{"id":5291,"date":"2006-05-01T01:47:39","date_gmt":"2006-05-01T05:47:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2006\/05\/01\/lawdy-lawdy-another-law-day\/"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:53:57","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:53:57","slug":"lawdy-lawdy-another-law-day","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2006\/05\/01\/lawdy-lawdy-another-law-day\/","title":{"rendered":"lawdy-lawdy, another Law Day"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

May 1st is Law Day. If you’re at all familiar with this weblog, you’re
\nprobably expecting another sermon like “<\/font>Law Day, Not Lawyers’ Day<\/font><\/a>,”
\nfrom 2004, or our 2005 “<\/font>towards a better Law Day<\/font><\/a>.” This year, however,
\nwe’re not in a preachy mood (not this very moment, that is), so we’ll
\njust refer back to those prior pieces as a matter of principle, and point to
\n“<\/font>Law Day: A time for self-examination, not self-congratulation<\/font><\/a>,” by Ben
\nCowgill (May 2, 2005). (and see Ben’s <\/font>promised<\/font><\/a> Law Day version of Blawg
\nReview #55).<\/font><\/font><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"LawDay2006Separate\"<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

For Law Day 2006<\/a>, a series of disjointed blurbs will have to do. <\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

\"tiny The Law Day Theme<\/a> is promulgated each year by the American Bar
\nAssociation. This year’s theme is timely and important: “Liberty Under
\nLaw: Separate Branches, Balanced Powers<\/em><\/a>.” The f\/k\/a<\/em> Gang knows well
\nhow important check and balances can be — it’s difficult to imagine what
\nthis weblog would be like if Your Editor, Prof. Yabut, or haikuEsq got to
\nrun the operation alone. Rule of Law, justice, and efficiency, would be in
\nshort supply. <\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

It’s not exactly surprising that many Americans fail to understand
\nthe basic principles of Balance of Powers. In urging its members
\nto participate in Law Day programs, the New York State Bar
\nAssociation noted<\/a>: <\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

“A Harris Poll commissioned by the American Bar Association
\nand conducted from July 22 through July 27, 2005, found that
\nless than half (48 percent) of Americans can correctly identify
\nthe meaning of the separation of powers. The same poll found
\nthat nearly two-thirds of Americans (64 percent) can correctly
\nidentify the principle of checks and balances. Only just over
\nhalf of Americans (55 percent) can correctly identify the three
\nbranches of government. And less than half of the poll\u00a6#x2019;s res-
\npondents (48 percent) correctly identified the role of the judiciary
\nin the federal government.<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

“The need for bar association members to get involved in Law
\nDay activities in their own communities has never been greater.”<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

[Despite this call to action, NYSBA does not appear to have
\ntaken a major role in celebrating Law Day, and few<\/a> county bar
\nassociations are participating across the State.] <\/font><\/font><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\"noloShark\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

We’re not so sure members of the bar would have done significantly
\nbetter than the general public answering that Harris Poll. You can
\nTake the Law Day Quiz<\/a> to see where you stand. [Did Alexander
\nHamilton say that the legislature is the most dangerous branch?] <\/font><\/font><\/p>\n


\nIf you’re in D.C, today, head to the Library of Congress
\nfor the 2006 Leon Jaworski Public Program<\/a> (6th Annual),
\nwhich covers this years Law Day theme, with the focus of
\n“Madison’s Legacy.” Jeffrey Rosen<\/a> of the New Republic and
\nGeorge Washington Law School is the moderator for a dis-
\ntinguished panel of jurists and scholars. The program link
\nabove will bring you to a list of Framed Issues, including this
\nquestion: <\/font><\/font><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

\"FedPapersG\"<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

“Of the three forms of government \u00a6#x2014; executive, legislative,
\nand judicial \u00a6#x2014; which do you think has been most dangerous
\nand capable of “everywhere extending the sphere of its activity”?
\nWhy? Has this changed historically? Varies around the world?”
\n<\/font><\/font><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

Go here<\/a> to find out whether there are Law Day activities in your area
\ntoday or this week. And browse the ABA Law Day Program materials,
\nif you need referesher courses for yourself or want be dazzling at lunch
\nor dinner today.<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

\"tiny For example, there are some interesting materials aimed
\nat Middle and High School students on the timely topic
\n“<\/font>What is Judicial Independence?<\/font><\/a>” This one-page <\/font>hand-out<\/font><\/a>
\npresents a number of fact scenarios and asks whether the
\npractice violated the principle of judicial independence. As
\nthey say, some are ripped from recent news headlines. <\/font><\/font><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"LawDayBalloons\"\u00a0 Get Your Law Day Mementos<\/strong>:\u00a0 Okay, we promised not to be preachy, but we can still have some fun, can’t we? It wouldn’t be Law Day at f\/k\/a without us mentioning the fun items available at the ABA Law Day Store<\/a>. For example:<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n


\n\"LawDay2006\"<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

The Law Day Poster<\/a> is only $4.95, and it is “A must-have”
\nfor Law Day” — providing “a colorful and intriguing vehicle
\nfor communicating our nation’s three branches of government.” <\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n

the anger from work
\nin my son’s birthday balloons<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n


\nGeorge Swede<\/font> <\/font><\/a>
\n Almost Unseen<\/a><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

Law Day Balloons<\/a> come in a Package of 30 for only $8.50.
\nThey are “fun for kids and adults. Strong, helium retentive,
\nbiodegradable.”<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

\"LawDayCoolerPack\"<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

The Law Day Cooler Pack<\/a> is only $7.00, and apparently
\nneeds no sales pitch — except for the reminded that it
\n“Keeps food and beverages fresh.”<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

warm beer–
\nheat lightning flickers
\nbeyond the outfield<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

Billie Wilson<\/font><\/a>
\n <\/font>frogpond<\/font><\/em><\/a> XVII:2 (2004)<\/font><\/font><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

2005 vs. 2006<\/font><\/strong><\/em><\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

Last year, we pointed out that the word ‘lawyer’ didn’t even appear
\nin the <\/font>White House<\/font><\/a> press release proclaiming Law Day 2005. That
\nwas a good thing, since we want to focus on Law and not Lawyers;
\nand it wasn’t surprising, considering the President’s prickly relationship
\nwith the bar. This year, however, the White House Press Release
\ntitled “<\/font>Law Day, U.S.A., 2006<\/font><\/a>” (April 28, 2006) has the President
\nexclaiming that:<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

“Law Day is an occasion for us to celebrate our Constitution
\nand to <\/font>honor those in the judiciary and legal profession who
\nwork to uphold and serve its principles<\/em>.” (emphasis added)<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

Did the President leave out the comma after the word “profession”
\nintentionally? We amateur linguists want to know. <\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

\"courthouse1\"<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

Another contrast: Last year, <\/font>ATLA<\/font><\/a> (the Association of Trial Lawyers
\npf America), had lots of materials at its website about Law Day 2005.
\nThis year, not a word (as of May 1, 2006, 1 AM, ESDT) Of course, the
\ntheme last year was \u00a6#x201C;The American Jury: We the People in Action,
\nand an ATLA Community Outreach\/Politcal Action <\/font>memo<\/font><\/a> reminded
\nmembers that they should visit schools <\/font>because<\/font><\/a>“The children in our
\nschools today are our jurors of tomorrow.”<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

\"tiny Of course, ATLA has been busy with its own version
\nof protecting separation of powers — making sure the
\nlegislature doesn’t trample on ATLA turf or the rights
\nof its clients. (See April 13 <\/font>press release<\/font><\/a>, and a copy
\nof ATLA’s recent full-page ad in USAToday which asks
\n<\/font>Haven’t the Big Corporation CEOs taken enough?<\/font><\/a>). The
\nATLA ad — which was placed to fight back “Against De-
\nception from U.S. Chamber of Commerce” — ends by
\nexclaiming that the Chamber: <\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

“has already overrun Washington with money <\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

and lobbyists. Don’t let them run off with our <\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

courts!”<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

[Ed. Note<\/em>: Don’t you love it when a group aims a <\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

barb at its opponents that could have been used <\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

verbatim by its opponents against it?]<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

\"NoloSharkS\" nolo.com<\/font><\/em><\/a><\/font><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n

“tinyredcheck” In Cumberland County, North Carolina:<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

“Judges and attorneys shut down the courts to visit
\n56 elementary schools as part of the 2006 Law Day
\ncelebrations.To help explain the law to children, the
\njudges and lawyers showed the kids [a video version
\nof Aesop’s Fable “The Lion’s Share<\/em><\/a>“].<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

“In the fable, a lion agreed to share food equally with
\nall the other animals before the hunt. When dinner came,
\nhowever, the lion took most of the catch.”<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

” . . . . At the end of the day, it was judgment hour for
\nthe lion. The punishment was five days without food,
\nand the lion had to hunt for the other animals’ next meal.
\nIt was justice, fifth grade style.”<\/font><\/font><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

You can read about and see a tv clip of the encounter here<\/a>.
\n(News14Carolina, “Lawyers use fables to teach kids about the
\nlaw,” April 27, 2006)<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

\"HandOutN\"<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

Finally, we all want to end on a serious note. This past year, we have
\nseen a President acting as if he is unchecked by the Constitution when
\nit comes to fighting wars and terrorism — and watched a Supreme Court
\nthat might be far to willing to agree with him. We’ve also seen members of
\nCongress threaten to slash judiciary budgets and remove particular pieces
\nof the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction (e.g., over flag-burning or Commandment-
\nplacement). And, of course, we’ve seen a Supreme Court-nomination process
\nthat was less than edifying in its attempts to control a candidate’s conduct
\nonce on the bench. We should remember, therefore, that our Separation
\nand Balance of Powers do not work automatically. They need vigilance by
\nthe public — perhaps, especially by the legal profession.<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

update<\/font><\/strong><\/em> (May 3, 2006): In an article in the May 2006 edition<\/font><\/p>\n

of Washington Lawyer<\/em>, “A Defining Constitutional Moment<\/a>,” <\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

Bruce <\/font>Fein sounds the alarm over the Bush Adminis<\/font>tration’s <\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

claimed powers to order warrantless <\/font>surveillance when <\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

terrorism is involved. Fein <\/font>says <\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

“<\/font>If Congress flinches from its duty to reject <\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

the legality of the president\u29a3x20AC;\u2122s directive to the <\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

National Security Agency (NSA) . . . <\/font><\/font>a precedent <\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

will have been set that will permanently cripple the <\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

Constitution\u29a3x20AC;\u2122s checks and balances. . . . Unless <\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

rebuked, it will lie around like a loaded weapon, <\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

ready to be used by any incumbent who claims <\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

an urgent need.” (The Washington Lawyer<\/em>, May <\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

2006)<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

\"courthouseS\"<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

p.s<\/strong><\/em>. In case you think that <\/font>Marbury v. Madison<\/font><\/em><\/a> is well-understood
\nby the American publc, check out our “holy cow: of bull and manure<\/a>”
\n(Sept. 19, 2005). It seems that millions of Americans, unhappy with
\nSupreme Court decisions with which they disagree on “values” and <\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

“morality” issues, agree with this statement from the group <\/font>priests for life<\/font><\/em><\/a>:<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

“This [Supreme] Court, which holds such an important place
\nin our system, is \u00a6#x201C;supreme\u00a6#x201D; only in reference to the other
\ncourts in the judicial branch of government, and not in
\nreference to the other branches! The President and the
\nCongress are just as capable of interpreting the Constitution
\nas is the Court. In fact, they are sworn to do so.”<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

So, the next time you — Mr. or Ms. Lawyer or Law Professor — are
\nasked, or can arrange, to speak to a group of adults or students
\nabout the role of the judiciary in our governmental system, please
\ndo it. The program materials on independent courts <\/a>at the Law Day
\n2006 website are a good place to start your preparation.<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\n


\n\"infielderF\" While some worry about balance of power, my
\nhaijin buddy <\/font>ed markowski<\/font><\/a>, thinks of matters no less weighty:<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

– from <\/font>Haiku Harvest<\/font><\/em><\/a> (<\/font>Spring – Summer 2006<\/font><\/a>)<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

april rain…
\nmy grandson practices
\nhis infield chatter <\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

spring equinox
\ni wash mother’s hair
\nwith baby shampoo <\/font><\/font><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

sunday sunlight
\nsomewhere, someone is praying
\nfor the world to explode <\/font><\/font><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n


\n <\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

– from <\/em>Simply Haiku<\/a> senryu page<\/em>
\n (Featured Poet, Spring 2006 Vol. 4, No. 1)<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

new year’s day
\nlike every other
\nwe punch the clock<\/font><\/font><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

tax day
\nthe soda machine
\nkeeps my change<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\n

team reunion…
\ntrying to recall
\nthe catcher’s face<\/font><\/font><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

mediation day
\nthe mediator’s hair
\nparted down the middle<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\"LawDay2006Separate\"<\/font><\/font><\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

  May 1st is Law Day. If you’re at all familiar with this weblog, you’re probably expecting another sermon like “Law Day, Not Lawyers’ Day,” from 2004, or our 2005 “towards a better Law Day.” This year, however, we’re not in a preachy mood (not this very moment, that is), so we’ll just refer back […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":94,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[2926],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5291","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-pre-06-2006"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p6kP1R-1nl","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5291","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/94"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5291"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5291\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12665,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5291\/revisions\/12665"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5291"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5291"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5291"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}