Blog

I came across this old post I wrote on November 15, 2009, before the ACA was even introduced in the Senate, about the mandate’s possible constitutional challenge as directed tax that was not apportioned.

Of course, Pelosi and Reid can simply re-characterize the penalty so it is clearly not a direct tax, and escape the apportionment requirement. But if they fail to do so, totally possible in light of the rapid pace they rahm through this legislation, this could set up a potential facial, or as applied challenge, if enacted.

LOL. Yeah, that’s about right. And if you want a super-flashback, you can see this post on my original blog, JoshBlogs.wordpress.csm.

Stay tuned. Coming next term…

Property I Sample Examination

Instructions

(These are the instructions that will be on the final exam).

You will have three hours to complete this exam. There are two essay questions. Each question is worth 50% of the final score. Each question has a 500-word limit. Anything you write past 500 words will not be read. Please use the word-count feature to check the length of each answer, or count the words if you are hand-writing the exam.

The exam is completely open-book. You can use anything you wish, so long as that it was printed before the distribution of this exam. Obtaining any new information from anyone or anything after the exam is prohibited.

Question

The year is 1839. The Republic of Texas has recently declared its independence. You are clerking for the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court, and have been asked to prepare a memorandum explaining this very-Texas property problem. Because time is short, the Chief Justice wants a memorandum of no more than 500 words. (Y’all and other Texisms count as one word). If there are multiple possible outcomes, please discuss the options. Texas applies all of the common law property rules, as stated in the Restatement (First) of Property (which will be published in about 100 years). Any similarities or dissimilarities between this fact pattern and actual Texas history are unintentional–please indulge your Yankee professor.

—

In 1836, Austin led the Texians in their triumphant victory in the Texas Revolution. During his conquests, Austin claimed ownership of two plots of land in what was now the Republic of Texas: Gonzales and Alamo. Nearing the end of his life, Austin set out to ensure that his friends and family were taken care of after his death. At the time, Austin was not married, and had three children: Bowie, Crocket, and Dusk. Austin also had several close friends: Eustache, Fannin, and Gamar.

On January 1, 1837, Austin recorded the first of two conveyances: “I convey Gonzales to Bowie for life, then to Eustache and his heirs so long as the cannon used during the Battle of Gonzales remains in Gonzales.”

On January 2, 1837, Bowie took his own life and fell on his (bowie) knife.

On February 1, 1837, Austin recorded the second conveyance: “I convey Alamo to Crockett and Dusk jointly, but if the Alamo fort is not maintained, then to Fannin and his heirs.

On February 2, 1837, Crockett locks the Alamo fort, and prevents Dusk from entering.

On February 14, 1837, Crockett became too busy hunting raccoons for his new coonskin cap, and forgot about the Alamo. It quickly fell into disrepair.

On May 1, 1837, tragically, Crockett was attacked by a rabid racoon, and dies.

On May 14, 1837, afraid of his own mortality after Crockett’s sudden demise, Dusk recorded the following conveyance: “Alamo to myself for my life, then to Gamar and his heirs.”

On May 15, 1837 at Crockett’s funeral, Fannin learns that the Alamo is in disrepair, and tells Dusk that he is moving in.

On May 16, 1837, Dusk dies during a tragic mutton-bustin’ accident, that would later become known as the silence of the lambs.

On May 30, 1837 Fannin enters Alamo and demands access. Gamar, who had moved in after Dusk kicked the bucket, won’t let him in.

On December 31, 1837, Austin died, leaving no heirs.

On January 2, 1838, General Hanta Anna, still peeved over losing the war, entered Gonzales and claimed that Austin never properly acquired Gonzales, and that the land belongs to him. Hanta Anna claimed that in 1824 the Native Americans in Gonzales conveyed the land to him. Eustache, with a classic Texian bravado and swagger, kicks out Hanta Anna.

On February 1, 1838, Hanta Anna, taking Gonzales’ “Come and Take It” flag a little too seriously, came and took it. He seized the canon and brought it South of the Border. By messing with Texas, he nearly ignited another Revolution.

—

With these facts, address the following questions in your memorandum to the Chief Justice.

(1) With respect to Gonzales, describe the interests held by Austin, Bowie, Eustache, and Hanta Anna at the following dates (If a person has not yet acquired any interest at a certain date, no need to discuss it):

(a) 1/1/37

(b) 1/2/37

(c) 1/2/38

(d) 2/1/38

(2) With respect to Alamo, describe the interests held by Austin, Crocket, Dusk, Fanin, and Gamar at the following dates (If a person has not yet acquired any interest at a certain date, no need to discuss it):

(a) 2/1/37

(b) 2/2/37

(c) 2/14/37

(d) 5/1/37

(e) 5/16/37

(f) 5/30/37

 

The lecture notes are here. The live chat is here.

This is Lord Edward Coke, the Chief Justice of England. He is most famous for prosecuting Sir Walter Raleigh (whose inability to confront witnesses was the origin of our confrontation clause) and the Gunpowder Plot (remember, remember the 5th of November, or V for Vendetta). Coke is most famous for deciding Lord Bonham’s case, the case most famously cited for the proposition that a court could find a law unconstitutional. The King was subject to the laws, and the laws of Parliament were void if in violation of “common right and reason.” It was not John Marshall who created the concept of judicial review. However, after this case, he was transferred to the King’s Bench, where he had less power. He also famously wrote the Institutes of the Lawes of England.

And, for those interested, the South Texas College of Law Library has a 1607 English Dictionary. None other than Lord Coke ordered it censored for its seditious definition of the word liberty. Indeed Coke ordered the book to be burned!

The Texas Statute of Frauds provides:

Sec. 26.01.  PROMISE OR AGREEMENT MUST BE IN WRITING. (a) A promise or agreement described in Subsection (b) of this section is not enforceable unless the promise or agreement, or a memorandum of it, is

(1)  in writing; and

(2)  signed by the person to be charged with the promise or agreement or by someone lawfully authorized to sign for him.

(b)  Subsection (a) of this section applies to:

(1)  a promise by an executor or administrator to answer out of his own estate for any debt or damage due from his testator or intestate;

(2)  a promise by one person to answer for the debt, default, or miscarriage of another person;

(3)  an agreement made on consideration of marriage or on consideration of nonmarital conjugal cohabitation;

(4)  a contract for the sale of real estate;

(5)  a lease of real estate for a term longer than one year;

(6)  an agreement which is not to be performed within one year from the date of making the agreement;

(7)  a promise or agreement to pay a commission for the sale or purchase of:

(A)  an oil or gas mining lease;

(B)  an oil or gas royalty;

(C)  minerals;  or

(D)  a mineral interest;  and

(8)  an agreement, promise, contract, or warranty of cure relating to medical care or results thereof made by a physician or health care provider as defined in Section 74.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code.  This section shall not apply to pharmacists.

I have an album of photos of the house from Shelley v. Kraemer here:

 

Here is the text of the 14th Amendment:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The 13th Amendment is the only Amendment to apply directly to individuals, and not the government:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

The lecture notes are here, and the live chat is here.

What is the value of a law degree? According to a (controversial) article, titled The Economic Value of a Law Degree, the value of a law degree, as opposed to stopping with a bachelor’s degree is roughly $1 million over the course of the year:

After controlling for observable ability sorting, we find that a law degree is associated with a 60 percent median increase in monthly earnings and 50 percent increase in median hourly wages. The mean annual earnings premium of a law degree is approximately $53,300 in 2012 dollars. The law degree earnings premium is cyclical and recent years are within historical norms.

We estimate the mean pre-tax lifetime value of a law degree as approximately $1,000,000.

This chart depicts the value of a law degree over the course of a persons’ career.

This chart breaks down the lifetime earnings from a law degree by decade across percentiles (ranging from people the bottom to the top of law degree holders):

Here are the numbers broken down by gender:

This is the great diva Frederica von Stade.

Here is Stade singing at the 1991 Metropolitan Opera Gala

And more opera.

Justice Ginsburg, one of the most famous opera fans in the country, is a huge fan of von Stade, listing her work as among her favorite:

Mozart, “The Marriage of Figaro”; Samuel Ramey, Lucia Popp, Thomas Allen, Kiri Te Kanawa, Frederica von Stade, Kurt Moll, Robert Tear, Georg Solti conducting the London Philharmonic and London Opera Chorus (Decca).

The duo also share something else in common. They were both selected by the Georgia O’Keeffee Museum as Woman of Distinction: RBG and van Stade.

This is Edith Windsor, the face of United States v. Windsor.

This map shows the evolution of same-sex marriage in the United States.

Here are forecasts of projected support of same-sex marriage over the next eight years from March 2013.

 

Here is an updated poll from March 2013.

Texas Code 2.401 governs “common law” or “informal marriage”

Sec. 2.401.  PROOF OF INFORMAL MARRIAGE. (a) In a judicial, administrative, or other proceeding, the marriage of a man and woman may be proved by evidence that:

(1)  a declaration of their marriage has been signed as provided by this subchapter; or

(2)  the man and woman agreed to be married and after the agreement they lived together in this state as husband and wife and there represented to others that they were married.

(b)  If a proceeding in which a marriage is to be proved as provided by Subsection (a)(2) is not commenced before the second anniversary of the date on which the parties separated and ceased living together, it is rebuttably presumed that the parties did not enter into an agreement to be married.

(c)  A person under 18 years of age may not:

(1)  be a party to an informal marriage; or

(2)  execute a declaration of informal marriage under Section 2.402.

(d)  A person may not be a party to an informal marriage or execute a declaration of an informal marriage if the person is presently married to a person who is not the other party to the informal marriage or declaration of an informal marriage, as applicable.

Also relevant for our discussion is 2.001 (emphasis added):

Sec. 2.001.  MARRIAGE LICENSE. (a) A man and a woman desiring to enter into a ceremonial marriage must obtain a marriage license from the county clerk of any county of this state.

(b)  A license may not be issued for the marriage of persons of the same sex.