
And yes, I'm aware that rankings are a thing to be shunned. Too bad lawyers don't think so.
Oral Argument: Great Fun, or the Greatest Fun?
It's that time of the year in 1L land, where we get to do enjoyable things in LRW. Not that I didn't enjoy bluebooking and learning research methodology (insert sarcastic eye-roll), but I much prefer doing, you know, lawyerly things. Unlike some of my comrades, I quite enjoyed my experience with oral arguments. It was the first time we actually got to go head-to-head against our classmates and test our legal acumen, even if it was just for 10 minutes in a summary judgment hearing.
Apparently I wasn't the only one who thought I did a reasonable job at the podium. On my official notecard, I had six phrases, each beginning with the word "good" and none with any bad words. Which is good, because I didn't think I did well at all. Among my earned accolades was "good presence at the lectern" and "good analogy." The analogy in question was one that I thought up in the shower the night before. I think the RedBull I drank before the argument made it stick.
I do have this to say about the whole process: it sounds like it was better before. Last year, they brought in outside judges and we would have had to argue in front of a panel of learned scholars. We also would have had to write an appellate brief at some point. I don't know if we exhausted our judge rolodex, but arguing in front of our professor and opposing counsel doesn't have the same fear factor. I'm sure the LRW staff had something in mind. It just seems like the way things were was better than the way things are.
Apparently I wasn't the only one who thought I did a reasonable job at the podium. On my official notecard, I had six phrases, each beginning with the word "good" and none with any bad words. Which is good, because I didn't think I did well at all. Among my earned accolades was "good presence at the lectern" and "good analogy." The analogy in question was one that I thought up in the shower the night before. I think the RedBull I drank before the argument made it stick.
I do have this to say about the whole process: it sounds like it was better before. Last year, they brought in outside judges and we would have had to argue in front of a panel of learned scholars. We also would have had to write an appellate brief at some point. I don't know if we exhausted our judge rolodex, but arguing in front of our professor and opposing counsel doesn't have the same fear factor. I'm sure the LRW staff had something in mind. It just seems like the way things were was better than the way things are.
3.13.2008
Two Tidbits from the News
I know it's been a while since I posted, mostly because of Spring Break and a variety of other scheduling conflicts. But two tidbits from the news really caught my eye and I think that they are worth mentioning here.
Today's Indianapolis Star reports that Governor Daniels has used his first veto of this session, something he has done only seven times in office. I must say, he saved it for a good one. The bill: HEA 1210. The premise of the bill: allow a loophole for individuals who do not pass the teacher's licensing exam to still become teachers in Indiana. Easily one of the dumbest bills passed by the General Assembly this session.
Now, as anyone who has been reading this blog for a long time can tell you, I am no fan of public education. But if you're going to have public education, then it would best for your teachers to have some sort of standard. This bill would have allowed persons who fail the test to become teachers by showing that they had a good GPA in their education coursework and have good references from those under whom they student taught. If that's not lowering the standards, I don't know what is.
The bill was authored by Rep. Vernon Smith (D-Gary), who complained after the veto that the governor hadn't met with him to discuss the bill. I don't blame the governor. He has better things to do than argue about pointless bills. I can understand why Rep. Smith wants the bill: Gary schools are a dismal failure, and they can't get teachers to teach there. He probably thinks that lowering the standards of licensing will mean more teachers in Gary. Well, Mr. Smith, even if your plan worked, it wouldn't improve the education quality in Gary. You need qualified, talented, devoted teachers to come to Gary, not the people who couldn't pass the test. A better plan would be to pay teachers better.
In other news, a student at UVa-Wisa was expelled because of prose he composed in a creative writing class. His story involved a student who dreams of killing his professor and commits suicide. Okay, maybe I could see some threat here, but you need to consider the context. Nevermind that this is a creative writing class, and creativity doesn't always fit nicely into a pre-approved box. The student is an Iraqi war veteran with no history of mental illness and medals for good conduct. In fact, the school couldn't put together a case, except for the fact that the student had a few guns in his car. Okay, again, maybe I could see some threat here, but consider that he had a right to carry them, as he had permits for each of them. And he's a war veteran.
To make matters worse, the school involuntarily committed him for psychiatric testing, something that automatically revokes his ability to hold the gun permits. Well, that's one way to get around the law.
Eugene Volokh points out that "expulsion would still strike [him] an excessive remedy; nor would protecting the university from the possibility that he would turn into a Virginia-Tech-style mass killer justify this: If he really does plan to commit mass murder, he could do that as an expelled student pretty much as easily as an enrolled student (since the school doubtless doesn't have guards at each possible entrance to keep him off campus)."
I would love to use a case like this to get the issue of gun bans in schools brought before the Supreme Court. To me, it is ridiculous that a Constitutional right stops being a right when you cross an invisible barrier onto a campus. Only problem is that this case is not the one I'd bring up. Justice Scalia's son was the professor of that creative writing class. Scalia would have to take a breather on this case, which would leave us 4-4, which is unacceptable. On the plus side, such a lawsuit would encourage the legislators in Indianapolis to pass a bill allowing certain persons to carry firearms on campus.
Today's Indianapolis Star reports that Governor Daniels has used his first veto of this session, something he has done only seven times in office. I must say, he saved it for a good one. The bill: HEA 1210. The premise of the bill: allow a loophole for individuals who do not pass the teacher's licensing exam to still become teachers in Indiana. Easily one of the dumbest bills passed by the General Assembly this session.
Now, as anyone who has been reading this blog for a long time can tell you, I am no fan of public education. But if you're going to have public education, then it would best for your teachers to have some sort of standard. This bill would have allowed persons who fail the test to become teachers by showing that they had a good GPA in their education coursework and have good references from those under whom they student taught. If that's not lowering the standards, I don't know what is.
The bill was authored by Rep. Vernon Smith (D-Gary), who complained after the veto that the governor hadn't met with him to discuss the bill. I don't blame the governor. He has better things to do than argue about pointless bills. I can understand why Rep. Smith wants the bill: Gary schools are a dismal failure, and they can't get teachers to teach there. He probably thinks that lowering the standards of licensing will mean more teachers in Gary. Well, Mr. Smith, even if your plan worked, it wouldn't improve the education quality in Gary. You need qualified, talented, devoted teachers to come to Gary, not the people who couldn't pass the test. A better plan would be to pay teachers better.
In other news, a student at UVa-Wisa was expelled because of prose he composed in a creative writing class. His story involved a student who dreams of killing his professor and commits suicide. Okay, maybe I could see some threat here, but you need to consider the context. Nevermind that this is a creative writing class, and creativity doesn't always fit nicely into a pre-approved box. The student is an Iraqi war veteran with no history of mental illness and medals for good conduct. In fact, the school couldn't put together a case, except for the fact that the student had a few guns in his car. Okay, again, maybe I could see some threat here, but consider that he had a right to carry them, as he had permits for each of them. And he's a war veteran.
To make matters worse, the school involuntarily committed him for psychiatric testing, something that automatically revokes his ability to hold the gun permits. Well, that's one way to get around the law.
Eugene Volokh points out that "expulsion would still strike [him] an excessive remedy; nor would protecting the university from the possibility that he would turn into a Virginia-Tech-style mass killer justify this: If he really does plan to commit mass murder, he could do that as an expelled student pretty much as easily as an enrolled student (since the school doubtless doesn't have guards at each possible entrance to keep him off campus)."
I would love to use a case like this to get the issue of gun bans in schools brought before the Supreme Court. To me, it is ridiculous that a Constitutional right stops being a right when you cross an invisible barrier onto a campus. Only problem is that this case is not the one I'd bring up. Justice Scalia's son was the professor of that creative writing class. Scalia would have to take a breather on this case, which would leave us 4-4, which is unacceptable. On the plus side, such a lawsuit would encourage the legislators in Indianapolis to pass a bill allowing certain persons to carry firearms on campus.
2.27.2008
The Petri Dish
The Law School has become a petri dish. Dozens of students have been out sick (including this one). Classes have shrunk to half their size. Some professors have been calling in sick. I had forgotten how volatile biological systems can be when you pack 700 of us into one building during flu season.
To make matters worse, briefs are due for LRW tomorrow. From what I can tell, many people are struggling to keep working while the viruses keep working. As for me, I'm nearly done. But only with the help of a lot of tea.
To make matters worse, briefs are due for LRW tomorrow. From what I can tell, many people are struggling to keep working while the viruses keep working. As for me, I'm nearly done. But only with the help of a lot of tea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
