I have energy again!

Monday started with the usual Constitutional Law class. Once again, I found myself kind of wishing that Professor Roberts did not know my name, as he called on me first in class. Unlike some other professors, I think that he calls on me because I do my reading and engage him in discussion. He isn’t trying to trip me up. The topic in class continued the discussion on the Commerce Clause and the powers vested in Congress by the Constitution. The 3 cases we discussed were US v Lopez, US v. Morrison, and Gonzales v. Raich. These cases all dealt with the definition of the narrow range of Commerce powers held by Congress. The first case dealt with the constitutionality of the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1990. Congress tried to justify passage of the act by stating that guns in schools have a detrimental effect on interstate commerce. Even though I support school zone anti-gun legislation, even I thought that the government was overreaching its constitutional authority in this case. I might have felt differently if I didn’t know that Texas (the site of the arrest for violation of the gun policy) already had a similar law as a state statute. Since the state governments should really retain their police powers as guaranteed to them by the 10th amendment, I felt that the Supreme Court decided this case correctly. In the Morrison case, however, I felt differently. The original plaintiff was the victim of sexual assault by 2 Virginia Tech football players. As is the galling custom in NCAA division 1-A football schools (at least it seems to be the custom), the university let the players off with less than a slap on the wrist…and this was for SEXUAL ASSAULT. I started to get a little mad reading this case. The plaintiff sued the defendant under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, a federal statute that makes it a crime to commit crimes against women. In this case, I was conflicted because the state statutes had clearly failed the woman. She had to drop out of college, as the alternative would have been attending classes with her assailant! Once again, the Supreme Court struck down the law as unconstitutional because it overstepped the authority given to Congress under the Commerce Clause. The final case was one from earlier this year. This was the medicinal marijuana case. The California Compassionate Use Act allowed individuals who needed marijuana for medicinal purposes to use it even though this was in violation of the federal Controlled Substances Act, passed during the Nixon administration. Here, the state statute was struck down, as the Court felt that this law was in the purview of the Commerce Clause. The Court’s reasoning was that Congress has the right to regulate those things that are part of interstate commerce. Since there was a chance that the marijuana could enter interstate channels for sale (in violation of other states’ laws), the Court struck down the California statute. At the time of the ruling, I thought that the Court was being a little ridiculous. I mean, these people are dying and we want to take away the one thing that might alleviate the pain? After reading the decisions and the dissents, however, I agreed with the Court’s reasoning. Unless there is a way to ensure that this marijuana never enters the channels of commerce, the CSA should remain in effect.
After class, I hurried to the gym for a quick lunchtime workout. I hope to make this part of my daily routine. I definitely felt the difference as the day went on, for I had plenty of energy through the afternoon and into the evening. I returned in time for Civil Procedure, where we continued our discussion on Rule 11 of the Federal Rules (sanctioning of attorneys and plaintiffs for bad claims, fraud, or claims made in bad faith). Once again, I found myself becoming more and more impressed with Professor Greenberger. Even though I am always on edge in his class (worried about being called on and being under the microscope), I always learn a lot.
After class, I spent a few hours in the library working on Contracts for Tuesday and beginning the redraft of my Legal Analysis Rule Synthesis. I actually reached home at a reasonable hour yesterday (7:30 PM).