Not a 1L anymore

Now that I have finished my 3rd semester, it is time for some reflections on what I have learned. Its strange, I have already written 3,000 words today for a final exam, but I don't feel like this counts as typing words. I suppose its not so strange.

Administrative law was a study in psychology. Many express frustration with the slow pace of congress. Congress is designed to move slowly. There are endless procedures and obstacles in the path of any bill. It seems that the threat of unemployment is the only force powerful enough to get congressmen to agree with each other long enough to pass something through the immense gridlock of procedure. Administrative law is not really about procedures. It doesn't really matter whether there are enough votes, filibusters, or notice and comments. At the end of the day, if the head of the agency wants something to happen, then it will happen. In a sense, administrative law is run by dictators; it is the efficient, smooth, well-oiled machine that the general public thinks congress should be.

As such, the study of administrative law is the study of dictators. Human psychology plays a large role. Why does statutory language get interpreted based on the statute's purpose in the hands of some, whereas in the hands of other, the language is plumbed for its literal, textual meaning? Why are certain industries able to garner influence in agencies more than others? What constrains the actions of these dictators? What do they fear? All of these questions are far more significant than the process by which new rules are subject to comment, or what regulations are subject to OIRA review. This is where the human drama happens. This is where the different branches of government engage in Mortal Kombat!

Corporate law is akin to Constitutional law. This result is not at all what I was anticipating when I signed up for the course. I thought that there would be a lot of math, and a lot of greedy corporations having to battle SEC regulations. This is not the case, at least not in the introductory course I took. Instead, I learned that a corporation is like a country. It has a constitution, elected officials, and delegated administrators, all of whom share a separation of powers and owe different duties and obligations to one another. This is just like a bill of rights in constitutional law, in which those in power must set boundaries on just how much they can get away with before a court will declare them to be stepping on their brethren's toes. Its a made up fantasy world with its own set of rules and laws--a lot like World of Warcraft, actually.

8th Amendment law is a mess. I was confused about the death penalty before I took the class; now I know where I stand, even though there is much about my newfound position that I do not understand. But in a way, that is good, because its revealed some inconsistencies in my own psyche. For example, I can now tell you a million reasons why the death penalty, as administered in the US, is deeply flawed. It is an unfair, racist system that arbitrarily, incorrectly, and unnecessarily imposes death as a way of ironically asserting justice over those who arbitrarily, incorrectly, and unnecessarily impose death on others. Yet, at the same time, there are people who I instinctively feel should be executed. I remember feeling like it was perfectly normal and natural that Saddam Hussein should be put to death. The Chesire killer in Connecticut is another news story that makes me think that execution must be the natural consequence of someone who thinks its acceptable to behave as they did. The execution of mass murderers hardly strikes me as "cruel and unusual," since they are only receiving a fraction of the death they caused in the world. This is what I feel in my gut. And yet, I know in my head that execution is barbaric. That it is retribution. That it is hypocritical. And that criminals are more than just the crimes they committed. There are extreme cases where I feel the death penalty is warranted, and there are extreme cases in which I feel the death penalty is abhorrent. How do I reconcile these two extremes? What do they mean for those cases in the middle that seem both necessary and abhorrent? I have more questions than answers when it comes to the death penalty, and yet I feel like I have greater understanding.