1) The Blueprint

You talk a lot about what women do wrong. I think that men need to be equally accountable in relationships. You men need help because obviously you guys are lost. Also, the doctor might want to take his own advice.

A) Men have been struggling to adjust to this new kind of woman. The inde­pendent, “I can do better than you, but can you really do better than me” type of woman. Let me grab the reins on this. Gentlemen…pay attention: (1) Upgrade your wardrobe. It shows power and women go crazy for a man with a good sense of style. Check with Ehiman…he’ll provide you with a few stores to go to. (2) Get in the gym. Women love to be held. There’s something about be­ing held by a big, strong man that makes them feel safe and secure. (3) Eye con­tact. It shows that you’re into what she is talking about. (4) Master the small things. Remember her friends’ names, surprise her with breakfast, open doors, compliment her smile, etc. (5) Diversify your conversation. Say ordinary things in extraordinary ways. Women are tired of the same old lines and same old chit­chat. They’ve heard it all before so make sure you tell it to them in ways they’ve yet to hear.

Remember, if you don’t take good care of your woman, there is at least one man that will.

2) Duty of Candor

Great column. Unfortunately, it led me to a precarious situation. I had a chance encounter with a young lady. We’ve been hanging out a bit, but I can sense that she’s growing at­tached. I didn’t come to law school to find a wife or something serious. It’s your fault doctor. Now I don’t know what to do with her.

A) One part of me wants you to end things because it’s not right to lead her on by omission. However, my Dr. Je­kyll side wants you to apply the “roll­ercoaster” theory. You ride the ride until someone wants to get off. Have you really done anything wrong if you haven’t affirmatively led her to believe that there could be more? It’s a moral quandry. I won’t advise a course of conduct I’ll just provide you with your choices. Be careful though because fol­lowing the “wrong” course might just lead you to writing this column next year.

3) “You Complete Me”

I think he’s cheating. Even on your stu­pid list I meet the standards. Why would he step out on such a good thing?

A) I don’t necessarily condone cheat­ing, but as a doctor I do see the ben­efits of it. I consulted a fellow expert and we came up with The Power of 10. Let me explain. Everyone has their natural 1…and that’s the 10/10. It’s the person that’s perfect for them. The problem comes in when the person only has 7/10. Sometimes there’s something missing….in this case the 3/10. (Ladies, the “something” is not always physical). So men will constantly be bothered by the 3/10 that’s missing. So what we do is either: a) look to upgrade the 7 so that we can be closer to having our 10/10 in one person or b) find someone that com­pliments that 7/10. It’s really just simple math…anything short of 10/10 just isn’t whole. For our emotional health…we all need to feel whole.

(Disclaimer: My advice is meant for veterans in this game of love not for rookies.)

Drew is a 3L and can be reached at forum@valpo.edu

Mildred Loving. On May 2, 2008, Mildred Loving died at age 68. In the landmark case Lov­ing v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), the Supreme Court overturned Virginia’s miscegenation laws which prohibited interracial marriages. Loving, a black woman, was basically guilty of falling in love with Richard Loving, a white man.

President Barack Obama. The first multi-racial president ever elected in the U.S. President Obama is the son of a white woman and an African man. Many questioned whether his skin color would affect his bid for presidency.

University of Florida Defensive Coordinator Charlie Strong. Despite having one of the top defenses in col­lege football, Strong has consistently been passed over for head coaching jobs. Recently, Strong openly voiced concern that his marriage to a white woman has hindered his ability to get a fair shot.

These stories demonstrate the past, present, and future when it comes to interracial dating/marriage in the United States. What Mildred fought for is what Barack had to overcome and what Charlie continues to struggle with. Much progress has been made in the United States with regard to issues of race. As time has gone on, interracial relationships, which were once denied and criminalized, have now become much more accepted. However, prog­ress has not come without associated costs. Some segments of the population especially in the southern parts of the United States still are openly opposed to the idea of interracial relationships. The issue is much deeper though.

Interracial couples typically stick out first based on skin color. These couples are forced to deal with the looks and whispers from outsiders looking in at their relationship. On some level it is natural because mixed race relation­ships are relatively new to our society in terms of acceptance. On the other hand, part of this stems from our society’s disapproval of these types of relation­ships.

Furthermore, within their race, these people who engage in interracial relationships face scrutiny and ridicule from their own people. Examples of this include the story of the young La­tina girl whose parents object to her relationship with a young white man. The story of the the successful black man who is viewed a sell-out in his own community for his marriage to a white woman. I ask you what have these peo­ple done besides choose someone that makes them feel complete.

These stories bring me to my po­sition that interracial relationships are extremely difficult in today’s society. The pressure which first existed just from outside forces now comes from inside the person’s culture. Some argue that you should just do what makes you happy. But that is easier said than done. Trust me. It is much easier to ignore the outside, but when your family and cul­ture question your decision it becomes much more difficult. This is personal to me because I’ve been dead smack in the middle of all this by way of living in “white society” for the better part of my adolescence and adult life thus far. I happen to possess crossover appeal which has endeared me to many dif­ferent kinds of women in my lifetime. Entirely too much of my relationships with these women have been influenced by inside pressure and outside opinions. I’ve ruined too many of these relation­ships in part based on these types of “silly” considerations. Are these well-founded concerns though? Maybe…maybe not. However, there is a HUGE difference between acceptance and ap­proval.

Drew is a 3L and can be reached at fo­rum@valpo.edu.

This November, a group of Cali­fornians placed on their Ballot a propo­sition that would amend the California State Constitution and once again define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, thus eliminating same-sex marriage rights. The controversy sur­rounding granting basic rights to people who identify as Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered (GLBT) has been present since the 1970s. In 2005, the Governor of California vetoed a Bill granting marriage rights to the GLBT community, and left the decision up the Courts. In 2006, several same-sex couples petitioned the Supreme Court of California to review their case. In April 2006, the California Supreme Court decided to consolidate and hear all same-sex marriage cases before the court into In Re Marriage. The Su­preme Court found that equal respect and dignity of marriage is a basic civil right. Furthermore, the Court held that it was unconstitutional to prevent same-sex couples from getting married be­cause GLBT individuals are a protected class, and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation should be subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protec­tions clause of the 14th Amendment.

The success achieved by the In Re Marriage case was short lived, and was an illusory promise to the GLBT com­munity in California. The case created zealous joy, and the hope for equality and access to a legal system founded on the idea that the law is blind. On No­vember 4th while the rest of the country celebrated a step away from racial bi­furcation, the GLBT community in Cal­ifornia and across the nation was disen­chanted with a system that promised and did not deliver. Same-sex rights ended for GLBT couples and Proposition 8 re­versed one of the most important deci­sions in California’s legal history. The basic right to marry the person that you LOVE was swept from under us, and we were left dis­enfranchised once again.

What is it about love that requires such bound­aries and restrictions? Love is an unidentifiable emotion, a hard to describe impression. It is about sacrificing what is personally important to you in order to show an­other that you care. It is thinking about a person daily and rejoicing in the mem­ories created whether small or big. It is getting goose bumps as your loved one walks through the door looking elegant, confident and graceful. Love is know­ing that at the end of the night a warm body lies next to you, comforting your happiness or sorrow. Love is sharing in a dream, a new car, a new restaurant ex­perience, trips to exotic places, sharing thoughts on a new book, political prob­lem or pop culture. But most important­ly, love is an emotion that allows people to enter the most vulnerable of places in a person’s heart and enables people to look deep into each others souls and feel at home.

The voters of California have spoken and their voice suggests that love should be defined as the union between a man and a woman in an ef­fort to maintain the sanctity of family values. I challenge that notion because family values are not based on gender identity or sexual orientation. Family is founded on sharing common grounds, whether it is genetic or sociological. For example, this Thanksgiving I was not able to be home with my immedi­ate family, however, many doors were opened to me and I was able to share a family dinner with an extended family that treated me as their own. A family is not restricted to mean one thing and neither should marriage be.

On November 5th, 2008 I woke up and felt proud to say that Barack Obama was going to be the President of the United States, but was disgusted with California’s decision to abolish same-sex marriage. I felt disgusted because the future of equal rights and equal ac­cess remains uncertain. It reminded me that I continue to be a second class citi­zen and that my ability to love another is neither recognized nor respected. Wak­ing up that morn­ing reminded me of how I felt for a large part of my adolescence, alone fighting an uphill battle. It made me recall that I grew up in a neighborhood where being gay was and con­tinues to be an abomination. It reminded me of those dark days when I felt frightened that someone would find out my secret. A secret that has led me to have many fac­es in the world, a secret that has enabled me to mislead, lie and learn to survive in a world that would rather turn a blind eye than understand differences.

Proposition 8 is the ghost that haunts many GLBT individuals, the reinforcement that we do not share the same legal or social rights as all other Americans. To this day I have never conversed with my parents abut the fact that I am gay, part of me is scared that The main purpose of proposition 8 is division and hate. Love has no boundaries, it is an emotion that allows people to gain a sense of self and open their heart to a pure untainted passion. I urge all of mankind to say no to H8 and yes to love.

Hugo is a 2L and can be reached at fo­rum@valpo.edu.this will cause them to stop loving me, while another part of me believes that nothing will change. Propositions such as 8 handicap me as an individual and do not allow me to live a life free of restraints. How much will the GLBT community have to sacrifice so that we can be seen as people deserving of love, compassion and equal rights?

I have made personal choices in life which I do not regret. but that have been driven by the thought that if I can just prove myself in life, then being gay will not matter. However, these deci­sions suggest that something is wrong with me and that I need to compensate for standing firm and embracing my identity. I know that being gay is not wrong or abnormal as most call it; on the contrary, it takes strength, courage and conviction to know myself and realize that my identity rests on firm grounds. I do not believe that I am any different than anyone else, I hurt, bleed, cry, and LOVE the same way that any­one else does. If your church or your heart tells you that there is something wrong with me because I love a man, I urge you look deep within and ask yourself: is love an emotion that is only reserved for the two people of opposite sex?

The main purpose of proposition 8 is division and hate. Love has no boundaries, it is an emotion that allows people to gain a sense of self and open their heart to a pure untainted passion. I urge all of mankind to say no to H8 and yes to love.

Hugo is a 2L and can be reached at fo­rum@valpo.edu.

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?

Sincerely,

Johnny Come Lately

Mr. Lately,

First, I recommend you attend the turkey dinner put on by the law school. Spare yourself the kitchen mess and the potential depression of eating alone. It’s usually about 5 bucks and there is more than enough good food to go around.

However, if you have already as­sembled a posse and really want to fa­miliarize yourself with how to cook a bird, attempt it like everything else in life–Google the instructions.

I would like to suggest a stuff­ing recipe that was handed down to me by last years’ graduates Mike Abel and Nina Mariano:

WHITE CASTLE TURKEY STUFF­ING

Ingredients

10 White Castle hamburgers (Pickle re­moved)

1 1/2 c Celery, diced

1 1/4 ts Ground thyme

1 1/2 ts Ground sage

3/4 ts Coarse ground black pepper

1/4 c Chicken broth

In a large mixing bowl, tear the White Castles into pieces and add diced celery and seasonings.

Toss and add chicken broth. TOSS WELL.

Stuff cavity of turkey just before roast­ing.

Makes about 9 cups (enough for 10-12 lb bird).

NOTE: Allow 1 White Castle hamburg­er for each pound of turkey, which will be the equivalent of 3/4 cup stuffing per pound.

White Castle Stuffing is most ap­propriate for the indigent law student. I suggest as a perfect complimentary beverage, a 30 pack of Pabst Blue Rib­bon cans to complete the meal. “It is the height of hospitality, a compliment to the good taste of guests to serve that which is acknowledged as the best of its class. Pabst Blue Ribbon is the ultimate choice of all who have a keen faculty of selection.” Don’t heed Buckley’s advice in his aristocratic beer column (none of us can afford beers of the world any­way), PBR won its Blue Ribbon in 1893 and remains a timeless classic from America. Keep good beer American with your conscientious consumption or else let ‘em go only to be taken over by Belgium or some other unassuming country. Never forget the lesson of An­heuser Busch.

Dear Barely Legal,

The Multi-State Professional Responsi­bility Exam (MPRE) on November 8th is fast approaching. I have no idea what to study or how to study for this thing because my Legal Profession class with Prof. [redacted]consisted of him danc­ing on the desk and then ranting ev­erywhere from 14th century Europe to John Yoo and the torture memos. What should I do?

Sincerely,

Ethically Challenged

Dear Challenged,

Do not worry. As you will recall, I was also in that whirlwind of a class, and somehow I passed the MPRE this summer. If Jon Berbari can pass this test, then a chimpanzee can do it, al­beit the process resembled making hot dogs. It was one of those tests where I almost resigned to defeat with ten ques­tions remaining, because every question appeared to be experimental. The ex­aminers must have sat in the office and smoked the drapes before publishing.

My advice: Study. Study with extreme prejudice. Study like it’s that recurring bad dream where you forgot you had a class and the final is the next day. The practice exams and the mini-outline from the BarBri book should suffice. It’s a terrible process and I rec­ommend you only have to deal with it once. Score at least an 86 so you are permitted to take the California Bar, or God forbid, the Utah Bar. We both know you are a good person who knows right from wrong by now, but study hard and prepare to be assigned an arbitrary and secretly-scaled number.

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.”

The vast majority of us recognize the preceding sentence to be the Second Amendment. Recently, the U.S. Su­preme Court embarked on an exhaus­tive journey to tell us what the right to bear arms actually means in the District of Columbia v. Heller decision. I don’t want to bore you with the details of Jus­tice Scalia’s historical examination of the text’s operative clause (“right of the people to keep and bear Arms”) and the prefatory clause (“well regulated Mili­tia, being necessary to the security of a free State”), but let’s just agree that at the time the Second Amendment was passed, people understood there to be a right to bear arms outside of a military setting for defense of self and home.

The same argument always arises when it comes to the Second Amend­ment. That argument goes something like: “gun violence is so prevalent that we must curb the ability of people to ac­quire them”. The District of Columbia has a huge problem with gun violence. The dissent in Heller correctly pointed out that the issue of gun violence in D.C. deserved some sort of remedy. The question of how to deal with gun violence is what prompted the decision in Heller. D.C. basically decided to im­pose a ban on possession of handguns. Possession of an unregistered gun was illegal and the registration of handguns was prohibited. Lawfully possessed handguns had to be unloaded and disas­sembled.

I’ll start my quick analysis of the case and gun violence by stating that no­where in the Second Amendment does it give people free reign to be violent. Gun violence is a terrible thing. I’m pretty sure that many of us have some sort of connection with someone who has been affected by gun violence. Three years ago, I lost a close family member to gun violence. It doesn’t change my opinion that there is a right to bear arms in the household for self defense.

The core of the problem in our so­ciety is the prevalence of violence. Vio­lent crime statistics are extraordinary across the United States especially in urban areas. Many of these crimes are perpetrated with guns. I’m not sure that anyone would accuse law-abiding citi­zens as being the ones committing these crimes because law-abiding citizens are often the ones that are harmed as a re­sult of these crimes. People were vio­lent way before the Second Amendment codified the right to bear arms. This reality created an understanding that it was necessary to protect the ability of good people to defend themselves. De­nying good citizens the right to defend themselves would not solve the issue of violence in this country. Guns aren’t the problem, human nature is.

I once saw a bumper sticker that read: IF GUNS KILL PEOPLE, THEN PENS SPELL WORDS WRONG. Enough said!

Drew is a 3L and can be reached at

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.

From a legal standpoint, irrespec­tive of the Heller majority opinion, it could be argued that the Framers really did not intend for the Second Amendment to apply to individu­als. In his dissent, Justice Stevens did what Justice Scalia loves to do and looked to what the Framers’ intentions were when they drafted the Amend­ment. But unlike Scalia, Stevens reached the conclusion that because the Framers did not expressly include an individual’s right component, the Second Amendment was not intended to extend that far. Furthermore, as Justice Breyer pointed out in his dis­sent, the right afforded by the Second Amendment is not absolute. In fact, as the majority in Heller concedes, the government retains the right to regulate weapons in this country.

This leads me into the dissent’s argument that the Heller court was incorrect from a practical standpoint. I will admit up front that it would be quite foolish of me to rely on the argu­ment “people don’t kill people, guns kill people” – as I’m sure the Clarence Thomas supporter will point out. First of all, that argument is indisputably pathetic, period! Second of all, I know this may be hard for some of you to believe, but if you ever made me mad enough, I could probably use my foot instead of a gun to, “kick you through the goal posts of life,” as one of my loved ones likes to say. In other words, guns aren’t necessary to get the job done.

So instead, I will rely on Justice Breyer’s “public safety” and “interest-balancing” arguments. I think it’s clear that gun-control laws exist primarily in the interest of public safety. Despite what I said in my last paragraph, guns are in fact responsible for a number of deaths and injuries each year in this country. Now why would the Framers create a guaranteed right in the Consti­tution to keep loaded weapons handy in already crime-ridden areas? Surely they wouldn’t.

And under Breyer’s proposed interest-balancing approach, the interests protected by the Second Amendment should be weighed against the government’s interest in protecting the public and preventing crime. The District of Columbia – and of course the other 49 states – has a compelling interest in, and should be allowed to take the necessary actions to, reduce its ridiculously high crime rate, which includes eliminating a big source of its violent crime rate, to wit, deadly weapons. It just makes sense to allow the government to regulate and take control of something that can be, and has been, so devastating to way too many Americans.

So in conclusion, I would like to leave you with one final thought: Although the Heller court stated that handguns should be allowed for the purpose of self-defense, I think those Justices would find it very difficult to argue that the murder rate in D.C. would somehow magically disappear because of criminals’ fear that all potential victims of crimes are armed and dangerous themselves. And even so, that’s just more people potentially using deadly weapons in an area that could use less of that type of activity. So instead of adding to the problem, why not just take it away?

Teranni is a 3L and can be reached at forum@valpo.edu.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Lake County Prosecutor’s Office and I’ve also worked at the DA’s office back home in Denton County, Texas. I thoroughly enjoyed both of those experiences. There are two incidents that helped shape my desire to work for a prosecutor. One incident happened while I was working on an assignment at the office

On another occasion, I worked on an extradition motion for a rape suspect 

who had fled the country right after the judge had denied the request to have his passport revoked as part of his bail. I think many times people mistake the suspect as being the sympathetic figure in the legal system. The suspect is seen as someone who might have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. Perhaps it’s also the idea that sometimes the crimes a suspect is accused of arguably shouldn’t be crimes in the first place.

Prosecutors are entrusted with the responsibility of doing justice. Part of doing justice is making sure that those who commit crimes are punished. The more satisfying part of prosecuting crimes is when you help the real victims of the crimes. I think about being able to provide closure to the sister of a murdered brother. It won’t bring him back, but it will certainly alleviate the pain of knowing that the person who took her brother from her will be punished. Maybe our society is better served by seeing that those who take advantage of judicial technicalities are ultimately brought back to be held accountable for their crimes.

It would be irresponsible for me to not admit that there is the potential for innocent persons to be convicted, but it would be equally irresponsible for defense attorneys to deny that guilty persons are going free. It is how the system works. We’re two sides of the same coin. Sometimes prosecutors are the bad guys and sometimes defense attorneys are the slime balls. It’s an honorable system that needs good people on both sides. I just feel bad for the people that will be standing on the opposite side of me.