Fired Up!

Man, I have just become a blogging machine today. I guess I have a lot to say because everyone around me has a lot to say, and it has gotten me thinking and gotten me fired up. I've been thinking about the comments that have been swirling around Emory Law, Facebook, CNN, you name it, everyone's talking. I've heard a lot of intelligent comments, but a lot of ignorant ones too. So I just thought I'd throw out my two sense on this whole debacle, for whatever its worth. Here's my disclaimer, though: I'm not claiming to understand the ins and outs of healthcare reform. My instinct as a Christian says that it is simply that compassionate thing to support healthcare for all, but my understanding of the financial repercussions is basically zero beyond what common sense can tell me, and I don't have time to philosophize over all the possible outcomes. The sliver of knowledge I do have comes strictly from my 1L law classes, and let's face it, even at a top 20 law school, we're the tadpoles in the legal ocean. So seriously, before anyone flips out, these are just my personal naive ramblings and nothing more.

As previously stated, I don't purport to know much about the U.S. Constitution (just more than the average high schooler, really), but I will say that regardless of what side of the universal healthcare issue you stand on, you should be able to see that one could interpret parts of the Constitution to authorize the recent bill. I'm not saying you have to agree, just that any reasonable person should be able to see that it is a possible interpretation of the text.

Please note Article I: Congress shall have power to lay tax... to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Furthermore, we know that the healthcare industry is actively involved in interstate commerce, so any kind of healthcare reform involving regulation of the companies themselves could be seen as explicitly authorized under the commerce clause. Just a thought.

I get it, though. People think that if Congress can now tell people that they have to purchase a certain good or service that Congress is basically claiming limitless power. But I personally don't believe that. The text of the Constitution explicitly reserves certain authority to the Executive, the Judiciary, to the States, and most importantly, to the people. Furthermore, we cannot forget that it is the people who have the power to elect our own representatives. It is not a perfect system. Believe me, I know it is flawed in many ways. But I, for one, am grateful that I have a voice (however small it may be), and that I live in a country where we decide things by a majority vote and where healthcare is something that is available at all. I feel this way because I have been to places where the people have no voice and where people die of stupid diseases because, not only is there no health insurance, there is no medical care at all.

All that to say, I think it is important to remember, as we get all hot and bothered about U.S. politics, that what we have going on here in the U.S.- like or not- is a lot better than what much of the rest of the world is dealing with.

and further more...

A little soap box- I am all for people sharing their opinions anywhere they want, including on Facebook. However, I find it really amusing that high schoolers are starting Facebook groups claiming that the recent passage of the universal healthcare program has left the U.S. "6 feet under." No matter what you believe about healthcare or how this bill got passed, no one has taken away your right to vote, right to due process, etc... And I personally find it hard to believe that myself and all my classmates are having to study days on end just to be able to grapple with the Constitution in some small way, but a HIGH SCHOOLER understands it well enough to declare that the Constitution is in fact dead. If he or she does, I'd like that person to tutor me for my Con Law exam.

Why I hate the Constitution...

Ok, not really, but in all seriousness, studying SCOTUS opinions resolving Constitutional issues over the last 200 years or so really makes you want to ask the Framer's "why didn't you anticipate any of these issues??" That is admittedly an unfair question, because so many things have changed since it's adoption, but still... Furthermore, I find it interesting that the SCOTUS justices are free to use whatever method they want to interpret the Constitution and they ping-pong back and forth all the time (perhaps in a desperate attempt to maintain some consistency in their opinions). I mean really, it seems to me that it make sense to either be strictly formalist and decide cases based on a strict interpretation of the text, or allow a more functionalist perspective and take modern needs regarding efficiency within our government and consistency among court decisions to play some role. What seems entirely inconsistent is to say that some issues deserve consideration of current needs and trends to play a role in deciding related suits, while others must be subjected to a strictly textual analysis with not regard for the potential absurd result this might produce. With my limited knowledge as a 1L, I can honestly say I don't know which theory of interpretation is "better," but it does seem strange to jump between the two with no apparent reasoning behind which method is used other than which justice happens to be writing and who is in the majority. I guess I'm making the old "can't we all just get along?" argument, to which the answer is obviously NO, or we wouldn't have a judiciary to decide conflicts in the first place. That's enough pointless ramblings for today... back to law school for me.

Taking on too much...

I am officially taking on too much. I have to prepare an appellate argument for my writing class, a closing argument for Mock Trial try-outs, study over 80 cases for my Con Law class, AND keep up with my reading for all my classes. I'm very close to losing my mind. Some of you may think I've already lost it, but trust me- that rabbit hole can get deeper!

I really love law school, but for some reason this semester just feels like I'm constantly trying to tread water, and its getting exhausting. Last semester went by so slowly, with things heating up really only toward the last month or so of the semester. This semester we have had assignments thrown on top of reading from week one... I CANNOT wait for summer. BUT, I need you all to send up good thoughts and prayers, as I have yet to find a summer internship. It is not panic time yet, but I've got to find something soon.

In other news, spring has finally descended upon Atlanta- it will be 70 tomorrow!

Here Comes the Bride...

So my one of my nearest and dearest friends has decided to tie the knot this May. To celebrate, 7 of our friends from college are having a girls weekend, bridal shower, etc... I am so excited! It has literally been years since I have seen some of these girls. I'm feeling a lot of champagne, laughing, catching up, and possibly some marathon SATC playing in the background. It is especially special (redundant or what?) for me to get to host this shower because the bride was my maid of honor for my wedding and my roomie for a year after we graduated from college. Now that she's in medical school, I'm in law school, and all of our friends are scattered across the country pursuing their careers as well, we don't get to see each other that often. Thus, this should be an amazingly fun weekend. Now if only I can focus on Constitutional Law for a few more hours so I don't have to live in the library next week! Hmm... Marbury v. Madision anyone?

You know you're avoiding when...

My avoidance of LWRAP has reached an all-time high. For those of you who don't know, LWRAP stands for Legal Writing Research and Advocacy Program and is a mandatory course that all Emory J.D. candidates have to take both semesters of 1L year. And, as I write, I am 2 days away from our big deadline for a 30+ page legal brief, which, it just so happens, is on sexual harassment. Anyone ever read a Supreme Court or appellate court opinion on sexual harassment? Google if you need a good laugh. I never thought I'd read a legal document stating, and I quote: "the phrase 'sick bitch' is not necessarily offensive to women." But lo and behold, I am actually going to get academic credit to use such language... law school is ridiculous. Not to mention I have to put up with skeezy library guy- the 40+ year-old man that lurks around the library and is occasionally found making out with random girls (who are not law students, by the by) in the stacks. Talk about distractions. So, instead of editing my 18th draft, I'm starting a blog, something I've always said I would never do. Which is why I'm saying that my avoidance level is exploding. But I digress...