Do you know what a mandamus is?

Okay, I'll admit it. I was feeling pretty cocky after my first few days studying the law. It just wasn't all that hard. A little light reading and some critical thinking. No problem.

Then I sat down to breeze through Marbury v. Madison.

It sucked. It made absolutely no sense to me. I even downloaded a different copy to make sure I wasn't getting punked. I knew it was going to be bad after the very first paragraph, when I had to ask Amos what the hell a "mandamus" was.

I quit after about 30 minutes. It's going to take me at least a few days to grind this one out.

On the bright side this is exactly why I started learning the law now instead of waiting until I actually got to law school. My gut told me I wasn't ready to read material this dense. Chalk another one up for my gut.

At least I don't have to worry about writing, since I are so good at it.

Bill of Wrongs?

For the old Sunday Drive we're taking a brief look at the Bill of Rights. A man named Ira Krakow recorded a podcast (available at irakrakow.com) titled, "Is the Bill of Rights Really Necessary?"

But first a little quiz. How many of the first ten amendments can you name? Don't worry about matching the amendment with the correct number, just name as many basic rights as you can. The wife and I both got three. I'm sure you can beat us. Check the comments for answers.

Krakow ponders the question of the Bill of Rights and cites a Federalist Paper (guess we aren't done with those yet) written by Alexander Hamilton as the main argument against the first ten amendments. Hamilton felt that listing the specific rights of individuals opened the door for the government to take away any and all other rights not specifically listed. In rebuttal Krakow notes that the Soviet Union did not enumerate individual rights in it's constitution, and later legally murdered millions of citizens.

I wonder if the Soviet Union analogy is relevant. Hamilton was no dummy. In fact I've considered referring to him as "The Hammer" because he deserves a nickname befitting his intelligence and testiclitude. The Hammer thought the Constitution alone was enough to reign in the dark side of human nature.

Then again, Ira Krakow sounded pretty damn smart too. This one might be over me head.

I am Publius, bring it on

Today we look at Federalist Paper No. 51, which was written by either Madison or Alexander Hamilton under the pseudonym "Publius".

No. 51 examines the structure of the federal government, and argues for the importance of balancing power between the divisions. Some of the highlights include the notion that the legislative body is well positioned to trample the executive and judicial. We arrived at a bicameral legislature to limit the power of Congress and encourage parity among the three branches. Publius also concedes that, as a result of all our systems of checks and balances, the federal government might not actually get a whole hell of a lot done.

(You probably want to take a moment to nod in agreement)

Publius goes on to say that gridlock is palatable if it protects us from tyranny. Besides, the really important things that we all agree on should still sail through.

We are now finished with these early documents that supply us with a context for the Constitution. Next up is the Bill of Rights, and then I brief my first case.

Before we move on I have to say that I'm feeling pretty good about being an American. These days it's so easy to be frustrated with the government. It's nice to remember that the founding fathers had a pretty amazing vision for our country, and that America always has the power to change itself.

I want to leave you with a great quote from Federalist No. 51:

"In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the
great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control
the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." ~Publius

Christmas CAWC

James Madison was kind of a big deal

I always thought James Madison was just some tiny school in Virginia that showed up in my March Madness bracket every few years-usually next to a number like 14. I also vaguely knew he did something important that may or may not have warranted getting his face on some money.

It turns out James Madison was kind of a big deal, despite the fact that he was only 5'4", 100 pounds. He was the fourth president, considered to be "the father of the constitution", and a big time Federalist.

Following the drafting of the Constitution, the states had to vote on whether or not to ratify it. The Anti-Federalists emerged and wrote a series of essays arguing that the Constitution needed some changes first, especially a bill of rights. They came up with a great name for their papers, the Anti-Federalist papers.

In response the Federalists published their papers to defend the Constitution as currently constructed.

How much these guys actually disagreed I don't know. The Constitution was ratified, but they immediately added a bill of rights. I'm calling it a draw for now.

Why is this important to The Boom? The Constitution comprises the most basic law of the United States. The Federalist Papers give us insight into the intent of the law, which can be just as important as the letter of the law. These writings are still used, albeit controversially, in Supreme Court rulings where intent becomes a major point of debate.

Federalist Paper No. 10 - James Madison

This paper got me fired up about being an American. I even did a fist pump right there in my living room. Madison alludes to our organization of government and explains how it gives us the best chance for true functional liberty.

Madison argues that faction among individuals and groups is actually a wonderful thing. Disagreement and conflict are symptoms of freedom. Therefore we should not try to eliminate faction. However, we can't just let everyone do what they want either. In a direct democracy the minority is very likely to be trampled upon.

The vision of America was that it would find the sweet spot between tyranny and anarchy. The federalist proposal was a strong central government in which power is properly checked and balanced.

And as it turns out Madison did get his face on some money. Sort of. You know how UNC retires way too many jerseys? Ladies and gentlemen, the $5000 bill... http://ragemanchoo.tripod.com/5000dollar_1934_FedReserveNote.jpg

Angry Farmer's, Whiskey, and America's Big Do-Over

We begin with a little history lesson.

There were three assigned readings for the first episode of Neil Wehnemen's Constitutional Law I podcast. Links to the readings and the mp3 file can be found at http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/.

Onto the briefs. I read the Articles of Confederation, and wikis for Shay's Rebellion and The Whiskey Rebellion.

The Articles of Confederation
Do you remember learning about this in 9th grade? I'm ashamed to admit that, although "The Articles of Confederation" did ring a bell, I was unaware that America was actually on it's second constitution. I don't have time to list all the grievances cited in the wikis, but understand that people from all walks of life were irate for most of the 6 or so years under The Articles. In general the central government had very little power compared to the states.

After we whooped the Brits (sorry England, I'm cheeky) in the Revolutinary War, most or all of the states were in debt. This became a major problem when some citizens (notably farmers, who are always angry as hell) either couldn't or wouldn't pay their taxes. A man named Daniel Shay (probably a farmer) is credited with leading a rebellion that exposed just how little power the federal government had, and why that might be a problem. Opponents of The Articles used this opportunity to ratify The Constitution, and give America it's big do-over. Goodbye unicameral legislature, state currency, and general feeling that Canada is just as good as us-and maybe we should even let them join up.

The Whiskey Rebellion was led by a bunch of angry farmers (really, is there any other kind?) who felt they were being unfairly taxed on their whiskey. By this point the federal government had bought up all that war debt and was springing it on the common man in new and exciting ways. The difference is that the new government, which had much more central power, squashed the farmers in a historic beatdown. Ba-da-bing! Over 200 years later The Constituion Part 2 is still a hit. Maybe with the grace of god, and the quick thinking of Nicholas Cage she'll be around for 200 more.

Fire Rainbow, Northern Lights

Thanks Bunny for sending these from Canada to Todd, who sent them to me.