Perspectives

Remember the old saying “finders, keepers”? Well, it turns out that it’s not always true. My class had a long discussion about the ownership of found property. Like everything else in law, there are multiple theories and rules and interpretations and results. Yet another childhood mantra debunked.

I can now discern that law school is changing the way I think. It feels almost Picasso-esque: I’m developing the habit of interpreting everything from multiple perspectives simultaneously. There are at least two sides to every issue, and innumerable nuances on each side.

I enjoy the insights, ideas, and better understanding of world events. I like having a sense of the nuances that affect issues, policies, and actions. Each can look so simple on the surface, but be full of complexity underneath. I don’t always love my schoolwork, but I appreciate the education.

Truth be told, sometimes I just need to get away from law. I recently ran into an unexpected snag as I was reading in the Old Testament. I was having one of those I-need-a-break-from-law days when I opened my scriptures to my place in Exodus. The next chapter was a section on the Mosaic Law.

Oy.

I closed that chapter and read something in the Book of Mormon instead. I didn’t get back to reading the Old Testament for at least a week.

(Side note: one of the Torts cases we read last semester cited Mosaic Law. Yes, Mosaic precedent is still alive in the American judicial system.)

On a completely different note, this week we had a real, live, honest to goodness SNOW DAY! Williamsburg essentially closes down in a big (3 to 6 inches) snowstorm. Yes, there are reasons for closing down the town: bendy and hilly roads, lack of snow plows, etc. But what is most endearing to me is the panicky undertone of it all. It’s almost as if there’s never been a snowstorm here before. The snow flurries were nearly outdone by the flurry of emails and warnings and rescheduled classes (the law school was closed from 6 pm to noon the next day).

That said, I totally applaud the snow day from an emotional and mental perspective. I think the world is a better place for giving the kids (even the ones in grad school) a day to stay home and play in the snow. It’s rejuvenating and refreshing to drop everything and chill out for a while.

By the way, one of my supervisors was highly amused that I went for a run in the snow. I think he thought I was crazy.

Musings on Civil Disobedience

This is about to turn into a long, semi-philosophical ramble through my thoughts. But before I get to that, I want to mention three things from this week.

1. It is a sweet and wonderful thing to have a niece for a pen pal, both on the sending and receiving side.
2. Even the small, melt-on-contact kind of snow has a certain charm to it when the January weather has been between 50 and 70 degrees.
3. A gospel discussion in an Institute class at the law school is a delicious incongruity to the typical class discussions that take place there. (Not that the typical discussions are bad; they’re just very different in tone.)

So, my Martin Luther King Jr. Day celebrations have typically gone only as far as enjoying an extra day off. This year, however, brought a refreshing change. In honor of the day, Dean Douglas hosted an open discussion about Dr. King’s theory of civil disobedience as described in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail (1963). Dr. King’s letter was in response to an apparent conflict in his actions: he was consciously disobeying the law, while advocating the importance of obeying it.

Dean Douglas described it this way: multiple marches were taking place in Birmingham in support of civil rights. In response, those who were against the movement enacted a law or injunction of some sort to prevent further marches. Dr. King had the option of continuing with the movement in Birmingham, or heading to a new area of the country. He chose to march in Birmingham. His peaceful defiance of the Birmingham law was rewarded with a stay in jail, where, as Dean Douglas described it, he had a significant chance of being killed before being released.

Other leaders in the area accused him of pushing too hard. They felt he should wait for a resolution through normal legal processes, rather than break the law. Dr. King acknowledged that their concerns were legitimate. How can someone encourage obedience on one hand and disobedience on the other? His reply: “The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust . . . ‘an unjust law is no law at all.’” Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail (1963).

That answer, of course, raises more questions. How does one determine which laws are just and which are unjust? If people are willfully defying laws, what is to prevent anarchy?

Dr. King’s answers to those questions appeal to moral law, eternal law, and natural law. “Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust . . . One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty . . . an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.” Id.

In our discussion with the Dean, we went on to talk about why Dr. King gave the requirements of acting openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. We also discussed these ideas in relation to other events, debating whether those events fit into Dr. King’s rubric.

What intrigues me, however, is the inescapable reliance of law on morality. At some point, a decision has to be made that option A is good and should be law and option B is bad and should not be law. Without a moral foundation, law has nowhere to stand.

Perhaps there are those who would dispute the necessity of a moral foundation. They might argue that law should be founded on something else, such as inherent rights, personal liberty, equality, or social welfare. But those things are really just a different set of moral standards. In order for a “right” to exist, someone had to decide it was good, and should therefore be promoted. The same judgment had to be made about equality, personal liberty, and issues of social welfare. Even an argument for economics as a foundation for law is ultimately a moral decision: is it good to have economic stability? To maximize economic freedom? To give everyone an equal share? At some point, someone has to what is good and therefore worthy to be set down as law.

This goes even deeper. If all systems are ultimately founded on some sense of morality, how can someone defend one system against another? In my mind, there is no way to do so without an appeal to a higher power or divine authority.

Perhaps that is the genius of Dr. King’s civil disobedience theory. Ultimately, he calls on people to be moral as they understand it, and accept the consequences in this life if those in power do not agree. It is a call for disobedience to immoral civil authority, rather than disobedience per se (i.e., disobedience to God).

But that’s enough philosophical meandering for today. I could take these ideas down other mental trails (biology, common sense, obedience by compulsion), but instead I think I’ll get to bed so I can still enjoy the holiday.

By which I mean: do all the homework I kept putting off all weekend.

Warming Back Up

It took a little bit of work to get back in study mode after the break. But it helps to have new subjects to study.

First is Property Law. In the first three classes, we discussed such various topics as the ownership of a fox pelt, a hunted whale, a record home run baseball, a famous name, a famous singer’s voice, and a TV star’s persona. Well, the actual issues are more subtle than that, but not interesting enough to take time explaining.

Next is Constitutional Law, which is much more along the lines of what I expected to do in law school. My professor is teaching it from the perspective of the social and political pressures that influence the Supreme Court, which is an interesting approach. We’ve had readings besides court cases, which is a nice change.

My third doctrinal class for the semester is Contracts Law. My professor began class by debating with our TA whether they had a contract last semester when she asked him to promote the t-shirts she was selling for bar review (and if they did have a contract, whether he had broken it). He then allowed us to negotiate the syllabus and had us submit our own contractual version as a proposal for the class syllabus.

Ultimately the professor rejected all of our submissions and used his own; though a classmate pointed out that the students are in a significantly disadvantaged position for negotiating, so it’s doubtful whether certain provisions of the syllabus contract would be enforceable. Not to mention one provision we’ve found is, if not illegal, certainly not enforceable under any circumstances. I’m guessing we’ll find more issues in the syllabus throughout the semester.

The professor went further by specifically breaching the syllabus contract during our third class. When a student called him on it, we had a long discussion regarding the necessary remedy (which dovetailed perfectly with the topic for the day).  It was a great object lesson.

The topics this semester are less dramatic than last semester’s, but there’s potential for some interesting ideas. (Mostly I’m just glad Criminal Law is over.)

Outside of school, my week was marked with one very cold (for Williamsburg) day (somewhere around 14 degrees). The temperature then jumped up to 70 degrees a day or two later, which makes me feel like spring is here…in the first half of January. The trees are bare, but the illusion is enhanced by green lawns and numerous chirping birds. My classmates from warm climates might disagree, but I’m still hoping for a little bit of snow.

First World Problems

Note to self: Don’t schedule a connecting flight through Philadelphia during winter.

My trip from Salt Lake City back to Virginia after Christmas break was quite the excursion. I spent most of Friday in the Philadelphia airport and a good portion of Saturday in the Charlotte airport. Long story short, after 46 hours, two delayed flights, two cancelled flights, a night on a plane, two hours in a line for the service desk, a night in the airport, rerouting through Charlotte, a missed connection, an unfruitful standby ticket, an incorrect seat assignment, and late luggage delivery, I (and all my possessions) am now settled back in Williamsburg.

I’m not anxious to repeat the trip, but if that’s the worst I have to deal with in traveling 2,000 miles, it’s not so bad. There are many worse places and experiences in the world.

Not to mention I got to go home for Christmas – not everyone gets to do that.

Yay for mountains and snow!

Christmas break was wonderful. The best part was spending time with my family. There was a simple, blessed abundance to it, for which I’m grateful. I don’t mean material abundance, though my family is certainly blessed with that; I mean the emotional and spiritual rejuvenation of being with those I love most.

Puzzling on Christmas Day

From a law school perspective, the best part of the break was a respite from the unrelenting feeling that I should be studying. It was enough of a break that I’m now ready for that feeling to come back for next semester, which starts tomorrow. Happily, my last flight landed early enough that I was able to get to the bookstore and get my books, which means I can do my first day’s worth of homework tomorrow morning before class.

So, although I’ll be up really early tomorrow to read about Property and Constitutional Law, although I need groceries or I’ll be eating Ramen all week, and although I have a long list of to do items that didn’t get done as I was sitting in airports for two days, my life is good.

 Happy New Year!

Sunrise in Philadelphia (it was prettier in real life)