Archive for September 18th, 2007

Suing the Almighty

‘God’ doesn’t exist. We all know this. Nonethe­less, allegedly athe­ist Nebraska State Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Ernie Cham­bers has seen fit to sue His Omnipo­tence for var­i­ous tor­tious wrongs. This arti­cle wastes most of its col­umn inches detail­ing the var­i­ous charges levied against The Ever­last­ing, only men­tion­ing in pass­ing Cham­bers’ alleged point: [H]is main objec­tion is the con­sti­tu­tion requires that the doors to the cour­t­house be open to all. Appar­ently, Cham­bers is try­ing to make a point about friv­o­lous law­suits. It would have been nice if the arti­cle would have spent a lit­tle more time explain­ing how Cham­bers intends this law­suit to make that point. I do [ . . . ]

Read the Rest...

On Equality (Brief)

Today, my law school hosted a mini-​​​​panel on equal­ity as part of the University’s ongo­ing “Diver­sity Week,” and as part of the Law School’s “Con­sti­tu­tion Week.” Sev­eral pro­fes­sors spoke on their research into equal­ity and the Con­sti­tu­tion. All three took a Pro­gres­sivist stance. By Pro­gres­sivist, I mean this: It is one thing to insist that the law be applied equally to all. It is entirely another to insist that equal­ity requires the unequal appli­ca­tion of the law. For instance, if equal oper­a­tion of the law has the effect of ‘dis­en­fran­chis­ing’ some group (the poor; the une­d­u­cated; the dis­in­ter­ested), then the law must be [ . . . ]

Read the Rest...

Happy (Late) Constitution Day!

Yes­ter­day was Con­sti­tu­tion Day and I let it slip by with­out say­ing any­thing pro­found. Naughty Qwertz. Very bad. The Constitution’s bril­liance (aside from the rev­o­lu­tion­ary idea that gov­ern­ment power is derived only from the peo­ple) is in its attempt to insu­late itself against cor­rup­tion. The Framers sep­a­rated gov­ern­ment power among the Fed­eral branches, and between the Fed­eral and State gov­ern­ments, so that tyranny could grow only slowly. The Framers knew they were draft­ing a doc­u­ment com­posed largely of com­pro­mises, and prob­a­bly knew that would come back to bite the coun­try in the back­side at some point in the future. So they cre­ated the [ . . . ]

Read the Rest...