Found On The Internets: A Soviet Poster A Day

When your website is called A Soviet Poster a Day, what it does is pretty self-explanatory, Comrade.

(Hat tip to Andrew Sullivan)

Suing God: Jurisdictional Purgatory?

To make a point about frivolous lawsuits, Nebraska state senator Ernie Chambers is suing God.

Although such a case might have political or social merits, my first thought was that a cheeky court willing to hear Chambers would come to the same conclusion as the court in Gerald Mayo v. Satan and His Staff, where a Pennsylvania court found that it lacked jurisdiction over Satan (who was being sued), as the defendant was "a foreign prince" probably beyond that court's jurisdictional reach.

It occurs to me, however, that suing God might present a different set of jurisdictional issues than suing Satan. I'll merely get the conversation started and hope that you all can expand it via the comments:

• Foreseeability: Here the omniknowledgeability (yes, I shall create that word) of The Almighty works against He/She/It if He/She/It wants to avoid lawsuit in Nebraska. Even if God is a non-resident of Nebraska (naturally, you'd need to test for domicile to determine its status), the ability of God to foresee that its actions would cause in-state injury could subject it to Nebraska's jurisdiction under Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984). Of course, Chambers's complaint would still need to arise out of these Nebraska-directed-Almighty actions, as Calder concerns specific personal jurisdiction. To satisfy the broader general personal jurisdiction standard, God's actions would need to satisfy the continuous and systematic contacts that SCOTUS reiterated in Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984).


• One Person, All Persons? If we're talking about a Triune God, it's unclear to me whether getting jurisdiction of One Person is sufficient, or whether jurisdiction of all Three Persons must be obtained. Since tag jurisdiction – transient jurisdiction where notice is served on a party while that party is physically in the jurisdiction (e.g. visiting friends) – does not apply to corporations, an analogous jurisdictional limit might apply to a deity with multiple instantiations. See Burnham v. Superior Court, 495 U.S. 604, 609 n.1 (1990).


• Book of Mormon Connection? Although various Mormon scholars believe that the Book of Mormon describes God as physically present in the Great Lakes region several hundred years ago, it is unclear if God was physically present in Nebraska at this time, or whether these corporeal contacts should even factor in to determining jurisdiction several hundred years later.


• Other jurisdictional possibilities are out there, – Agency Law, Foreign Relations, etc. – so please feel free to add them in the comments section. Also note that Australian cinema has already addressed this question.

Many thanks to Dan & Colin for many of the above points. Where the points sound inspired, that's them. Where they sound insipid, that's me.

Update (9/21/07): God has answered the complaint and is disputing jurisdiction.

Law School Tabloids: Principles and Policies of a Scandal

This past week, the law school world got its own, far more clothed, version of tabloid scandal as the as-yet-to-exist UC-Irvine School of Law hired Erwin Chemerinsky , reknowned constitutional scholar, to be its founding dean, then fired him for being too controversial, then said that it wasn't because he was too controversial, then hired him again, because the decision to fire him had turned out to be too controversial. Blawgers everywhere have hashed and rehashed the ins and outs of this embarrassingly public situation (see here, here, and here).

However, I fear that not all these sharp legal minds pay enough attention to the population most commonly affected by these sorts of break up-make up cycles to accurately analyze the situation. Therefore, we need to provide them with some assistance. What do you predict is in store for Chancellor Drake and Professor Chemerinsky?

1. Chancellor Drake, previously unknown, will squeeze the publicity for all the endowments he can get, while Professor Chemerinsky falls down the law school tiers, last spotted drunkenly trying to read from Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies at Regent University School of Law.
2. Professor Chemerinsky will attract large crowds to UCI, but they will leave largely disappointed with the overall result, while Chancellor Drake will make increasingly pointless public appearances which only serve to draw attention his waning relevance.
3. Despite putting the ring on Professor Chemerinsky's finger, Chancellor Drake will back out yet again, unable to play second-fiddle. Professor Chemerinsky will go back to his roots at USC and focus on the treatise work that made his star shine so brightly in the first place.
4. Against all odds, they will make it work, produce a beautiful baby law school, and watch their careers fall off a cliff.

The legal world needs your expertise!

North of Wall Street, There Be Dragons

Although Wall Street got its name from the Walloons, a group of French-speaking settlers in early New Amsterdam, the street actually was laid out in 1685 along the fortified wall which capped the north side of 17^th Century Manhattan.

This stunning overlay on Yahoo Maps – combining a map of the city in 1660 with a modern map – shows exactly how much the tip of Manhattan has grown in the last 400 years.



Note that Pearl Street, nearly a quarter mile from the water today, was Manhattan's original eastern shoreline. Broad Street's original canal is also visible, as is the original battery standing guard over New York Harbor.

(Hat tip to Gothamist.)

Arbitrator vs. Arbitrageur

It amuses me that two words with more-or-less the same etymology would have such different modern meanings:

When an arbitrageur sees bias and imbalance,
she seizes upon it for personal gain.

When an arbitrator sees bias and imbalance,
she tries to even the imbalance and undo the bias.

Ogden's Ode to the Boys I Loathe

You're able to quote copyrighted works
without being dragged into court,
but it's hard to legally quote a poem
because a poem is short.

I quote the passage that comes below
not to take away this poet's money.
I quote the poem that follows below,
because it is true, and funny.

My heart leaps up when I behold
A rainbow in the sky;
Contrariwise, my blood runs cold
When little boys go by.
For little boys as little boys,
No special hate I carry,
But now and then they grow to men,
And when they do, they marry.
No matter how they tarry,
Eventually they marry.
And, swine among the pearls,
They marry little girls.

from Song To Be Sung by the Father of Infant Female Children by Ogden Nash

Although I link to the full poem, it – like other poems similarly situated (published before 1978 with copyright notice, renewed with the copyright office, etc.) – is covered by U.S. copyright for 95 years from the point of publication.

Simple Rules for Jaywalking in Manhattan

This week, New York City launched a new tourism campaign called Just Ask the Locals. The campaign is devoted to making tourists feel in-the-know about the city. The program provides them with helpful tips and encourages visitors to, as you might have guessed, ask local New Yorkers if they need help.

Though the thought of a Bermuda-shorts-wearing tourist asking Johnny New York for directions sounds at once dangerous and amusing, I think the campaign is a winner. I've found the average New Yorker to be shockingly friendly, bordering on chatty. A New Yorker's friendliness is borne of necessity: We're all in this together, living right on top of one another — we might as well make it livable.

In the spirit of Just Ask a Local, I thought I'd provide visitors to Gotham with some simple guidance that will help them navigate the city and avoid calamity. I'm going to help you jaywalk.

Jaywalking is ubiquitous in New York City, especially Manhattan. However, crossing at the crosswalk in the face of a DON'T WALK sign is not due some lawless impulse lurking deep in the hearts of all New Yorkers, it's due to the layout of the city.

In Manhattan, the roads running roughly north/south (or uptown/downtown) are avenues. At Central Park, Manhattan Island is 15 avenues wide. Generally, these are 4 lane boulevards, sometimes with a median. Crossing 15 avenues on foot would mean walking nearly 3 miles.

Conversely, streets in Manhattan run roughly east/west. There are almost 300 streets from the southern tip of Manhattan to its northern end. (Although highest numerical street in Manhattan is 220^th Street, 1^st Street is not even close to the bottom of the island.) Most streets in Manhattan are one-way, one-lane affairs. Crossing 15 streets translates into walking a little over a half mile.

So let's say you're a New Yorker walking south down 10^th Avenue between 46^th and 45^th. It took you a little over a minute to traverse this block, and now you're facing an illuminated DON'T WALK sign, even though you can clearly see there are no cars coming down this one-way, one-lane, 30-foot-wide street. Like everyone else, you're going to jaywalk. Here's how you're going to do it.

Sauntering's Simple Rules for Jaywalking in Manhattan

1. At an intersection, if you can cross the street at a casual pace, you may jaywalk.
   
   This is really the only rule. If you are able to casually cross the street, walk signal or no, you may do so. Naturally, the rule has a number of caveats:
   
   
   • So you want to jaywalk across an avenue or a through street.
     Manhattan jaywalking is an art developed for the one-way, one-lane streets, not the broad avenues. However, the same rules apply. If you can see clearly and walk casually across multiple lanes of traffic, feel free. If you run, we will secretly believe that you have robbed a store.
   
   
   • So you want to jaywalk with your infant, your luggage, or your dog.
     You still may jaywalk while encumbered with cumbersome, precious, or cumbersome & precious cargo, but please do so only when you can still obey the casual pace rule. Watching a person hurriedly jaywalk with a stroller makes even the most thick-skinned New Yorker wince.
     
     • Note: You will occasionally see people in this category engage in Principled Non-Jaywalking. These are the conscientious objectors of the New York City streets. You look at them and you know that they know the deal, yet they choose not to jaywalk. Maybe they're teaching a child to obey the traffic signals (a useful skill elsewhere in the world, if not in Manhattan) or maybe they're a nanny, eager to appear concerned with their charge's welfare, should a friend of the family be about.
       
   
   
   • So you want to jaywalk in the presence of other tourists or the elderly.
     Jaywalking in Times Square or near Rockefeller Center means jaywalking in the presence of people who have never been exposed to Manhattanite jaywalking. They will follow you into the intersection, oblivious to the signals and the traffic. Unawares, they will take terrible risks and tempt death. Look out for them a little bit.
     
     • Note: When walking in one of these touristy areas, you will be able to discern local New Yorkers from the rest of the throng because locals will walk in the gutter/parking lane.
       
       Tourists walk umpteen abreast, choking foot traffic on even the broadest sidewalks. Staying near the gutter guarantees locals that their pace will not be impaired by the skyward-looking mob.
     
     One of the joys of New York is that the elderly live among the rest of society, not sequestered away in their suburban homes or care centers. Yet, one of these senior Gothamites might follow your example without your locomotive ability, jaywalking dangerously. Please keep an eye out for them.
     

What does the NYPD think about jaywalking? In 1998, then mayor Rudy Guliani announced a crackdown on jaywalking. A year and a half later, the New York Times reported that a "spokesman for the Police Department wavered between saying the anti-jaywalking initiative was over and that there never was an anti-jaywalking initiative."

So there, New York visitor. Jaywalk to your heart's content, but please jaywalk correctly.

2008 GOP Candidates: U.S. Founded as Christian Nation.1797 Congress: No It Wasn't.

(Crossposted from the American Constitution Society :: Columbia Law School)

In Conroy v. Aniskoff, 507 U.S. 511, 520 (1993), Antonin Scalia includes a comment that he repeated here at Columbia Law School in 2006 — that the use of legislative history to bolster one's own position is "the equivalent of entering a crowded cocktail party and looking over the heads of the guests for one's friends." As much as I agree with Scalia here, I find it heartening to stumble across this bit of congressionally approved language from the 5^th Congress:

Treaty of Peace and Friendship, signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796 (3 Ramada I, A. H. 1211), and at Algiers January 3, 1797 (4 Rajab, A. H. 1211). Original in Arabic. Submitted to the Senate May 29, 1797. (Message of May 26, 1797.) Resolution of advice and consent June 7, 1797. Ratified by the United States June 10, 1797. As to the ratification generally, see the notes. Proclaimed Jane 10, 1797.

ARTICLE 11

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Útil Pero No Usa: El Gnaborretni

Following up on Andy’s post, I thought ’d highlight a related punctuation mark, the gnaborretni (the inverted interrobang, in more ways than one).

Microwave Cookery

On a recent trip to a local sandwich shop, I noticed something unusual about the shop’s microwave oven.


It is unclear from this cell-phone photo whether the aluminum foil is replacing a broken viewing window or whether the shop owner is reassuring his customers that he is not reading their minds. Regardless, the tears in the foil can’t be good.