The Agrinautica

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

   That is, you guessed it, the First Amendment! Two amendments in as many days!

   As noted I've had other discussions recently as well, with people who don't seem to quite value Freedom of Speech.

   After I pointed out that in the United States people can display offensive symbols because Freedom of Speech, "I don't agree with what you're saying but I'll defend to the death your right to say it," and all that, he argued that it wasn't speech because it wasn't "intellectual discourse," it was "just a symbol." To wit: "Flying a flag of any kind is intellectually inferior to to actual speech. One is sacred the other is stupid."
   To this I say, and said, that the right to fly a flag or otherwise display symbols representing one's beliefs and values is in fact the exercise of Freedom of Conscience, a subsidiary of freedom of speech that I would argue is actually even more fundamental.

   In cases like this I often suggest the person try applying what I can the "if the shoe was on the other foot," test. They seem to take it for granted that the moral majority and the government would always share their values. I'm eternally thankful that the Founding Fathers didn't make this mistake, and indeed, it's probably because tehy were splitting off from a government they didn't agree with that they were so insightful. So to put the shoe on the other foot, if flags and such symbols are "intellectually inferior" to protected speech, imagine just a generation ago, when the government and main stream morality could very plausibly have declared that the gay pride flag should be banned.

   Another related argument I had with a friend regarded the crazy preachers who periodically appear on university campuses spewing hateful rhetoric. Once again I was defending their freedom of speech and my friend argued that this particular speech of theirs was nothing but hateful and that there should be a "usefulness," test on whether or not speech actually furthers any kind of discourse. The problem with this idea is that "usefulness" simply cannot be measured objectively, and while we may be pleased to find the government clamping down on these hateful preachers, "if the shoe were on the other foot," and the government was was not perfectly pleased with the "usefulness" of what WE wanted to say, you can bet we'd be thinking that wasn't so great any more. Simply put, no interpretation of rights can hinge upon the assumption that the government and moral weight of society will always be on your side.

   The Case 34, Savaree-Ruess vs. Carnes et Al, Hearing has been postponed until Wednesday next week pursuant to a motion by the Defence.

   I stopped by the Student Government Administrative Office (SGAO) today and found Plaintiff Savaree-Ruess, Defence Counsel Powers, Associate Defence Counsel Harms and ASUCD Advisor Tucker all hanging out. Ruess said that his team (which includes Defence Counsel Greg "Big City Lawyer" Russel) is already working on one-liners to use during the Hearing. Powers vowed to be equally prepared for the battle of wits.
   Powers has also created an "ASUCD Legal Defence Team" facebook group. Clearly, the legal armsrace is on!

   Anyway, during my twenty hours of driving this past week, as I said I had altogether too much time to ponder the deep questions in life ... such as how to make ASUCD even better! I came up with two brilliant insights:


Deliberate Oral Exams
   The actual reason I was lurking around the third floor was to pitch this idea to Tucker.
   Basically, I was pondering how the interviewing process for prospective justices could be made to better highlight the skills one wants justices to be selected based upon. The normal interview process only works if the interviewers ask brilliantly insightful questions, and even then they might get at the mentality of the Justice, which is important, but it leaves utterly no guidance as to whether tehy will be an involved and effective Justice.
   Now the way the US State Department examines prospective foreign service officers is, after making an initial cut in written exams, they put a dozen or so applicants in a room ... and have them fight to the death! Not really but they make them work on some theoretical project in which they'll need to compromise and work together.
   And so I was thinking, what if we get the judicial applicants together in groups of nine provide them with a hypothetical case, and watch them deliberate! The people currently mandated to be on the interviewing committee observe these deliberations and can then make selections on a basis of effectiveness, insightfulness, judicial mentality, and all kinds of other relevant informations!

   I pitched it to Tucker and he thought it was a great idea and could even be implimented for the interviews that are coming up asap. He's still got to pitch it to President Holloway though, who as chair of the interviewing committee is the one who decides. But I'm very excited about it. Time to rustle up a case.

   And hey take note UC Merced, I know you've been stalled for weeks on the judicial interview process!


Fully-Automatic Recall
   Currently, at universities nationwide, there is a problem with elections. That being, that (1) if a candidate gets disqualified, they very frequently sue anyone and everyone until the right people roll over and let them take office, since no one but the candidate themselves cares about it enough to go to court over it; and (2) the candidate invariably cites a misguided interpretation of "democracy" or "will of the people" to support their position. It has been of little avail to advise them that its not "will of the people" if they had an unfair opportunity to influence "the people" or "the people" didn't know critical information about their character. But I came up with a solution that utterly resolves both these problems.
   Keep the system of "campaign violations" or "censures" which are given in various amounts for various severities of violations. BUT where currently a certain number mandate disqualification (three in ASUCD, five at Berkeley I believe), replace disqualification with automatic recall. Basically, the candidate still gets elected into office, but a recall election is immediately scheduled for them the following week.
   In this matter, it can be conclusively determined whether "the People" would overlook their indiscretions, and I can't imagine a lawsuit overcoming this second voicing of the "will of the people."

   So reportedly newly appointed ASUCD comptroller Kai Savaree-Ruess, having completed his crusade to combine ASUCD's two massive volumes of bylaws into one hulking uber-volume of bylaws*, and having just finished with budget hearings, has now turned his attention to the Court. At the Internal Affairs Commission on Monday he made a presentation revealing his aspiration to eliminate the Court from ASUCD -- he does not believe ASUCD needs a Court.
   We all had a good laugh last year, when Darth Lloyd tried to eliminate the Court because he believed in the absolute supremacy of senate, but it was only funny once. I've got better things to do than fight the same battle against the roundheads every year.
   Sources believe Ruess's presentation Monday was intended to set the foundation for an upcoming constitutional amendment he intends to write to eliminate the Court.


   *The principal effect of combining the Senate's Standing Rules with the Government Codes (other than making it more tedious to find anything) was in forging a bold statement that the rules of order for Legislative Branch meetings are one and the same with the branch-wide guidelines -- that the Senate is the Government.


   On any account, it would have been nice of him to give someone in the Judicial Branch a heads up that he was about to propose radical changes to it.


Picture of the Day

   My friend's page has recently begun displaying a bit weirdly. The grey background is new but not bad, however for some reason comments are now listed above entries instead of below them. Investigating this matter, I discovered that my account had been changed to the infamous S2 format. This means that TAGS work now for this livejournal. Fortunately I've been dutifully tagging entries since the option became available, however as of now only about 40% of the entries created previous to tagging have been tagged. Overall I'm glad the S2 format has been made available with the general appearance of the old one ... just wish the tag view page didn't look so ugly (and I tihnk its only displaying the most recent 20 entries with the specified tag or something).


Addendum: Adventures of the Kitten Patrol!!
   Around about 1:30am Kristy's roommate Chrissy came home and reported that she'd just seen a limping kitten near Olson Twin Hall. Kristy & I of course sprang into action and headed to the scene in her kittenmobile.
   I think we both thought our odds of actually finding the kitten were pretty low but we persevered and lo we found the kitten. Unfortunately, however, he was fast like fire and eluded us. He did however, look well enough nourished, so we concluded he could take care of himself and broke off the pursuit.
   On the way home we encountered yet another kitty. A siamese cat was batting at a plastic bag that was wrapped around a pole by the side of the road. We stopped and investigated. Cat appeared to be in good condition and with a collar, so the kitten patrol called it a night and returned to home base.


Random Fact of the Day:   Wikipedia recently brought my attention to the fact that the New York case Stambovsky v. Ackley, 169 A.D.2d 254 (NY App. Div. 1991) found a house to be legally haunted, thus making it the only legally haunted house in the United States (& probably the world).


Previously on Emosnail - Introducing Tagging Madness!
   Three Years and One Week Ago Today: Honestly People - There's no such thing as a white lie.
   Three Years Ago Last Friday: Cornish Pasties - I discover the CoHo has cornish pasties. I've never found them there since. )=
   Three Years Ago Last Saturday: How My Cellphone Recharger Got Mailed To Alaska - True story: my cell phone recharger got mailed to Alaska by mistake. Also my friend Kristy convinces me to go to another class with her. It was strong sauce, we learned about chemical & biological weapons and things.
   Three Years Ago Last Sunday: Interviewing for Chief Justice Position - I interview for the position of Chief Justice of the ASUCD Supreme Court. Justice Bernstein also interviewed for the position, but of course I got it. I subsequently had Justice Bernstein removed. Additionally a "peace activist" attacked a College Republican at a peace rally -- while Fitzmorris was using a video camera. (Bernstein's removal was unrelated to his aspirations for the Office of Chief Justice)
   Three Years Ago Last Monday: The Chief Justiceship - I'm confirmed as the ASUCD Chief Justice, just in time to swear Sara Henry & Kalen Gallagher into office. Adrian confirms he's going to live with me the following year, he would turn out to be an awesome flatmate. Was trying to get Don as a flatmate but that didn't pan out. Also, hung out with Sharon¹.
   Three Years Ago Yesterday (Last Tuesday): The Undersproul - My friend Kat Isaacson shows up at a party at Chris Mays' place. Also I discover a treasure map indicating that there are tunnels under Olson/Sproul halls. Eventually I would make it into these tunnels. Also a certain girl continues to give completely mixed signals. It would have been much more preferable if she had simply said she wasn't interested instead of agreeing to dates and then coming up with extremely plausible reasons to cancel them. As a result our former friendship was destroyed & we've barely talked since.

Dubious Adventures with Senators
   Yesterday, Thursday, three ASUCD Senators and the Chief Justice were found on the fifth floor of the MU and told to leave by an unidentified official. Ironically the individuals in question constitute one fourth of the governming board which officially owns the Memorial Union, and the head of the branch that decides what they can and cannot do.

   Shortly thereafter, Senator Thomas Lloyd regaled some of us with his thoughts on how there is no need for an ASUCD Supreme Court because if there is ever a question of the meaning of a bylaw the Senate could solve it through legislation. I asked him who would protect the rights of the minority party if say one party had 2/3rds of the seats as Focus recently did for a year, to which he responded something along the lines of "well the Court could be just as biased as Senators." This caused Gordon "I was President of my JC" Fung to become emotionally destraught. After he had stormed out of the room I countered Lloyd with "but no really unless you can either cite an example of the judicial branch failing in a similar institution, or evidence of our justices voting along party lines, to say it doesn't work as you do is nothing more than utterly unsubstantiated speculation that flies in the face of existing evidence." He appears to remain dedicated to the elimination of the judicial branch and any other checks on legislative power.
   He also expressed an interest in banning the Chief Justice from Senate meetings. This led current chief justice myself to ask him "Why do you hate justice, Senator Lloyd?"


Picture of the Day

Jadine's feet

Current State of the Cases
   So here is how this all played out so far simply by following jurisprudential theories: by filing the cases the Plaintiffs asserted that the defendants named were under our jurisdiction; we accepted the cases based on the merits of the cases and proceeded to schedule Hearings; one of the Defendants formally notified us of his claims to a lack of jurisdiction; we scheduled a Hearing ("Pre-Hearing Conference" actually) to formally review the arguements pro/con the Defendants being in our jurisdiction and after duly considering all points and evidence will come to a conclusion. That Pre-Hearing Conference will take place today (Friday) at 4pm (in the MU Fielder room).
   In accordance with American federal rules of civil procedure, the Defendant may make a "special appearance" to dispute jurisdiction, and thereby their attendence does NOT waive their objection to jurisdiction.

   One important thing to keep in mind is that we have accepted the merits of these cases, and the cause of action of the complaint is not currently in disputed jurisdiction. Meaning, if these defendants are found unable to represent the defense in this case, new defendants will be found. That most likely will fall upon either the ASUCD executive office, or the highest ranking student of SGAO. The point is: that ASUCD actions cannot be beyond review to its own judicial process, which is what would happen if we found there was no way to review actions taken by members of the University Employee Union. Point 2: our cases are against ACTIONS, not PEOPLE. Being the Defendant in one of our cases is not a personal attack on the Defendant, but satisfaction of the action's right to be defended by someone.

   the DISCLAIMER: this is in no way a biased opinion on the current cases, this is the procedural application of western legal theories to actual and potential ASUCD Court scenarios. I have no opinion as to whether or not it is likely that jurisdiction will be found one way or another here, or that either side will eventually win the case.


A Good Way to Procrastinate
   THIS website will give you the most recently uploaded pictures to livejournal. Reload it and you will have a new set of pictures. I find it thoroughly amusing.
   Through the above page, I came upon a website of photographs of abandoned buildings in New England which was also excellent.


In Class this Week...
   I learned... about bungholes. Well, "a bung with a hole" actually. Lets the carbon dioxide out of wine barrels. Now you know.


Picture(s) of the Day

Justice in MUN
   Its been bothering me for quite some time now that the leadership of our MUN club bars any non-officers from their executive meeting. In the past this wasn't an issue because their meetings were at someone's house on a different day entirely, so no one needed to be kicked out, but now they occur directly following the regular meetings and they adamently refuse to start until every non-officer has left the room.
   This lends a down-right nefarious light to their politically motivated decisions on who gets what country/committee assignment at conferences, and room-assignments. It also gives them a chance, which I believe they exercise, to discuss among themselves who THEY want to run for future officer positions, and support those candidates, making club elections deplorably undemocratic.
   In procrastinating tonight I decided to finally take actions against this, and started it out by sending our Secretary-General an email asking him to make the club Constitution available to me.

   According to generally accepted philosophy of the democratic process, (In Californa, The Brown Act and Bagley-Keene Act address this) governing boards' meetings must be open to the membership of the organization. In accordance with SPAC (Student Programs & Activities Center) rules, every club must have a constitution.
   Student Judicial Affairs handles formal complaints regarding club activities.

   In conclusion: there may be some members of the UCD MUN secretariat that I have a positive opinion of; and it may be likely that these activities will result in my never getting the country-assignment I request ever again and having to room with Paul Amnaypayout for every conference from now on; but I really do abhorr injustice that I can avert.
   I don't think the leadership really respects my ability to have a political impact. Prepare to see my lawyering skills.


Justice in ASUCD
   I have heard certain rumours that "the ASUCD Court cannot bring cases against career employees."
   (A) Judicial Code 4, section 402, paragraph 1: "Any ASUCD member may submit a complaint alleging one or several of the following: (A) An ASUCD official has failed to perform the duties of his/her office in conformity with...
   (B) "Official" is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary (4th ed) as: "3. Holding office or serving in a public capacity."

   Furthermore, the logical errors inherent in the idea that career employees are exempt from cases are so glaring upon any serious reflection that it almost insults one's intellegence to recite them. Career employees make decisions and act in the name of the ASUCD government and these decisions cannot be beyond appeal by the Justice branch of the government. Career employees are employees of the government, they may be fired by 2/3rds of the Senate, they may be ordered to do things by the President, their budgets may be reviewed by the Business and Finance Commission, and they may certainly be scrutinized by the Court.
   The idea that career employees may act with impunity to the Court is to accept that they do not work among us at the employ of the ASUCD government but rather supervise an incompetent student play-government. I need hardly point out that the latter precept which is necessary for the argument in favor of their impunity is insulting to anyone that participates in the ASUCD government.

   The above absolutely does not reflect any partiality or bias regarding actual or potential career employee Parties to cases. It only relates to whether or not career employees may BE Parties to cases. If the thesis is somehow wrong, than it is not relevantly partial because those that are the subject (career employees), may not be Parties to cases; if it is correct, it is not relevantly partial because it is absolutely correct. This is a logical tautology.

   Blah.. I'm being so useless. I really need to find another job.


   In a topic completely unrelated to anything current: when I had my little hospital incident whenever that was, they tested me for like every drug imagineable, for a total cost of a few hundred dollars, despite the fact that I can't see how that related to my injuries. If they want to satisfy their own curiosity and spend their OWN money finding out that I don't do drugs, thats fine with me, but it strikes me as very not right that without even telling me they were doing it they checked me for all these things AND made me pay for it. If they were really afraid it would conflict with the minor painkillers they gave me, they coulda freakin ASKED me if I did any drugs, I can't imagine anyone lying under those circumstances. I'm pretty sure its not the kind of operating procedure they would give say a middle aged middle class person. Freakin.. stereotyping college kids as drug users or something...
   Seriously should be illegal.. doing things that don't relate to what I'm in the hospital for, without my knowledge, and billing me for it. Hm it prolly is.


   Yesterday I was in a bad mood all day.. today I don't really feel like doing anything... I guess I'm going to diedrichs because I'm hopelessly addicted to coffee ...and try to resist the urge to drink with everyone.. I know I always joke about being an alcoholic, but really I'm not and drinking every day for no particular reason, albeit with other people (the same ones every day though), seems highly sketchy to me.