Very Funny Essay:
By Hillel Levin, and only 6 pages long:
Based on a true story, this piece starts with a proclamation by Mother, the Supreme Lawmaker, that "no food may be eaten outside the kitchen." What follows is a series of rulings by Judges--father, babysitter, grandma (a liberal jurist, of course), etc.--who, using traditional tools of interpretation, eventually declare it to mean that all food may be eaten outside of the kitchen. Ultimately, the supreme lawmaker reacts and clarifies.
But they did:
so the "slippery slope" concerns are justified?
If you compare the current courtroom application of any portion of the Bill of Rights to the written text of the Constitution, the answer to that question is obvious.
I've read more than one constitutional case decision which didn't actually discuss the text of the relevant portion of the Constitution at all; the decision was based entirely on precedents... which in turn were based on other precedents. Modern jurisprudence is a great big game of Telephone.
The error given is on a page of its own, and says:
"SSRN Abstract Database Search Results
The abstract you requested was not found.
Please check your search criteria and try again."
When I search for papers by the same author, this one doesn't show.
It looks like it's gone from the database, only a stub remains.
Or does the Supreme Legislator in this constitutional system have the power to make laws, rational basis be damned?
Please, please don't take this as an insult, but I gotta ask, Oren: were you raised without a parent?
My parents confined their legislation to matters that were rationally related to their legitimate concerns. I figured all parents did (the alternative would be expending energy enforcing rules with no purpose -- why would you waste your time?)
(Also, of course, it is rationally related to the need to keep crumbs and spills out of the rest of the house. But your father does not need to explain the Rules, because they are the Rules.)
So a rule against X is rationally related to the need to do X? I'm confused.
Only problem is that the law review cite checkers will butcher it demanding footnotes for everything.
I think the Green Bag would eat this up.
But isn't the standard competing canon of statutory construction, "if Howie's mom let you jump off the roof, should I let you jump off the room?"
If you'd like to object, we can bring this to the Board for a peal.
-Wm
P.S. I was finally able to download this. And yes, I'd been clicking on the right places; it didn't work before, and now it works. It was ENTIRELY worth the trouble.
P.P.S. PEAL: "any loud, sustained sound or series of sounds".