If repealing Bush's puny marginal tax cuts makes Obama a socialist...

Then prepare yourselves to meet Presidents Ronald "Marx" Reagan, Richard "Trotsky" Nixon, and Dwight "Lenin" Eisenhower.




Anyone have any idea why I decided that wanted to be a lawyer?

I decided to be a lawyer because our world is full of people using language in nefarious ways, exploiting words like "socialist", "freedom", "diet", "healthy", "responsible", the list just goes on and on and on.....

I think that the law is a way for me to use precise language to advance something good, at the heart of the matter, where it counts.

A mixed bag

So. I'm obviously elated about Obama... and frustrated about Prop 8.

But.... I just spent a good little while poring over the petition that was filed today to prevent the enforcement of Prop 8 and, hopefully, to overturn it.

Let me tell you, it's good. It's really, really good. This single petition holds up a whole basketful of different reasons why Prop 8 should not stand. It's really... pretty dope! Not to mention, I have to believe that the Court would be frustrated by the efforts of a group of people, largely comprised of religious organizations and out-of-staters, to subvert its decision and to keep it from doing its job. The point is, even with things up in the air, there is a good deal of hope on the horizon. And it all makes me just gnash my teeth with eagerness to become a lawyer.... if only I could skip law school LOL.

Should anyone else wish to read the petition, it's available here.

Also: a really interesting non-technical legal analysis from Slate.com

Notes on my Friday... regarding CA Prop 8 and AZ Prop 102

This all started because a friend of mine wrote that an organization in which her dad's involved was a big supporter of CA Prop 8, aiming to constitutionally ban gay marriage and take away the marriages that have already been performed there. It's an interesting series of points about how fairly minute differences in state civics can make huge differences in how rights are protected in different states... in particular, the differences between states with "direct-democratic" principles like initiative, referendum, and recall, and states that adhere to the original representative frameworks. I've put it in temporal order for legibility's sake.

----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: Erika
Date: Oct 24, 2008 1:00 PM


Well, yeah, KofC is a Catholic organization. So... most of the big opponents are affiliated with religion in some way. Nothing helps a community like keeping non-traditional families weak, you know! It's gross. I spent a whole day the other day looking at all the people and organizations who've donated directly. You can look at it here:
http://www. latimes. com/news/local/la-moneymap,0,2198220. htmlstory
The good news is that in the last few weeks we've pulled even with them money-wise. The bad news is that a higher percentage of our support comes from outside CA, though that may not necessarily translate to fewer votes, it may be just weaker organization within CA. I fear that come election day I'll have a mixed bag and be so happy about President Obama and be so sad about this. It could still get shot down though... I really hope it does.

----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: (my friend)
Date: Oct 24, 2008 5:40 PM


i guess i don't totally understand prop 8. i mean, isn't gay marriage legal in ca now? are they trying to reverse that? it's just crazy. i keep thinking about the non-traditional thing too... i want to propose a ban on gay marriage and add "and inter-racial "marriage," because the bible preaches slavery" to the bottom of it... then we can see how many people check their "values"

but anyway - it's good to see that the contributions are neck and neck even though there's all those corporate supporters. easy answer: stop recognizing marriage as a legal bond and they can keep marriage. i would rather have it legal though.

----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: Erika
Date: Oct 24, 2008 6:38 PM

Yeah, with Prop 8 the CA courts ruled the gay marriage ban in the CA civil codes unconstitutional... that ban was placed in the civil code by popular vote in 2000. So the tactic of Prop 8 is to constitutionalize the ban, therefore overruling the court's decision and the basis upon which it rests. It's a very tricky legal tactic and honestly, I believe it won't stand for long even if it does pass this year. My primary concern is for those people who have already been married and are on the verge of having their rights taken away again. Frankly, it's cruel. The courts know that you can never win minority rights by popular vote, especially when the majority has so successfully been convinced that they will somehow lose something if their rights are shared by "undeserving" minorities. It's a basic danger of democracy that was addressed by the Framers hundreds of years ago. But most Western states and a few others east of the Mississippi instituted direct democracy laws within the last hundred years. These can place the will of the majority equal to, and in some cases above, the legislature and the courts. Originally the constitutions of states could never be changed by popular vote, only by the legislators... the Founders thought it was crazy and dangerous to put the rights of the whole in the hands of the majority and always moved against it. So that's your civics lesson for today lol. Any other confusions? I believe that Prop 8 may squeak by and it may not. Some people who don't necessarily support gay marriage agree on principle that it's heartless to take away what rights someone has already won. Prop 102 in AZ, I will be very surprised if that does not pass. Direct Democracy at work.

Revisiting our textbooks

Why are so many Americans clueless about American history and civics?

Casual efforts to administer to regular citizens the exact same exam questions that a naturalized citizen must take yield dismal results. Lots and lots of people, even people who vote in every election, don't realize that the President is not elected by popular vote. Most of these people can not name who would ascend to the Presidency if both the Pres and VP died, and some of those who can name the position are unsure who currently fills it. From all I can tell, a majority of Americans do not know how many Justices make up the Supreme Court.

These are just the civic issues... the historical issues may be even worse. Do you know who was President during World War I? The naturalized citizen up the street, who gave up their life in another place because they believed in the promise of America, does. Ask an American to list the Presidents in order and many will fall off after #1. Most will quit or be dead wrong after 2, 3, or 4. Better yet, ask them to give the Presidents in reverse order, starting with George W. Bush. An occasional American does not know the name of the current President, and many do not know the name of the current VP. Again, the further along you get, the quicker they start dropping. Here's a fun one: who did America fight in the war for our independence? IF you'd answered France, you'd be so very wrong, or funny, but you'd also be very far from alone.

Why is it we as Americans do not feel compelled to understand these basic things about our own country? When we say that America is the greatest nation on earth, is it just because we were lucky enough to be born here, or do we stand for something more, for our own common ideals? To claim the exceptionalism of America without understanding what makes our country great is bald nationalism, which has a long history of turning great countries to piles of rubble. Let's not do that, hmmm?

My translation of the last post LOL - originally from MySpace

I have to write like that for school. It translates to mean this:

The major problem with democracies is that everybody's out for themselves and so the choices that are really in everyone's best interests are often overlooked, and that's how majority rule can devolve into mob rule. People often blame the government for the disillusionment of its citizens, but more often than not, it's the warring parties that are to blame. Since we can't get everyone to agree on everything, the best way to combat this problem is by limitations of power. This is one of the benefits of having a republic (representative democracy) instead of a true democracy where we all represent ourselves; through the process of debate the virtue of minority decisions can be brought to light, at least enough to keep the majority from shitting all over everyone else. Most importantly, having a big nation of diverse people keeps the majority small in the periods of time where a majority exists at all. Despite our 2-party system, there are fewer true majority issues than you might think.

Mebbe I should just post that instead. :)

Click here to read my summary of the 10th Federalist Paper

Madison asserts that the central problem posed by factious interests is that, in the clash of opponent factions, the public good may be overlooked; thus policy may be set according to mob rule as opposed to the interests of justice and protecting the rights of all citizens. He also posits that it is the influence of faction, not raw governmental form, which further leads to doubt of those in the public sphere and concern over the state of civil rights. Madison then contends that, since the interests of varying groups cannot be practically unified, the effects of faction must be controlled for; this, he proposes, must be done by limiting the ability of majority factions to dominate others and railroad government into preserving their own interests. The republican scheme, wherein a large number of citizens elect a small number to represent them in the halls of governance, is recommended as an effective means of control. In this case, variant public perspectives may be distilled into a cohesive agenda that bears the public good as its highest interest; this relates to the concept of agenda-setting as a means of determining policy choices. Additionally, Madison suggests that the breadth and diversity of the citizenry are much to its benefit in avoiding factious violence, as a greater variety of interests might preclude the possibility of an imperious majority, yielding instead a plurality that cultivates public benefit.