The Archives
-
A Day in the Life
Bar Review Just Got Surreal
This question is based upon the case of Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529 (1976), where the Court upheld the power of Congress to protect wild burros under the federal Property Power.
That’s damn fine coffee you got here in Twin Peaks.
-
The News
Souter? I Barely Know Her!
A very nice piece written about retired Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter. He gave a long disquisition on Constitutional interpretation. It doesn’t quote him nearly enough:
A choice may have to be made, not because language is vague, but because the Constitution embodies the desire of the American people, like most people, to have things both ways. We want order and security, and we want liberty. And we want not only liberty but equality as well. These paired desires of ours can clash, and when they do a court is forced to choose between them, between one constitutional good and another one. The court has to decide which of our approved desires has the better claim, right here, right now, and a court has to do more than read fairly when it makes this kind of choice.
Do yourself a favor and read The New York Times Article, or go straight to the text of the speech itself.
-
The News
One Way or Another
05.12.09 | Permalink | 2 CommentsHypothetical situation about the opposite of a Big Brother Police State: you’re on a public street in a car registered in your name, in plain view of Tom, Dick, Harry, and pretty much every concept of God known to the Western World. In this situation, is a police officer allowed to look at you, or not allowed to look at you? The answer ought to be obvious.
So if you’re on a public street in a car registered in your name, in plain view of a GPS satellite, and probably carrying a phone and/or navigation system in your pants and on your dashboard, what makes you think that the police can’t use the same technology to watch you? Do you magically gain some sort of rights when computers are involved? A recent AP article about a court ruling in Michigan seems amazed at the lack of privacy we have while in public.
If we want to make a law requiring the police use only eyeballs to follow you, that’s fine. I think it’s much more cost-effective to have the police use technology to keep up with society, but there’s plenty of room for debate. However, let’s not act surprised that driving around on a public road is less than completely private.
Almost Legally
Available for only $400 an hour
-
Just got my first email addressing me as Professor Mauro. Oh, I don't think I'll be correcting this person just yet.
