In 2008 the Valparaiso University School of Law Student Bar Assiciation Alcohol Policy was created. It prohibited hard alcohol at SBA sponsored events, decreased the available use of SBA funds for alcohol, and required sober monitors at events where SBA funds were expended. Will it spur professionalism amongst students, will it spawn a responsible, healthy atmosphere, and will it lead away from the abuse of alcohol as a form of release for Valparaiso University School of Law students? While only time will answer those questions, a short inquiry into the history, creation and passage of the Alcohol Policy revealed the efforts of SBA to promote the prudent use of student activity dollars.
Author ArchiveIn visiting with over 20,000 Hoosiers on Friday, October 17, GOP Vice Presidential Nominee Sarah Palin encouraged an energized crowd to keep Indiana a red state in the 2008 presidential election. Dear Barely Legal, Due to my weak financial condition and my ill-preparedness for not booking a flight when flights were cheaper, I have to spend Thanksgiving here in Valpa-Rain-Snow with whomever else is around. I have never cooked a turkey before, any suggestions? “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.” - US Constitution Art I sec 2 This was the original language of the Constitution before being modified by the 14th Amendment. Mr. Duffy wants to claim that the language of a contract doesn’t change over time, but I doubt he believes that the original language of the Constitution, clearly denying suffrage to slaves, should still be enforced. The thesis of Mr. Duffy’s article, while difficult to parse, seems to be that John McCain is a better choice for President because he won’t (or claims he won’t) appoint judges to the Supreme Court who are motivated by a political ideology, and that Barack Obama will. This argument fails not only because of its speculation, but also for a lack of reason. Bad Supreme Court decisions can be overturned by the Court, just as bad decisions by the Framers can be amended. The ability to fix errors is built into our entire system of government (even if the “fix” will cost $700 billion).
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” So, this month the topic is gun rights and the Heller decision from both a legal and practical standpoint. Hmmm. Let me start off by saying that while the Clarence Thomas supporter and I disagree on a lot of things, this topic is one we actually agree on. I haven’t read his opinion yet, so let me qualify that statement, as authors of concurring opinions often do: I can’t say for sure that I agree with his reasoning, but I do agree with his main point – the Heller court definitely got it right. However, I wouldn’t be doing my job if I just agreed with him. I must argue the counterpoint.
Oct
06
2008
 
Moot Court announces upcoming Swygert Memorial Moot Court CompetitionPosted by: admin in Organizations
On November 5, 2008 the Valparaiso University School of Law Moot Court Society will host the 20th annual Judge Luther M. Swygert Memorial Moot Court Competition. Every year members of the Moot Court Society delve into areas of First Amendment law in this competition. This year’s topic involves academic freedom for professors, which is timely and of great interest to many. Members will endure a brief-writing competition followed by multiple rounds of oral arguments judged by members of the Executive Board (Tamara Carnahan, Sheri Erdmann, Josh Malher, Teranni Randolph, Andrew Smith and Katie Staab). The field will be narrowed to the top four competitors who will perform in the final round on November 5th.
The judges for the final round are Judge John Tinder of the 7th Circuit, Justice Elizabeth Lacy of the Virginia Supreme Court, and Justice Debra Todd of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Members of the Moot Court Society include: Dominic Buttitta, Andy Dickerson, Ilisha Dowell, Joshua Faucette, Mitch Gilfillan, Kirsten Haalboom, Brandon Hall, Sean Hatfield, Allison Horton, Milo Johnson, Jesse Lanshe, Joanna Lekkas, Elizabeth Madlem, Anthony Mayerhofer, Kathryn McEnery, Ashley Mills, Brett Mock, Amy Molloy, Erika Nelson, Steve Olsen, Nicholas Poteres, Abigail Rom, Heather Schaefer, Sameer Siddiqui, Jeff Speights, Arriel Stevens, Moses Suarez, Jessica Warren Finger pointing has characterized much of the past few weeks – for some, the current mortgage crisis is evidence of bad business practices, others believe that the crisis makes evident the need for more regulations, and still others blame credit agencies for extending lines of credit to those who could not afford them. Change. Reform. Change. Reform. It is a shame I can’t convert my ‘95 Wagon into a hybrid that recycles those two words into alternative energy. In 1901, a short, stout bespectacled man became President – Theodore Roosevelt. He overcame child-hood asthma through a rigorous workout regimen, and he continued that vigorous ethic of hard work throughout his entire life. He fought unethical business practices, while supporting the fundamentals he felt should guide a free market: honesty, sanity, and self restraint. He welcomed the fourth estate, journalism, to pursue its duty in rooting out evil in all facets of society, but lashed against the use of journalism to foster a class war. In 1906, President Roosevelt delivered a speech that reminded journalists of their duty, and he purported great principles still applicable today. He discouraged using human desire and materialism to drive a wedge between classes and encouraged individuals to expose the evils in all classes of society. “If, on the other hand, it (journalism) turns into a mere crusade of appetite against appetite, of a contest between the brutal greed of the “have nots” and the brutal greed of the “haves,” then it has no significance for good, but only for evil. If it seeks to establish a line of cleavage, not along the line which divides good men from bad, but along that other line, running at right angles thereto, which divides those who are well off from those who are less well off, then it will be fraught with immeasurable harm to the body politic. We can no more and no less afford to condone evil in the man of capital than evil in the man of no capital.” Within those lines Roosevelt attacked an evil ethic as old as time, and the politics that played off of that ethic: discontent due to material wants beyond our needs should not drive our actions. And how is this pertinent today? Roosevelt continued his speech to state that there is little good in a mere spasm of reform, for “its violent emotionalism leads to exhaustion.” Rather, he cites that action should be marked by growth according to honesty, sanity and self restraint. I decry the actions of a CEO who wrongly purports his/her company to be in the black, misleading investors and the public. But I decry that action the same as the act of a man living in Section 8 housing who hangs a flat screen TV from the living room wall, prolonging his dependence upon honorable government aid. I denounce the actions of mortgage companies extending loans to persons not financially able to make the payments. But I denounce the actions of persons seeking mortgages or breaking them while frivolously spending money, unable to separate want from need.
The word change is not a firestorm which rolls through society, purging it of its ills. Rather, change is illustrative of sacrifice, of actions that have confronted those evil ethics, and sacrificed for a greater good. Change does not begin with rhetoric, it is entrenched in one’s actions. It is not explained in words, but in the actions that define an individual’s character, whether a community organizer or mayor of a small town, school teacher or stay-at-home mom. Change stems from actions taken and stances upheld. The candidate I plan to vote for in the upcoming election is not someone who I agree with entirely. But he’s left a trail of change – actions taken and stances upheld – that impacted both parties. And more importantly, he has displayed sacrifice throughout his career, and he would do well to discuss that more. He represents the tail end of a generation that gave so much in lives lost, but also gained in lessons learned. Of earning according to your talents and abilities, and spending it only on what you need. Of graciously taking charity, but yearning to one day give back what you have received. Of not being content to vote present during the bullfights of life, but rather being ready to jump into the arena.
In November 2003, I received a phone call that changed my life forever. The message said this; Shivers you have been ordered to report to San Antonio, Texas and from there you will be mobilized in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. I, along with many others, was sent to help rebuild Iraq. Thoughts began rushing through my head; I had about two weeks to get my life in order before going to the most dangerous place in the world. It was quite frightening. My occupational specialty in the military is a heavy construction equipment operator. Most of my working days consisted of operating a bulldozer or a front end loader. Although I also operated a one-thousand-gallon fuel truck. We also rebuilt a bridge across the Tigris River and paved thousands of miles of road. Other times I sat in a guard tower high above our post. In that year I experienced things that most people will never experience. We were shot at almost every day. I had a mortar hit no less than twenty five meters from where I stood guard. Our convoys were attacked. We lost friends. We constantly lived with the fear of not knowing if today would be the day. But there were good times too. We renovated an old movie theater and got to see new releases like Napoleon Dynamite and Team America. Towards the end of the deployment we had Subway, Burger King and Pizza Hut. We even had bottled Frappuccino in the PX (Post Exchange), now tell me that’s not amazing! The year passed, quicker than I thought, and I made it home safely. I returned from Iraq in February 2005, with a new perspective on the war. Soldiers returning from war are always asked the same question, “what do you think of the war?” and often times that question puts a soldier in a precarious situation. It is your duty to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;” however that duty does not preclude you from having your personal thoughts about the war. As a soldier there was no doubt in my mind that if I received notice that I would have to be deployed, then I would go without a moment’s hesitation, because that is my duty. I would go without complaint and I would perform to the best of my ability. However, when I think about the war out of the context of being a soldier, conflict arises. I always said to myself I can understand why we are in Afghanistan, but I do not understand why we are in Iraq. It just does not make sense to me. What is the correlation between the two countries? Are there certain policy reasons as to why we are in both countries? I have no idea. What I do know and feel is that we cannot leave now.
Hindsight is 20/20. Many peo ples’ opinion on the war has changed from the beginning of the war to now. However it’s too late to look back now. What is done is done. Now we must look forward to rebuilding what we have essentially destroyed. Our initial convoy into Iraq took us past a scene of devastation that I thought you only see in movies, burned out cars on the side of the road, demolished buildings, and nonexistent roads. There were children and women who begged for food, but we could not give them any because we were ordered not to. The reason for not feeding people was not because we did not have the resources to do it, but it had the potential to start a riot. To leave now, and completely wash our hands of the entire situation would be like leaving someone to drown when the only thing you need to do is throw them life preserver. The question to be asked now is not if we should have been there, but what will we do to rebuild? To assist a country that in many respects was doing alright until we go there. Yes we can argue that a “tyrant” was in power, how ever I can tell you from firsthand experience that many Iraqi citizens were happy with Saddam Hussein, and there were others who were not happy with him. It’s all relative I suppose. Everyone has an opinion. In my opinion, I would love for every Soldier, Sailor, Airman, and Marine to come home now. But, that is not going to happen. As it stands now, we are between a rock and a hard place. I don’t think we should leave right away and completely sever ties, I also don’t believe that more Americans should be put in harm’s way for this war. To fully accomplish our mission we must leave Iraq better off than when we came. Does that mean leading Iraq to a democratic government? I don’t know. Maybe the people of Iraq don’t want a democracy. Looking back on these past four months, I recall the excitement that I, along with so many of my colleagues, experienced having finally reached the light at the long dark tunnel we all knew as “law school.” Despite the stern warnings about the bar exam from the December grads in our class, the celebration continued and we all looked forward to the one month period of doing absolutely nothing that lay ahead of us. Some went to Mexico, some went to Europe. I stayed at home and got ready for bar classes because New York started the Monday after graduation. The following months, however, would confirm what others have called the worst summer of their lives. I offer you my story not to frighten you…well, perhaps a little. However, my primary motive is to give you 3Ls an idea of what to expect when you do get out of that tunnel, because your celebration will be as quick as Professor Brady Coleman’s stay at Valpo. First, congrats on “passing” the MPRE. Big whoop, that was an exam on one topic. For some states, such as New York, get ready to learn twenty-four, memorizing minute distinctions between common law, federal law, and state law. I won’t be hypocritical by saying I wasn’t happy when I scored well enough on the MPRE to take the bar in NY, but in hindsight, I realize how really insignificant that accomplishment was. With respect to bar applications, get on top of it as soon as they are released by the state (some time around March). You may just forget to include that one piece of information, resulting in a $100 increase in your application fee. Some applications won’t be too much of a hassle because the Character and Fitness part won’t come until after you pass the bar. Others, however will require you to include pain in the neck documents such as drivering abstracts, fingerprints, and your criminal history.
Studying for the bar is very mechanical and is tantamount to learning every semester-long core course in one day, everyday. So yes, get ready to relearn Con Law in one day…get ready to relearn Evidence in a couple days. And also get ready to learn some classes you’ve never even taken before in one day. Oh, and for those of you who took Secured Transactions because “it’s on the bar”, congratulations, you just took a class for a whole semester which is tested less than 5% of the time and if tested, shows up only as a minor issue in only one question. In fact, it’s at the bottom of Barbri’s priority list and they briefly go over it in roughly two hours. My point for the 2Ls is to spend more time taking what you’re interested in than worrying about what’s on the bar exam. Barbri has got your back. When you study, you will need a study buddy. Yes, some of you study better alone and are at the top of your class. Forget it, this is a whole new ball game and you will need someone to keep you in check. The bar exam is rightfully dubbed by Barbri as a marathon, which means somewhere along the road, you will question your ability to go through with it. You will need a study buddy to keep you motivated on those “glass is half empty days” and in return, keep your study buddy motivated when he or she is having one of those days. My study buddy and I were not that close at Valpo, but after having gone through the hell that is the bar exam, it’s as though we were brothers at war. Some of you may have jobs before graduation, and the others were not in the top 10%…just kidding. I, along with many others, was jobless at graduation, but do not let that get in the way of your bar studies. Without a license, you are useless at whatever job you take as an associate. There will be plenty of down time after the bar exam to continue the job hunt. Remember one thing; in this market, getting a job is not that easy. Out of the six of us who moved on to the New York City area after graduation, only two of us had jobs before graduation. However, after the bar exam, most of us have great positions where we are learning everything about law practice that we should have learned in law school. The important thing to keep in mind is that with your first job, you should find a position where you can learn everything, not get the bling. Sure the bling’s nice, but that should just be a bonus. In closing, I hope this has given most of you 3Ls a picture of what to expect at the end of your most glorious year. There is a light at the end of the tunnel, but there are even more tunnels that lie ahead. But in the meantime, enjoy your final year because it will be over in the blink of an eye. Good luck and maybe I’ll catch you at Barrister’s. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Entries (RSS)