Tuesday, November 29, 2005

Panel on law exams, December 6

Hello friends,

On December 6 at lunch, ACS and BLSA are co-sponsoring a panel on taking law exams. Panelists include Young Lee, active ACS member and Columbia Law Review executive editor; Nick Napolitan, ACS Board member and Columbia Law Review staffer; Dynishal Gross, active ACS and BLSA member and Human Rights Law Review staffer; and Adrienne Harris,active BLSA member and Columbia Law Review senior editor.

Each panelist will briefly describe her or his exam-studying and -taking strategy, including a brief description of the study aids (whether self-made or commercial) that were most useful. Afterwards, the panel will answer your questions.

In advance of December 6, please send your law exam-related questions to Mary Kelly at mk@mkpersyn.us. Jeff Penn, BLSA's leader, and I will coordinate the questions so we can ensure that the panel answers as many as possible.

Lunch will be provided. Watch your inbox for the room!

Hope to see you there,
Mary Kelly and the ACS Board

Monday, November 28, 2005

Letter to the Editor of the Columbia Spectator

Adam Pulver
Class of 2008

To the Editor:

I write in response to yesterday's "A Call to Debate." For the past thirty years, the American conservative movement has used college campuses to develop a corps of ideologues, using its wealth to fund speakers and programs. These students become the party faithful, spewing rhetoric, challenging "liberal bias," and raising money while claiming to be "nonpartisan."

It is for this purpose, not education, that John Ashcroft comes to campus. Ms. Klibaner says that his visit shows the "presence" of conservatives. Really, the visit is less connected to Columbia than it is to the national conservative student campaign. Online, Ashcroft's visit is advertised by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, a partisan machine existing solely to develop this "movement," and the New York Young Republicans Club, encouraging its members to RSVP promptly to ensure preferred seating.

Conservatives are not stupid. They intentionally posted vague posters that merely referred to Ashcroft as "American Patriot," aware of the response it would provoke. The claims that those on the left are the ones trying to make a partisan stink out of an "intellectual debate" cannot be uttered seriously.

Yes, I believe Ashcroft's tenure as Attorney-General turned back years of progress towards civil rights and liberties. But the conservative movement knew that when they brought Ashcroft to Columbia; a polarizing figure isn't brought here to persuade nonbelievers. I won't try to "get" John Ashcroft tomorrow, because doing so would let the right claim another example of those uncouth liberals. However, I refuse to allow my interest in his appearance here to be claimed as a victory for the right.

Wednesday, November 23, 2005

Ladies and Gentlemen... Here For One Show Only — John Ashcroft!

Next week, former US Attorney General John Ashcroft is speaking here at Columbia. Ashcroft — the guest of the Columbia Federalist Society, College Conservative Club, College Republicans and Young Americans Foundation — is delivering a speech entitled, "Law, Liberty and Security."

Naturally, questions at the event will be pre-screened, so send yours in to questionsforashcroft@gmail.com.

In case you can't pony up $275 for the student rate(!) to join Ashcroft for dinner before the speech*, here's an Ashcroft gem likely to eclipse any witty over-tenderloin banter you might hear from the former Attorney General:

John Ashcroft sings his blockbuster hit Let the Eagle Soar
(Click the image below for a video that will change your life)

Source: CNN.com, WBTV

Sing along!

Let the eagle soar,
Like she's never soared before.
From rocky coast to golden shore,
Let the mighty eagle soar.
Soar with healing in her wings,
As the land beneath her sings:
"Only god, no other kings."
This country's far too young to die.
We've still got a lot of climbing to do,
And we can make it if we try.
Built by toils and struggles
God has led us through.


* Update: As noted in a comment below and here, the $275 student rate (again, !) applies only to dinner with the former Attorney General. The entry fee and/or attendee qualifications for the speech are not specified in the Federalist Society email.

Monday, November 21, 2005

This week at the ACS: Thanksgiving Edition!

Well, the semester is winding down...the air is getting chilly...and we're all hitting the books! We have just a couple of events remaining before winter break, and we hope to see you there. Happy Thanksgiving to all. As always, please write acs@law.columbia.edu with comments and suggestions for events. --Mary Kelly and the Columbia ACS Board

Contents of this message:
1. John Ashcroft's visit, November 30
2. "Taking Law Exams" panel, December 6
3. Mark your calendars! Peter Rubin, with a party to follow, Jan. 19
4. Blog This!!!
5. Writing competition


John Ashcroft's Visit

By now, you've probably noticed that John Ashcroft will be visiting Columbia on November 30. Jon Sherman of the ACS Board is working with other groups on campus to plan a "prebuttal" event that will give people an opportunity to learn more about Ashcroft in advance of his visit. Watch your inbox for updates!

"Taking Law Exams" panel

Our last general meeting of the semester is on December 6. The main event, which we are cosponsoring with BLSA, will be a panel on "taking law exams," featuring Young Lee, Adrienne Harris, Nick Napolitan, and one additional 2L (TBA). Of course, lunch will be provided. See you there!


Peter Rubin on January 19

Mark your spring semester calendars now! Peter Rubin, founder of the ACS and prominent Supreme Court advocate, will visit Columbia ACS on January 19 to speak about the Alito nomination hearings (scheduled to begin January 9) and the fate of the right to privacy in a Roberts Court. An open bar-appetizer membership party will follow. Plan on bringing your friends!


Blog This!!!

Our blog program goes into winter hibernation after this week and will reappear in January. Watch your inbox for the last fall-semester opportunity to contribute to the ACS Blog!

ACS Writing Competition

OVERVIEW: The University of Pennsylvania Law School Chapter of the American Constitution Society will serve as host to the second annual legal writing competition for law students nationwide. This year's theme is Addressing Inequality: Moving Toward a More Just Society. Papers will be judged on their effective use, analysis, and/or expansion of progressive legal scholarship. This year's judging committee will include federal court judges and leading academics. The student authors of the top three papers will receive special recognition at the ACS National Convention and a cash prize for their work. The top paper will receive an offer of publication in the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law. The deadline is Friday, February 3, 2006.

For more information, you can access the writing competition website from http://www.acslaw.org/chapters/students/. Questions? Email Mary Kelly, mp2331.

Saturday, November 19, 2005

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Senate

I want to start by telling you that I’ll get back to you.

You see, I’m writing this as a 1L who has not yet taken Constitutional Law. It’s entirely possible that the problem I outline below won’t seem like much of a problem after taking this class, but it sure seems like a problem now.

30 Seconds of History
Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress was a unicameral body with each state represented equally. In part because this body was not particularly effective, a Constitutional Convention was convened in 1787 to address the federal government's status quo.

At the convention, the small states largely supported the New Jersey Plan for Congress, which called for a unicameral of equal representation, similar to what had existed under the Articles of Confederation. The large states supported the Virginia Plan, with the lower house directly elected by the states and the upper house elected by the lower house.

Ultimately, both plans were scrapped in the name of the Connecticut Compromise, a deal which resulted in a House of Representatives based on proportional representation and a Senate with each state represented equally.

Even in the early days of the republic, it was clear that equal representation of the Senate was a great deal for the small states. My concern is that the population disparity between the largest and smallest states has resulted in a Senate more skewed towards the small states than the founding fathers could have possibly imagined.

The Most Populous States
Click on the Image for a Legible Version of the Graph

As you see, Virginia was the most populous state around the time of the Constitution. By the 1820 Census, Virginia had given way to New York, which was the most populous state for the next 140 years. By 1970, California became the most populous state, a position that it holds today.

The Least Populous States
Click on the Image for a Legible Version of the Graph

For the first 50 years after the Constitution, Delaware was the least populous state in the Union. Then, after having become a state in 1845, Florida was the least peopled state in the 1850 Census. Oregon became a state shortly before the 1860 Census and briefly claimed the title, yielding in turn to Nevada, the least populated state from the 1870 Census through the 1950 Census.

After joining the Union in 1959, Alaska was the least populated state until the 1990 Census, when its population overtook Wyoming, the current least populated state.

While I'm sure you find this history gripping, the ratio between the most and least populated states is the point of all this.

The Ratio between Most/Least Populated States
Click on the Image for a Legible Version of the Graph

In the time shortly after the Connecticut Compromise, the most populous state had 12.7 times the population of the least populous state. Over the next 40 years, the population growth rate of Virginia and later New York vastly outstripped Delaware — by 1840, New York's population was 31.1 times the population of Delaware, a 245% increase from the time of the Constitution.

The next 110 years saw wild fluctuations between the most and least populous states as territories were given statehood. Nevada (now the 35th most populous state) was sparsely populated throughout the second half of the 19th century, resulting in a wide disparity between the most/least populated states. In 1900, the population imbalance between Nevada and New York peaked when New York's population was 17300.1% of the population of Nevada. Yet both states had two Senators.

With the period of western expansion completed, the population difference between the most and least populated states appears to have found a new normal. However, this new normal is one where California has more than 70 times the population of Wyoming — as of 2002, the gulf between large and small states is 452% wider than it was during the days of the Connecticut Compromise. Yet both states have two Senators.

---

Next week, I'll have Part II of How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Senate, where I'll discuss how the country might deal with the increasing imbalance in democratic representation in the Senate.

The data used for the graphs above is available here (all links are to US Census PDF files):
Present Day through 1900
1890 through 1860
1850 through 1790

Monday, November 14, 2005

This week at the ACS

Professor Dorf on the Alito nomination

Come to a brown bag, 12:30 Monday, JG 106, to hear Professor Dorf address the Alito nomination, including its ramifications for the right to choose. ACS cosponsors with Law Students for Choice and the Young Dems.

ACLU sponsors Steve Shapiro on Ali v. Rumsfeld, TOMORROW, 6 pm, JG 105

Mr. Shapiro will discuss Ali v. Rumsfeld, the first federal court lawsuit to name a top US official in the ongoing torture scandal in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Blog This!!!

Get blogging! Andy’s done redesigning the ACS blog. Check it out at http://columbiaacs.blogspot.com/, and watch your email inbox for opportunities for YOUR blog entry to get published!

Next general meeting

The last general meeting of the semester will be on December 6. We’ll have a panel of 2L/3L students giving tips on studying for and writing law school exams. If you have a 2L/3L mentor, you can ask them for their tips too!

Mark your calendar for next semester!

**First general meeting of spring semester will be Tuesday, January 10, at lunch—the second day of classes.

**First event of spring semester: Peter Rubin, professor of law at Georgetown, founder of the ACS, and prominent Supreme Court advocate (Bush v. Gore, Vacco v. Quill), will be here on January 19. After he speaks at 6:00 pm, come to a pre-Bar Review happy hour—free to national ACS members, but anyone can join up at the door!

ACS Writing Competition

OVERVIEW: The University of Pennsylvania Law School Chapter of the American Constitution Society will serve as host to the second annual legal writing competition for law students nationwide. This year’s theme is Addressing Inequality: Moving Toward a More Just Society. Papers will be judged on their effective use, analysis, and/or expansion of progressive legal scholarship. This year’s judging committee will include federal court judges and leading academics. The student authors of the top three papers will receive special recognition at the ACS National Convention and a cash prize for their work. The top paper will receive an offer of publication in the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law. The deadline is Friday, February 3, 2006.

For more information, you can access the writing competition website from http://www.acslaw.org/chapters/students/. Questions? Email Mary Kelly, mp2331.

Sunday, November 06, 2005

This week at the ACS

Hello friends--please read up on our upcoming events and programs below. Don't forget to send questions, comments, and suggestions to us at acs@law.columbia.edu. We're always looking for new ideas and input! Take care and see you soon, Mary Kelly and the Columbia ACS Board.

Road trip to Harvard this weekend

A group of us are headed up to Cambridge this weekend for the Harvard ACS student leadership conference. We’re leaving Friday and coming back Sunday. The conference is free for ACS National members! For more information, email Jon at js2842.

Roe v. Wade brown bag with Prof. Dorf on Monday 14th

Law Students for Choice, ACS, and the Young Dems are cosponsoring a lunchtime discussion with Professor Dorf on Monday November 14th. For more information, email Mary Kelly at mp2331.

Writing competition

OVERVIEW: The University of Pennsylvania Law School Chapter of the American Constitution Society will serve as host to the second annual legal writing competition for law students nationwide. This year’s theme is Addressing Inequality: Moving Toward a More Just Society. Papers will be judged on their effective use, analysis, and/or expansion of progressive legal scholarship. This year’s judging committee will include federal court judges and leading academics. The student authors of the top three papers will receive special recognition at the ACS National Convention and a cash prize for their work. The top paper will receive an offer of publication in the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law. The deadline is Friday, February 3, 2006.

For more information, you can access the writing competition website from http://www.acslaw.org/chapters/students/. Questions? Email Mary Kelly, mp2331.

Jeff Berman on Samuel Alito, November 7

Jeff Berman, Western Regional Director of People for the American Way and former Chief Counsel to Senator Chuck Schumer, will speak on the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court TOMORROW, Monday November 7, starting at noon in JG 106. Berman has extensive Judicial Committee experience and will speak in depth about the Judge’s record. Lunch provided. For more information, email Thomas at tch2105 or Mary Kelly at mp2331.

Blog This!

Get blogging! Andy’s done redesigning the ACS blog. Check it out at http://columbiaacs.blogspot.com/, and watch your email inbox for opportunities for YOUR blog entry to get published!

Wednesday, November 02, 2005

Are Our Rights Safe?

Zaid A. Zaid
Class of 2007

Whenever I see conservatives excited about something, I’m immediately skeptical. Call it Zaid’s version of strict scrutiny. I admit, before this week, I’d only heard a few things one way or the other about President Bush’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge Samuel Alito. However, I had heard about a few of his opinions. After reviewing some of them, they give me pause. They should give you pause too.

Folks, we can’t get away from the importance of Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 179 (1973), to this country. It’s important not only because overturning it would mean overturning settled law, annihilating the rights of women, and rolling back civil liberties in general. It is also important because Roe v. Wade was held under a constitutional “right to privacy.” That “right to privacy” is central to our contemporary constitutional understanding. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), also rests on this constitutional protection. I fear that an overturning of Roe will have alarming consequences for the civil liberties the Court has recognized and protected in the past few decades. A roll-back will have drastic consequences for American society. (According to a Time/CNN poll, a majority of people think that Judge Alito should NOT be confirmed if he would vote to overturn Roe.) President Bush has maintained that he does not ask his nominees about their views on abortion. But does the President really need to ask Judge Alito? Don’t we already know how he thinks? We know how he voted on the Third Circuit’s hearing of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 947 F.2d 682 (1991). (Against Planned Parenthood in case you were wondering.) We also know that the Supreme Court disagreed with him. (See 505 U.S. 833 (1992).)

Another thing we know is that Judge Alito has not been a big fan of Civil Rights legislation and lawsuits. Sitting en banc, the Third Circuit majority chastised him for his dissenting opinion in Bray v. Marriott Hotels, 110 F.3d 986 (1997). In that case he wanted to deny an African-American woman even the opportunity to present her Title VII discrimination claim against Marriott Hotels.

As Elaine Jones so eloquently put it at the ACS National Convention in July (speaking about then-nominee John Roberts: “[W]e have a President who tells us he wants his nomination and his nominee to be akin to whose philosophy on the Court? He said it. He said Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas. That what he said! Did the President not do what he intended to do? Did he not mean it? The President has told us what he wants. Why are we even thinking that he’s got something other than what he told us he wanted?” (The full text of Ms. Jones’s speech is available at: http://www.americanconstitutionsociety.org/pdf/jonestranscript.pdf.) Say what you will about the President, but when he is determined, he is determined (remember Iraq?). Why should anybody think that Judge Alito is anything other that what the President promised?

Newspaper articles and political pundits have talked about how nice Judge Alito is. I have no doubt that he’s a good boss and a nice person. But will he roll back rights? Will he tell women that they don’t have the right to make decisions about their own bodies? Will he tell gays and lesbians that the state can discriminate against them? Will he vote to overturn recent Affirmative Action opinions? Will he vote to overturn Civil Rights legislation? The answers should be obvious.

Oh my Lord!! I’m watching CNN at my parents’ house, and I just saw an ad for Judge Alito! When did these start? (I don’t have cable and don’t watch much TV.) Campaign ads for the Supreme Court?? I’m seriously behind the times (this is what happens when you’re a law student). I mean, I’d heard about them, but I guess I’d never seen one.

Article II, §2, cl. 2 requires the Senate to give the President “Advice and Consent” on Supreme Court nominations. It is the duty of the Senate to look long and hard at Judge Alito. If you are as concerned as I am, then you have to hope that the “Gang of 14” will save this country.