skies are a little bluer here in volanskyland, but there is still a bit of rain with chance of fog. we thought for a brief time that there would be the much-feared "damaging wind and hail." but we hope for sunny skies as fall really sets in.
at any rate, as one can clearly see, i've been thinking a lot about the water lately, as well (and this isn't all that apparent) as the federal judiciary.
well, as i sat on my porch in chestertown, feeling the rain fall and looking at the catholic church across the street while talking on the phone to professor nick (whew), i got to thinking about all that was going on in our world:
1. weather
2. gays in the priesthood
3. marbury v. madison
it all seemed to come together.
and i learned something:
so, we all know that the judiciary act of 1789 created the US court system as we (almost) know it today, complete with districts, circuits, the office of the AG, the supremes and a few other things.
we know that the landmark "judicial review" holding from marbury v. madison essentially made the judiciary a solid 3rd branch of the US government.
this case was landmark because, as john stewart points out in:
prior to this, the judges were permitted only to make decisions on spelling and punctuation.
i love john stewart.
at any rate, what i did not know, and what the really smart professor nick informed me of (hey kids, if you want to go to law school, check out these folks: http://www.law.georgetown.edu/ )
they seem to know what they are doing.
gosh, the digressions.
what i learned was the there was no US judiciary from 1801 to 1803!
those who know me know that i do not acknowledge the punctuation mark (see how it all comes around?) called the "exclamation point." you get one in your life, but, at this time in my life, i think i'd like to buy a punctuation, alex.
imagine if that were the case now. a bunch of judges sitting around for about a year and a half, with nothing to do but think about their lives.
for those of you who know jose rivera's short play TAPE, you'll know why this image makes me so happy.
there's obviously a lot more to the judiciary act of 1801 and then the judiciary act of 1803, but nick's great teaching has made me turn my head with curiousity. check it out.
and the person who presents the best report gets extra credit.
i didn't figure in the catholic church. i'll figure that one out later.
in the meantime, be good to each other, and...
gotohellifyouhatefreedom,
volansky
ps there are some great comments about the "sexy" stay-at-home moms on the, um, comments page. check it out.
pps though i do agree with the problems with biore and wine coolers, i do have to gush a bit about flicka's emmy. yay!
2 comments:
Anonymous's entry looks suspiciously like a fisher email or virus waiting to happen.
Volansky - thanks for the love, I tried not to touch it too much. Crazy.
But thank god someone finally referenced Marbury v. Madison!
You know whom else is a fascinating source of Constitutional Law at WC? Dr. Taylor. Seriously, since O'Connor retired, I've taken out my Con Law books and case briefs and have sat there looking at all the important decisions in Court history and have even found myself crying at some of them, wondering how this is all going to pan out. Oh, and so that mindy. and I don't get hosed at Oval Office again, a game that you simply must play with us soon.
Heart you!
Post a Comment