October 26, 2007

Let me get my hand around a giant cup of coffee.

DSC06005.JPG

There is so much to do today. Get some early morning blog posts up. Reabsorb McCulloch v. Maryland... contemplate the way it looks to a first year law student.

DSC06007.JPG

Teach a 2-hour Conlaw class....

Pack my bag for Port St. Lucie, keeping an eye on the cut. You watch your sport and I'll watch mine. I'll either be in Port St. Lucie or somewhere around Orlando or Palm Beach by nightfall. As Paul Simon used to sing: I'm on my way. I don't know where I'm going, but I'm on my way....

54 comments:

rhhardin said...

If you don't know where you're going, any road will take you there.

bill said...

Maybe it's a normal cup and you have teeny tiny bird hands.

ricpic said...

It's good to be busy,
Busy is good,
Better a tizzy
Than a mawkish mood.

Donald Douglas said...

Hmmm...

McColluch v. Maryland? Sounds fun!

I teach it in my Introduction to American Government class. It's hard enough to get my kids to wrap their heads around John Roberts, much less John Marshall.

Have a great day.

Simon said...

Donald - Roberts is, of course, a lot more crisp than Marshall ever dreamed of.

Maxine Weiss said...

"...the difference, of course, was firm Republican leadership in San Diego.

"New Orleans, on the other hand, was a city on the federal dole dominated by Democrats, racial politics, and the legacy of Huey Long's populist-socialist dreams."
---LA Times (Op Ed)

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lopez26oct26,1,3435455.column?page=1&coll=la-headlines-california&ctrack=1&cset=true

corporate law drudge said...

"[T]he power to tax involves the power to destroy"

blogging cockroach said...

You watch your sport and I'll watch mine.

McColluch v. Maryland? Sounds fun!


my question is who is pitching for maryland...
and does mccolluch have the quick infield they need

Simon said...

corporate law drudge said...
"'[T]he power to tax involves the power to destroy'" (quoting McCulloch, 17 U.S. at 431).

"[N]ot ... while this court sits." Panhandle Oil Co. v. Missisippi ex rel. Knox, 277 U.S. 218, 223 (1928) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

Simon said...

Blogging cockroach - IIRC, Webster's pitching for Maryland.

john said...

Thats not coffee, Ann, there's too much competition for psychoactive sites in that slew.

Real competition is Irish coffee. Two or three.

former law student said...

The bowl o' coffee is typical French.

McCulloch v. Maryland is cake compared to the convoluted Marbury v. Madison.

Simon said...

FormerLawStudent - you think so? Hmm. I felt that Marbury was pretty short, clear, and straightforward - certainly compared to McCulloch, which -- since Ann mentions contemplation of how it looks to someone approaching it for the first time -- I remember finding absolutely labyrinthine when I read the case itself rather than subsequently-penned descriptions of it. That was one of many cases that reinforced my view that whatever defects law school might have, it surely beats independent study hands down.

ron st.amant said...

geez, Ann...here's hoping you don't drown in that giant bowl of coffee before you leave town...that's HUGE!

dax said...

PGA Tour cuts?? Who cares this time of year!

bill said...

origami bird-hands

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Holy cow! Look at all the calories in those coffees you drink with cream and with raw sugar on top. Hope you get some exercise running through the airport. LOL!

perfecthair said...

Ann

i know you're busy, and you have new threads every day, but you haven't offered any response to my post in the Condaleeeza Rice thread.

thanks. i just didn't want it to get buried.

former law student said...

Simon -- For one thing, the Court in Marbury interpreted the Constitution to give it the right to interpret the Constitution -- didn't that make your head spin a bit?

bill said...

perfecthair, some people might consider that a hint.

Simon said...

FormerLawStudent - not in the slightest, actually. For one thing, I'd read Federalist 78. ;) For another thing, the theoretical underpinning of Marbury -- that the Constitution is real law, that in grant of the judicial power of the United States to federal courts, "the Constitution presupposed an historic content for that phrase ... [and] gave merely the outlines of what were to the[ framers] the familiar operations of the English judicial system and its manifestations on this side of the ocean before the Union," and that since federal courts will in the course of their duties necessarily have to resolve conflict of law questions, the supremacy of the Constitution over statutes in such conflicts follows ex visceribus res -- always seemed immediately and instinctively obvious to me.

The Drill SGT said...

ann said... I'm on my way. I don't know where I'm going, but I'm on my way....

rhhardin said...
If you don't know where you're going, any road will take you there.


My first though was what I think of as a Roman proverb, something like: "if one lacks a destination, no wind is fair"

former law student said...

Dag, Simon, as smart as you are how did McCulloch give you a hard time? States not having authority over the feds seems like a no brainer.

Trooper York said...

John, Real competition is Irish coffee. Two or three. Dozen.

XWL said...

PGA Tour cuts?? Who cares this time of year!

People with a nephew on the tour.

Karl said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
former law student said...

Is Ann related to the dime store?

Karl said...

dax said...

PGA Tour cuts?? Who cares this time of year!


Because her nephew, Cliff Kresge, was one stoke behind the projected cut as of this morning. As he was three-under for the day, he will get to play the weekend.

-kd

perfecthair said...

bill said

"perfecthair, some people might consider that a hint."


bill, i wasn't talking to you. i am sure that the professor can take care of herself.

JohnAnnArbor said...

Bowl of coffee....

Makes me wonder if anyone's ever done coffee-flavored soup.

Cream of coffee soup!

Palladian said...

"bill, i wasn't talking to you. i am sure that the professor can take care of herself."

Well, if it's a private matter, why don't you write an email to her? Are you having a bad hair day?

Trooper York said...

Mrs. McBee: Mercy, you're to stop flashin' in the fire every time a three-legged boy goes by. Now you hear me?
Mr. McBee: If we don't get that girl hitched before we get to Oregon, she's gonna run off and marry the nearest buffalo.
(The Way West 1967)

Simon said...

Ann, what's the scar on your index finger from?

tc said...

My dear sweet Ann,

You are, in Freud's idiom, substituting coffee for a good roll in the hay with a man -rather than belly and thigh kissing with a woman. See below. Tsk, tsk...

Tom

jewsyonkersislam # 428 Ann Althouse: Closet lesbian ? Poor thing... and its all the fault of feminist nonsense.

Below is a series of postings by me on Ann's blog. Anybody who doesn't know Ann should check her blog. She is a Profesor of Law at the University of Wisconsin Law School and is living in Brooklen Heights ( the lesbian mecca of NYC ) as she tries to write a book. It is my contention that she has fallen in love with me ( see my "rigorous" analysis of such... the proof lies mainly in her words to and about me). In additition to her words, there are comments by some of her readers about what I have written and done that are instructive and enlightening.
However, I am here replying to the comments of James.
He awards me points for my jyi # 427, but asks something to the effect that my life must be "miserable" if all I can do is post things that I know will be removed as soon as Ann sees them. So let me enlighten him a bit as I ask him what more he wants me to do.
For I have been permanantly and totally disabled frtom 13 years old when I was hit by a car, fractured my neck, lay in a coma for 40 days and awoke to find I was completely paralysed... For I have seen the face of "God" and lived (indeed, that "face of ' God ' " is with me always ). In addition, I managed to become a lawyer, I practiced law for nearly 20 years in the (south) Bronx and Westchester Counties... as a general practitioner with a concentration in Family and Criminal defense work, I am a Lt. Col. in the U.S. Army, Defense Intelligence Agency, I
have traveled the world -the Far East ( I spent a lot of time in China, Japan, Korea, the Phillipines...), the Mid East, Europe, South America ( Chile, Peru,
Bolivia...), North America... been to the Tropics and the Arctic... and, if you'd read my blog ( jewsyonkersislamiii-tc.blogspot.com ), you'd see what else I'm doing now.
As far as Ann, herself, she was a law clerk for U.S. District Court Judge Leonard B. Sand, probably around the time when Judge Sand was playing bully in Yonkers, forcing his social engineering ideas on Yonkers in the desegration suit. ( See jewsyonkersislam-legal/actions.blogspot.com )





1) Postings by me (tc) on :
Althouse "The divine Ms. Althouse." � Terry Teachout " "Formidable law blogger Ann Althouse." � Slate "
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
a) Back in New York, back in the work week


tc (me) said... Hey Ann, What work do you do -other than ruining the whole
world ? See below. Tom ( and I posted jyi # 426; for the rest,see my blog: jewsyonkersislamiii-tc.blogspot.com )
jewsyonkersislam # 426 " The Problem With No Name" by Betty Frieden:
Women

b) ( see below, for just as always before, my postings are removed shortly after I post them - but not before a few comments were made - including from the blogger herself, Prof. Ann Althouse from the Univ. of Wisconsin Law School who has inexplicably (femininely) fallen in love with me:)

tc said... (as noted above) This post has been removed by a blog administrator
( Ann Althouse herself, see below) 5:20 PM

Ann Althouse said...
What a dilemma! I have a policy of deleting everything tc writes, but that question: "What work do you do -other than ruining the whole world ?"

I'm trying to write a book, and I have writer's block, but that ... I want to write a book with that as a title!

( tc says... " What did I tell you...all women are crazy (cyclical). All you have to do is attack them often enough and they wind up loving you ". ) 5:37 PM

rhhardin said... What work do you do -other than ruining the whole world
I was always partial to ``Somebody Stole My Underwear,'' the cry of little brothers. 6:01 PM

Trooper York said... I would buy the tome: "The Girth in the Balance", Diet Tips from Albert Gore Jr. 6:11 PM

Ron said...
Whenever the Flying CooCoo Birds attack that should be our coded catchphrase: "sigh...oh Ann. You're ruining the whole world."
6:31 PM

c ) tc said... ( in a further posting relevant to the above)

To Ann - and any others who may read this before Ann removes it,

I posted my jewsyonkersislam # 426 ( " The Problem With No Name" by Betty Frieden:Women, etc.) and Ann has fallen in love with me (see below) and I dont think I've ever seen her. Of course, I'm on TV a couple of times a month before the Westchester County Board of Legislators and the Yonkers City Council so maybe she has seen me... And maybe that is why she has moved from Wisconsin to New York ?

Tom


Ann. You're ruining the whole world." 6:31 PM

Ralph said...
tc, don't feel like you have to empty your mind at us. Keep a little for yourself.
Most people like a conversation, not a monologue.
9:00 PM
Meade said...
..... Who else but God gave man Love that can spark mere dust to life! Poetry, uniting All-One! All brave! All life! Who else but God! "Listen Children Eternal Father Eternally One! Einstein, 1939, after Nazis & Commies united, proposed spacebombs that destroy all, unless we finally teach the Moral ABC's the real Rabbi Hillel taught Jesus to unite all in All-One-God-Faith. As teach astronomers Abraham - Israel - Moses - Buddha - Hillel - Jesus - Spinoza - Paine - Sagan & Mohammed, inspired every 76 years, 6000 years by the Messenger of God's Law, the sign of the Messiah, Halley's Comet: "WE'RE ALL ONE OR NONE!" "THERE IS NO GOD BUT GOD!" "TEACH LOVE THY ENEMY!" "LISTEN CHILDREN ETERNAL FATHER ETERNALLY ONE!" Israel-Moses-Buddha-Jesus-Mohammed: ONE! ALL ONE! 9:55 PM



2) Posting on/at:
Althouse"The divine Ms. Althouse." Wednesday, October 24, 2007
For the Common Good.

a) tc said... Ah Ann, Lets see how long this piece of work survives (jyi #427). According to your last posting about me (see your own posting), I can see that you've fallen in love with me ( dont deny it, for no woman would believe it ).
As to the Clintons, I find it hard not to like Bill. But Hillary -as President- I detest. Tom
jewsyonkersislam # 427 silly, selfish and childish women; West. B.O.L,10-22-07, Hezi Arris Radio Show on WVOX FM,New Rochelle,etc.
(see jewsyonkersislamiii-tc.blogspot.com for the rest )

b) The above noted (#427) was posted and Ann removed it. So I posted it again and some comments about it follow:

James said...
Points to tc, .....
Something tells me this guy is probably supporting a republican candidate other than Wacko Ron ( if he means me [tc], I back no one but myself ) . Man, do you really have such a miserable life that you have to go around posting your bullshit on blogs, knowing it will be deleted immediately upon the administrator's return ( to tell you the truth, James, if you'd read my blog [jewsyonkersislamiii-tc.blogspot.com], you'd realize that everything I do has a purpose; and I do a lot, including reading, writing, singing, writing poetry, public speaking/singing, acting...) ?
I think I have the flu. I bet you it's the fault of those gay-loving feminists, eh tc ( I think its the other way around: women like gays because gays can talk to them like a woman does while still seeing the male point of view because they are confused by feminism -fucked up, down..., using the back door rather than the front, as they should ) ? 7:12 PM

As noted, I posted my # 427 once again and Ann removed it within 1/2 hour. But it is very funny. It is as James (above) opined, "Man, do you really have such a miserable life that you have to go around posting your bullshit on blogs, knowing it will be deleted immediately upon the administrator's return".
For my stuff IS "deleted immediately upon the administrator's ( Ann Althouse) return". But my purposes are so far beyond what James could conceive that... Besides, Ann Althouse has fallen in love with me...and that is worth the aggravation.


c) tc said...Ann, tsk, tsk, For your own good, you might as well admit that you love me. This is the third (fourth ?) time I'm posting my jyi # 427...and, very shortly, I'm sure, you will be removing it. You see, I've gotten under your skin and you cant get me out of your head. Tom

Trooper York said...

While McMurphy laughs. Rocking farther and farther backward against the cabin top, spreading his laugh out across the water- laughing at the girl, at the guys, at George, at me sucking my bleeding thumb, at the captain back at the pier... and the Big Nurse and all of it. Because he knows you have to laugh at the things that hurt you just to keep yourself in balance, just to keep the world from running you plumb crazy. He knows there's a painful side; he knows my thumb smarts and his girlfriend has a bruised breast and the doctor is losing his glasses, but he won't let the pain blot out the humor no more'n he'll let the humor blot out the pain."
( One Flew Over the Cukoo's Nest, Ken Kesey, Chapter 25, pp. 211-12)

Simon said...

tc said...
"[Althouse] is a Profesor of Law at the University of Wisconsin Law School and is living in Brookl[i]n Heights ... as she tries to write a book."

You know, the curiosity as to what this book -- alluded to in a previous vlog -- is about is killing me, but I suppose we'll find out in due course.

john said...

Well, we are all pretty bored here today, with nothing to do and no guidance from Ms. A. The coffee is cold, folks, so put it in the microwave and add 2 shots of Bushmills. Its happy hour!

john said...

LOS, anything you want to curse someone about?

john said...

Simon,

My guess is that she has compiled all the pithy, erudite, and otherwise scholarly comments from this blog. Yes, some of us are contributing authors.

Her only problem is how to take that one index card and make it into a book.

Trooper York said...

Hey John, I been doing tequila body shots out of the navel of a Slave Girl of Gor all afternoon. Welcome to the Jungle.

Simon said...

John,
Well, I'd settle for knowing whether it's a legal writing project or something else. It's no secret that it was primary her scholarship that drew me into her orbit, but I recognize that she's very eclectic and both can and does write fluenty on other subjects. But I'll admit that I'm much more interested if it's going to be, you know, a meditation on federal jurisdiction than fashion.

john said...

She's from Gor? God I'm jealous. Is that the planet with no global warming?

Simon, could be about shorts on uncool men, specially <10" inseams.

Simon said...

BTW, since this seems to be a quasi-Coffeehouse thread anyway, let me say this WRT to the observation in John's profile page that he's "[a]fraid that democrat WH win in 2008 will relish and exploit expanded exec powers handed to him/her by current occupant." As much as I understand that concern, and even share it to an extent, I would think that there might even be some utility to Hillary embracing both a robust and unitary executive (I think we can reasonably infer from her disclaimer of belief in the unitary executive that she doesn't embrace a robust executive either, insofar as most of those who rail against the former don't seem to understand that it has nothing to do with the latter). Quibbling with the unitary executive, of course, is like quibbling about whether the Earth is round, but think about the robust executive. And think about this from Cheney's perspective. Cheney's view (and it's shared by many others, although I'm not one of them) is that the Presidency was emasculated after Watergate, and needs to reclaim that authority. I think cheney would say that the Bush administration has done that to a great extent. So if Hillary comes into office and buys into the same authority, then the debate is over: Cheney's project will have succeeded, and the question will have shifted from whether the President can do X to whether the President should do X, because Presidents of both parties will have firmly bought into it, and neither party's base will be able to criticize the cheney conceptualization of executive power because both have skin in the game.

Simon said...

I should have added on the end of my post above the question to John , which is whether there's potentially any value in that to the extent that one agrees that the Presidency lost too much power after Watergate (even if one thinks it's overreached from just reclaiming and in fact claimed too much since 9/11)

Trooper York said...

NO BABY. There is nothing but global warming on Gor, because those Slave Girls are HOT, HOT,HOT!!

john said...

Simon,

You look at profiles? Well, so did I. I'm not sure what bothers me most about what you said, a "robust executive" or a "Cheney project". Frankly, the latter term scares the shit out of me. Hillary and robust, on the other hand, only brings up the thought of breasts.

I have to leave the thread for now. I will try to get back and describe my thoughts in better detail.

Trooper York said...

John, I think you mean that Hillary has robot-breasts. That's not nice. I don't care how many Irish coffees you had today. Not cool dude, not cool.

Ruth Anne Adams said...

I wonder if the mention of the golf score on Auntie's blog upped the pucker factor for nephew.

Simon said...

John,
Please do, but in the interim, let me clarify my use of those terms. I don't mean to suggest that either are in common currency, and so far I know, I coined them here. By a "robust executive," I mean a view or theory the executive branch ought to be relatively powerful vis-a-vis the other two branches of government (and in light of Medellin, I suppose we ought to assume powerful vis-a-vis the states). I use that term here to differentiate that conceptualization of the interbranch power of the executive from the unitary executive doctrine, which is often misunderstood or misrepresented as standing for precisely that, but is in fact a purely intrabranch theory that describes the power of the President relative to other executive branch actors. Simply put, the unitary executive doctrine holds that "[t]he Constitution requires that the President must retain ultimate authority over all executive branch activity ... [and that all other e]xecutive branch actors are intermediaries for the executive power, and surrogates for the President in whom that power is vested by the Constitution." So the upshot is that despite common misrepresentation to the contrary, one need not believe that the executive branch should have a robust authority vis-a-vis the other branches of government to believe the Constitution compels a unitary executive branch.

Still, those who believe in a unitary executive also tend to believe in a robust executive, and Cheney is no exception to that (although I think of myself as one). I didn't mean to sound darkly conspiratorial in referring to Cheney's project, but I think it can be said accurately that Dick Cheney, David Addington, and many other folks have for several decades held the belief that the power of the Presidency was sapped by Congress in retaliation to Nixon -- the War Powers Act and FISA would be examples of the sort of thing they're talking about -- to the point where the Presidency was in 2000 not only weaker than is advisable as a normative matter, but weaker than the Constitution demands. As a matter of historical record, the powers of Congress and the Presidency have long waxed and waned (one could arguably think of the Presidency reaching its early zenith under Jackson, gradually receding until they hit a perigee under Grant, and ramping back up as Congressional activism gave way to the guilded era), and I think Cheney et al have long held a good-faith belief that the Presidency needs to reclaim the authority it ceded after Watergate.

I think that one can believe that there's a kernel of a point in that without accepting that the President or the executive branch ought to have the amount of power that this administration has claimed. Or to put it another way, I think one can still argue that the Bush administration has tried to claim too much territory while still believing that it was valid for it to try and reclaim some of that territory. It does not follow that if we today permit Germany to reclaim the Rhineland, then tommorow we must accept the validity of their claims on Austria, the Sudetenland, and so forth.

So I suppose the point I'd make is this: this President's claims on any increased authority have met with stringent hostility from his critics because they have come from this President. So if one thinks that the Presidency ought to have reclaimed any amount power vis-a-vis Congress, might the use of some of that power by a Democratic President signal a normalization, and allow us to have a conversation about how much power the President ought to have without it being quite so bound up in hostility to this President or that President? That is, could it either uncouple (or at least limit) the partisanship angle, allowing us to debate the issue on a more principled bases, or in the alternative, rebase the status quo, leaving us with a President that has more power than Presidents before Bush (and more akin to pre-Nixon administrations) yet less power than the present administration has asserted?

tc said...

10-26-07: Ann's "giant cup of coffee" in her lesbian coffee shops in Park Slope Brooklin,NY

Ann,

Will you please tell all these stupid women -and confused he-she faggot males- that they're wrong, that they cant win against a man
no matter what they do. For men are made "oppositional" while women are "cyclical". And men dont play by women's rules because, as much as they may want to, they cant.

Tom

john said...

Simon,

You won't get a con law scholarly response from me, but you will get my reasons why I think that the WH is, purposely, on a much more expansive track than what you might see as an ebb and flow of executive power through the last century. Call it the Cheney Project if you wish, but that seems too analytic and scientific a description for what I see as GWB's and DC's rather personal goals here.

I call it the WH trifecta, an attempt to stifle the legislature, stuff the Supreme Court, and stop appointment of a special prosecutor (like the alliteration?). This was done through ramming through the War Crimes Immunity bill in the waning moments of the 2006 legislative season (the WH knew very well then that the GOP was going to get creamed in the mid-terms); through the appointment of Bush's toady, Alberto Gonzales; and through trying to get Harriet Myers appointed to the SC. The last was the straw that broke this camel's back (and that of many other real conservatives). Whether Alito will be a suitable substitute in their minds is not certain. For me, there was no give-him-the-benefit-of-the-doubt any more, no forgiveness left, a 2-time Bush voter.

Well, GWB and DC were left with one of the three, so they lost a lot but not all. The 2006 Act was their real ace in the hole, the most important of the three, as it could keep them out of prison.

So Simon, argue the robust or the unified presidency in the abstract if you will, I see only a naked power grab for base motives.

(It's funny that the Harrient Myers episode so pissed us off, having given him a pass on so much of his presidency up to then.)

My worry that the Dems will like what they see when they move into the WH in 2009 is based on their history in office.

Keep writing Simon, and others, and I, will join in.

Simon said...

John, funnily enough, I entirley share the sentiment re Miers, in terms of its effect on my attitude towads Bush. I remain rather proud of having been part of the rebellion, and I was delighted that Alito was the nominee (indeed, I'd been disappointed he hadn't gotten the nod when O'Connor retired in the first instance, although we now see that's worked out insofar as Roberts was an excellent choice for Chief Justice but likely only got the nod because it was an easy call at a difficult time). That doesn't mean I agree with Alito (or Roberts) on everything - I howled when Zedner and Phillip Morris came out - but you don't expect to agree with a judge on everything.

I disagree with you to an extent on the question of motivation (I'd also point out that I'm not an advocate for the robust executive). I won't speak to Bush's motivations, but I think Cheney et al do sincerely believe that too much power was drained out of the Presidency after Watergate and that it was important to restore the balance, not least because they started pursuing that goal long before increasing the authority of the Presidency meant increasing their own power. I think they woud feel that they've had a lot of success (even though I tend to instinctively agree with you that they've taken more than is proper), and while I'm sure they'd prefer that power be wielded by a Republican President, they would want it to be available to a President of either party, certainly in terms of national security.

Lastly, I don't disagree that Hillary will use the power of the office that's been siezed for her, and I recognize that's a concern I have as a Republican, that is, in terms of what the power will be used for, but my question was whether there's any institutional benefit to be derived from that, that is, in terms of what power is available to accomplish the legitimate goals of government.

john said...

Or not. Thinking more about the attempted trifecta, I think I should have seen it more as a set of defensive maneuvers. Finding themselves in a foxhole full of shit by about 2004-2005, GB and DC thought they needed some protection as the Iraq war lagged and the possibility of losing congress within a year loomed. If so, it doesnt speak to a grand robust executive plan, rather a tactical maneuver to save their butts.

Also, with the additional powers granted to the executive during wartime, and the rhetoric about this "war" essentially lasting years, generations, or forever, well you get the picture of relentless expansion of the executive, with war on terror as the excuse.

On another thread, it would be nice to discuss just what a "war on terror" is.

War on fear
War on scared
War on extreme violence
War on horror
War on purge (bulimia?)
War on certain tropical fish
War on two mountains.

You get to define it, then you get to say how long it lasts.

Oops, getting diverted.

Regards,

JackDRipper said...

You are reverting to your bad habit of visual reductionism - swirls in coffee, maybe some dead bugs or dead birds. What no architecture down there? Views, vistas, wide angle perspective shots is what I need. The views from Brooklyn Heights have spoiled me. I can't go back to dead birds with ants in their eyes and milky swirls in coffee cups.