Presidential Fitness Test

When I was ten or eleven (I know it was spring of fifth grade, I am not sure which side of my birthday it was situated on) my class had to take the "Presidential Fitness Test." While for many kids this is an excuse to get out of the classroom and expend some energy, for my over-tall, gangly, be-speckled self having to not only run but do push up and a bent arm hang was nothing short of torture. Add to that the fact that my fifth grade teacher (a man who exemplified the axiom those who cannot do teach) forgot to tell us when the date of the test. For this reason I was wearing a dress, one of my favorites with polka-dots and a tulle under-skirt. While I may have run faster if I had worn athletic shoes, and I was furious with being made to lay on the ground to do sit ups, it is the memory of struggling to pull my body up over a bar on the playground, my entire body straining to reach above the bar my entire class watching me (I am sure flashing my knickers to all of them) that stuck with me. I cannot think of the "Presidential Fitness Test" without a bolt of fear and shame running through me.
So what does this have to do with anything?
I have decided that we need a new "Presidential Fitness Test," not to test the upper-body  of preteens but instead a measure of fitness of presidential candidates.
Earlier this week Herman Cain said that if elected president he would "sign a constitutional amendment banning abortion." Regardless of your feelings on abortion this statement should raise eyebrows, because under Article 5 of the Constitution the president does not sign constitutional amendments. While there is plenty of room for debate about Roe and its progeny, and questioning their validity shouldn't make a person intelligible to be president not knowing how the foundational law of our republic should, or at very least should open you up to the sort of ridicule and embarrassment that fifth graders face on the school yard when they take the Presidential Fitness Test.     
Discussing this with my roommate we came up with quite a list of questions that should be asked. We agreed that the questions should be simple questions with obvious right and wrong answers, that they shouldn't have room for opinions, or academic analysis and that they should avoid political slant. The list we developed included things like:

• What powers are the president explicitly granted in the constitution?
• How does a bill become a law?
• What rights does the bill of rights grant?
• What are the cabinet level agencies? Or maybe just what is the order of succession to the presidency through some number of cabinet secritaries. 
• What are the branches of the federal government?
• Who are the members of NATO?
• Who are the Members of the G8 and the G20?
• Name the 50 states and territories of the US?
• Who is the leader of Canada? of Mexico?
• What is the price of a gallon of gas? of milk?
• What is the corporate tax  rate?
• What is the salary an individual working full time at federal minimum wage?
• What are legal sources of funds for a corporation?

I am sure that there are others, and that some of these could be removed and, I will admit that I don't know the answers to all of these questions off the top of my head, but shouldn't the president? I don't think that knowledge should be the only factor taken into account, I think President Obama's struggles stem from lack of management experience which can't be codified in a test like this. But why aren't people demanding a basic knowledge, why aren't people embarrassed not to know these things.
In the case of Herman Cain he is running in part on the desire to shrink the federal government, encourage the states to take greater control of areas that the federal government has usurped. It seems to me that running on that platform you should be aware of what a massive undertaking it is to amend the constitution, that this is a legitimate limit on the federal government powers, that amending the constitution was intended to be difficult. If you don't recognize those things then your claim of government overreach is nothing more than political opportunism and that you are willing to overlook it when it suits your agenda. 
The problem is most voters nod and ignore, they refuse to see that ignorance won't serve them well. This is why failing my test wouldn't result in disqualification from office but some sort of visual shame, a funny hat? a miss-tailored suit? Ari Gould style super soaking? Something to get people to understand that this is a problem for efficiency and it is embarrassing.
Basically if children have to risk embarrassment to enter law school there should be a chin-up equivalent for becoming president.

Visiting Washington DC

It has been a couple of weeks since my mom visited me. I was so glad to have her visit, although the visit had a few missteps. Most notably my aunt who came down from New Jersey to spend the weekend with us got ill, and the weather was less than perfect but it was a nice visit none the less.
My Dad comes to DC frequently for work but this was the first time my mom had visited, in fact it was the first time I had ever been her hostess in any capacity an it was a nice experience. (I always lived in a dorm or my sorority house in college so there wasn't much of an opportunity.) I like hosting people and DC is a great place to have people visit me in, there is plenty to do, it is easy to get around and I know the city well enough that I can integrate a visit into my hectic life with [relative] ease. Sometimes I think that if the whole law school thing doesn't work out I will open a bed and breakfast, so I can bake scones and have visitors every day. (And then I realize that I would never have my house to myself and that dream dies.)  Generally visits are very different depending on who is coming to visit and why:
Business Trip: (usually my dad) generally he has a rental car and at least a few nice meals I can tag along on. Basically this is my opportunity to eat and live like I did before loans. Generally includes trips to home depot and target.
Tourist Visit: Someone who is excited to see me but also excited to have a tour guide. These trips involve a lot of walking and eating usually at place off the beaten path. Typically I get about a week behind in my work (which is entirely my fault, I will use any excuse not to read.) These trips offer an opportunity to see the sights I never see in my day to day life. Although I refuse to go to the Air and Space Museum, seriously you can't pay me.
My mom's visit didn't really fit into either of these categories. It was closer to a "here is a window into my real life." We made pizza and watched West Wing reruns, we went on a grocery run, and spent some time with my DC family. She helped me get my house a little more together. It was the perfect visit, and now I can look around my house and see little pieces of her. Thanks for visiting mom.

Like running on a treadmill whose speed you can't control.

I realize that I am a bit of a failure at this whole "regular updating" thing. But I do feel like I am jogging at an "eleven."
Life is a little insane this semester (and I understand that there isn't a person on the planet whose life isn't busy, but then I tell people what I have gotten myself into and they are like okay yea, you are busy.) This semester the following activities feel entitled to take up my time:

• Classes: Trademark 3 units, First Amendment 3 Units, Business Associations aka Corporations 4 units, Criminal Procedure 3 Units, Media Law 2 Units, Copyright Clearance 2 units.
• Job: Fifteen hours a week in Virginia. (In order to save time commuting I am totally imposing on my DC family and staying in their guest room one night many weeks.) Note to anyone choosing law schools if you go to school in an area where there are lots of intern opportunities the school year it means you have to be an intern during the school year. 
• Extended research paper of publishable (when did this happen?) quality.
• Intellectual Property Brief: One (short) article a month.
• IP symposium planning committee

And those are just the things that I have some pressure to actually go to. It doesn't include job applications, volunteer work and networking (all of which need to happen if I ever want to find a paying job.) It also doesn't include things like eating, sleeping, getting exercise, keeping the dog happy and cleaning the house.

Now I don't begrudge any of it, while I would like  a little more time to myself wouldn't we all and I signed up for it so I really can't complain. It isn't like I am in this boat alone, this is the life of a 2L, at least those of us who hope to be employable. 

So to answer my mother's questions: No I am not whining or complaining, but I am making excuses.  

An Act of God Clause

The last week has been a little interesting when it comes to natural events, I wish I could blame the earthquake or the hurricane on my lack of posting but really it is just the state of my life (between moving back to DC, school starting, ending one job and starting another, trying to maintain relationships and my sanity. Plus what seems to take more energy (especially emotional) than all else, applying for real jobs you know the kind that pay and therefore allow me to eat food that isn't Ramen and maybe one day pay of my debt. You know dream big.)

But now, after two unusual natural events if God is telling anyone anything it "Kate, write a blog post."* 

I was fine, survived both events with minimal impact or costs and generally feel like it wasn't that big of a deal. The East Coast seems to disagree with me, given that, on my vacation I have seen "I survived" t-shirts and it seems to still be a dominant topic of conversation with my classmates. I have come to the conclusion that east-coasters like to be able to plan their natural disasters, some of my fellow west coasters may disagree with me but I prefer not to know ahead of time.  As someone who was used to earthquakes I felt the shaking, braced myself, checked my surroundings, made sure there wasn't damage or bleeding and got back to work. The rest of the are didn't school (which is in a modern building) was evacuated for hours, metro operated at 15mph. 

Now I understand that the area doesn't get earth quakes so buildings aren't up to the same codes, but I like being prepared. (Also I lived in a "historic" read old and retrofitted building and we never evacuated during an earth quake. Which granted also has something to do with having an innate sense of what is a big deal quake and what isn't.) And I feel like in an area where most of your natural disasters happen with little or no warning people live like boy scouts. They are always prepared, I brought that with me, I have a first aid kit, a battery powered radio and enough food and supplies for a week plus. Going out prior to Irene hitting you would have thought that DC inhabitants lived with bare cupboards most of the time give the number and type of supplies they were buying. (Honestly, I could make some comparison to the Hill and people waiting till the last minute to do what needs to be done)

Mostly what struck me was the way people talked about and experienced these events. There was a level of discussion and frenzy about them stretching on either end that I just am not used to. For most of us living in DC these were relatively minor events, there was some damage to older buildings and we lost power, but not anything different than what you get with a rough winter storm. Mostly I just want to tell people to roll with the punches.

*If you didn't get the sarcasm and political reference, I am kidding god doesn't communicate with me through the weather. And if you want to be prepared here is a good place to start http://www.fema.gov/areyouready/.

Things My Job Has Taught Me: Part III (I am so incredibly lucky)

So this is another perspective post...
We have a large murder trial going on in court right now, it is gang related so security is pretty tight and everyone is a little jumpy. The worst part about the whole thing is the number of children involved: each of the two defendants have at least one child. The victim and most of the witnesses, many of whom were (legally) children when the murder occurred, have children. Most days we have four or five children in the courtroom who are anywhere from infancy to elementary school aged.
Now anyone who knows me knows my general tolerance for children is low, but really a child in a courtroom? It would be distracting and inappropriate in any circumstance (I am sorry there are some places that children don't belong, especially children who misbehave these include courtrooms, boardrooms, romantic restaurants and lecture halls.) And even if social mores and the rules of polite company don't bother you, do you really want your four year old listening to graphic shooting testimony or seeing autopsy photos blown up to life size?
I tend to be all for honesty and openness with children, I think that my parents treating me and my inquires with respect helped spring my intellectual curiosity. But there is something to be said for preserving childhood,  and I can't imagine that you have much in the way of childhood memories when you are exposed so young to the criminal justice system. It is by the luck of birth that I was born to an upper middle class white family and my first exposure to the law was visiting the Supreme Court at four. The archetype for me to mold myself to Earl Warren. I try to remember that not everyone has positive images and hope for their own future, that there are so many whose  model is absent or in shackles.

On police chases towards mexico, missing daughters, shrunken gloves and pool ladders.

I have gotten a few questions about the Casey Anthony trail in the last week or so, and I have seen even more accounts and opinions on television in the last few days. I know my reaction has been frustrating and generally less than satisfying when people ask. In part because I haven't answered the "do you think she did it?" question, instead I have been answering that I don't feel the prosecution fulfilled their burden of proving the elements of murder in the first degree.
I don't really remember the OJ Simpson trial and, aside from the ubiquitous litigator jokes about it, it doesn't come up as a topic in law school. I will also admit that I didn't watch the Casey Anthony trial with rapt attention, I saw some interviews and have read a bit here and there about it. From everything I saw I think that the jurors did a good job, this is what makes me different from the general public and what makes people furious with lawyers.
Most people look at this through the lens of truth, of what really happened, of tragedy and human drama. Lawyers aren't trained to do any of that because finding the truth is not the role of the justice system. Lawyers are trained not to pass judgement, as an attorney you have the an obligation to represent your client to the best of your ability whether you know they are guilty or positive of their innocence. This is done by trying to frame the law so that it is favorable to out clients.
The best system we have to enable justice is placing the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt on the People. When someone is convicted, as opposed to being ruled against in civil court, we are placing the stigma of society on them, they become at that moment a criminal someone who is apart from society and therefore not granted the same rights as other citizens. This is a deeply moral judgement, and it caries a heavy burden, in order for it to be satisfied the people must prove each of their burdens beyond a reasonable doubt. Murder in the first degree is hard to prove and it should be, especially when the prosecution is recommending the death penalty.
My feeling on this is that the prosecution wanted a big win and shot itself in the foot for it. If the DA hadn't wanted to see this woman fry they would have been able to get a conviction. People can be convicted without a known cause of death, they can be convicted without a body, but cause of death is what the prosecution focused on and this is was what was easiest for the Defense to blow holes through. They created a situation where they had to prove chloroform and duct tape and they left the jury confused and doubtful. They should have pointed to the holes in the defense's theory, they should have plea bargained down, they should have done any number of things.

Cartoon Copyright the New Yorker 

I am not sure of what happened, although it does look suspicious, what I am sure of is that we live in a country where we would rather a guilty woman go free than an innocent one be incarcerated and because of that system being guilty of something, being shifty or suspicious isn't enough; you must be shown to be guilty of what you were charged with. This doesn't always go down easy but I can't imagine what trade offs would make it better.

Things My Job Has Taught Me: Part II (You are not an Idiot or Failure)

When you go straight from a top research institution for undergrad to law school you get used to feeling like it is normal to have deep if esoteric discussions. And, unless you are truly exceptional, you also get used to feeling unaccomplished and idiotic. As a law student everyone one you know can rattle off multi-factor tests and Latin phrases without batting an eye. All of my law school friends (because if you didn't guess they are in law school) all working on becoming part of the 2% of Americans with professional doctoral degrees. Every time we go to a networking event, or informational seminar, a meeting or a social mixer it is with lawyers, suddenly none of your accomplishments are all that special or unique, this is even more true when you start passing you resume around begging people to let you work for them (generally for free.)
Basically I live in a world where the strange has become normal.
Coming home this summer has put this in perspective. At my job I sit in an office where they bring "defendants in custody" past my door all day. Generally these people are in jump suits and shackles, sometimes they are in suits neatly groomed to be in front of a jury, but nearly always they are young. Or my age.
Suddenly the fact that mixed up crimen falsi and crimen innominatam when being called on to answer a question doesn't mean I am the biggest loser on the planet doomed to fail fail.
I guess a little perspective is a good thing.