Blog

During the opening ceremonies of the London Olympics (following NBC’s annoying tape delay), there was one scene that focused on famous villains from British lore–the Queen of Hearts from Alice in Wonderland, Cruella de Vil from 101 Dalmations, and most omniously, the Dark Lord Voldemort from the Harry Potter Novels.

Yet, it is the specter of another Lord that hovers over, and haunts the Olympic Games. I speak, of course, of Lord John Maynard Keynes. Over, and over, and over again, the inane commentary repeated the trope that spending billions of dollars on the Olympics would rejuvenate/stimulate/jump-start/choose your word the local economy in London. This is Keynesianism. And it’s wrong. If experience is any guide, it won’t work.

Almost every city in the recent era to host an Olympics game has been left with staggering debt and largely-unused Olympic facilities after the games conclude. Most striking is Athens. Of course the current people in power will be in favor of promoting the games, as they have nothing to lose. They reap all the benefits and popularity of the games, but pass the bill onto their children and grandchildren. The chap from England who spoke during the opening ceremony made some comment how their children and grandchildren will be so proud of the august games London put on–somehow, I doubt that will happen.

I visited London last month, and took a tour of the Olympic Park, as well as the surrounding area. Just a few blocks away from the stadium, the area was still quite economically depressed. I wonder how long any attention will remain on this area once the buzz of the games peters out. I mean, the area was neglected in the first place for some reason. (Relatedly, see my post on the surveillance state in London).

During the opening ceremony, it was Mary Poppins who was able to defeat the Dark Lord Voldemort.

Though, we know that the only force potent enough to do battle with Lord Keynes is F.A. Hayek.

Let’s hope Round Three is coming soon.

Seeing that I am a property professor, it is only fitting that I describe my vast domain in terms of 16th Century England Feudal Estates.

The Monarchs of our kingdom are the nine noble Justices in robes, sitting upon their thrones in the grand marble palace. Beneath them, we serfs are but mere peons. These regal jurists dispense law in the form of writs of certiorari (not too different from their feudal antecedents), and set the metes and bounds for our life, liberty, and property.

Below the regal monarch are the all-powerful vassal lords, the alchemists of law who receive the wisdom of the Monarchs, and through livery of seisin, bring it to the serfs on the manors. Vassal Lord Balkin, triumphant after the Monarchs granted favor to his taxing knight in battle, proclaims victory in the realm. Vassal Lords Barnett and Kerr, both unvictorious after lengthy feuds, have reached a temporary truce. Vassal Lord Leiter continues to watch from a distance, waiting to attack at just the right moment.

Following my tenure as a Castle-Guard in the feudal (federal?) courts of law where I toiled in the fields to prepare my lord for his circuit, I have been promoted to a Tenant-in-Chief.

Within my estate there are several manors. First, there is Blogdomeshire, residing at JoshBlackman.com, where I control thousands of serfs (RSS Feeds and Twitter accounts) to scour the land to collect all news, gossip, and conjectures about what new business the Monarchs engage in. Second, I have authority over the Oracle at SCOTUS, residing at FantasySCOTUS.net. The wizard, through his cauldron filled with eye of newt and toe of frog, predicts how the Monarchs will rule. Third, I run Harlanus Universitus, located at HarlanInstitute.org, where the youth are educated in the ways of our Great Charter, and taught how to engage in mortal combat in the courts of law.

Most recently, I acquired a fee simple subject to a condition subsequent (tenure review) in the Province of Houston, at the South Texas College of Law. I serve in the role of Baron of Class. On this manner reside my student knights. My knights are indebted to suffer Socratic combat with their Baron for ninety minutes, twice a week. At the end of the term, these knights will be forced to do battle to examine their character and mettle (final exam). If victorious, the knights will be granted freedom from the realm, and released with their own freehold estates in fee simple (passing grade). However, this manor does not yet recognize the doctrine of scutage, so these knights cannot buy their way out of service (try as they may).

To quote Holmes, “It is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that so it was laid down in the time of Henry IV.” Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Path of the Law, 10 Harv. L. Rev. 457, 469 (1897). For a less revolting version of my story, see my C.V.

In M.B.Z.  v. Clinton, the Supreme Court held that the political question doctrine does not bar the courts from deciding whether the President could decline requests from citizens, born in Jerusalem, to place “Israel” on their Passports. The Obama Administration has decided not to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, continuing a policy the Bush Administration took. The case is currently on remand to the D.C. Circuit to consider the constitutional question.

But, if Governor Romney is elected, this case may become moot. Romney, in a speech in Jerusalem, stated emphatically that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.

 “It is a deeply moving experience to be in Jerusalem, the capital of Israel.”

It is always fun when politics and the Court’s opinions interact in unexpected ways.

On August 11, 2011, with much sadness, I bade you farewell, and placed by blog on a hiatus, while I had the absolute honor and privilege of clerking for the Honorable Danny J. Boggs on the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Louisville, Kentucky. (Yes, the Judge that gives a general knowledge test—don’t call it trivia!–to clerkship applicants). 354 days later, I’m back.

But, I never really left. Though my blog was not visible to the public during my hiatus, I never stopped writing new posts. Really, I blogged even more. When my blog went dark, I had about 2,500 posts. Today, I have 4,500 posts. Yes, I actually wrote 2,000 blog posts in the span of a year for an audience of zero. If a blogger blogs and there is no one there to read it, does it make a difference? Well, that isn’t entirely accurate. I granted a small cadre of loyal and trusted readers access to my private blog. I thank them, and their fierce comments, for helping to keep my sanity during my year-long blog-exile. All of the posts from the past year are now publicly available. I will highlight some of my better posts in due time (this may come as a surprise, but there was some interesting legal stuff in the news this year–really!).

I am now an Assistant Professor of Law at the South Texas College of Law in Houston, Texas. Yep! When I last wrote to you, I was toiling through the application process to the AALS Law Professor Hiring Market–affectionately known as the “Meat Market.” I’ll have lots of good stories about my travails at the market, but suffice to say, I got a job! Classes start on August 13 (you can see my class information here). I can’t wait! And Texas suits me very well, for a host of reasons. More to come.

I’ve keept pretty busy. In the past year, I’ve published a bunch of articles, am writing a book about the challenge to the Affordable Care Act (titled “Unprecedented“), as well as furthered my work into legal prediction markets and assisted decision making. Thanks to the dedicated team at the Harlan Institute, FantasySCOTUS.net boomed, and our educational programs have flourished.

But enough about the past. I have some bold plans for this blog, in addition to dumping 2,000 new posts onto Google.

On Monday, July 30, 2012 at 9:00 p.m. EDT, I will launch the first episode of JoshLive. JoshLive will be a weekly live video chat on a timely issue. The topic and format will vary. Sometimes I will lead a discussion on a current legal issue, talk about a recently decided case, interview a legal luminary, or talk about something totally unrelated to the law.

These meetups are free to join, and anyone can participate. I will cap attendance at the first ten people to join (more than ten, the discussion gets harder to control). If you would rather watch, or arrive too late to join, the chats will be streamed live on YouTube, and available to watch on demand afterwards.

The first session will be about whether the challenge to the Affordable Care Act backfired–but not in the way you may think.

As well, if anyone wants to follow along with my Property class, you can here. I should have some cool explanatory videos and other presentations posted throughout the course of the semester.

Thank you for your patience. It feels so good to be back.

And, I just left you. But this is crazy. So here’s my info. So follow me, maybe.

So how far does the Second Amendment go? Today in an interview on Fox News, a prominent legal analyst suggested that “hand-held rocket launchers” are covered, because they are arms one can keep and “bear.”

We’ll see. Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried — it’s to keep and “bear,” so it doesn’t apply to cannons — but I suppose here are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.

That legal analyst, over course, is Justice Antonin Scalia, the author of District of Columbia v. Heller, which held that the original understanding of the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.

If I didn’t know better, I would think this was actually an interview on the Daily Show or some satire.

Come to think of it, my frequent-coauthor, Ilya Shapiro was on the Colbert Report two years ago after McDonald v. Chicago. Colbert asked him if the Second Amendment protected the right to have a rocket launcher. Shapiro, a staunch defender of individual freedom, emphatically said no.

I guess Ilya needs to beef up his liberty game to catch up with Scalia.

H/T ThinkProgress

Update: Scalia elaborates on the relationship between originalism and textualism–as his above answer seems somewhat (to borrow a favorite phrase of his) “grotesque.”

Originalism is sort of subspecies of textualism. Textualism means you are governed by the text. That’s the only thing that is relevant to your decision, not whether the outcome is desirable, not whether legislative history says this or that. But the text of the statute.

Originalism says that when you consult the text, you give it the meaning it had when it was adopted, not some later modern meaning