Slow Torture

Prof Property delightfully gave us approximately 80 pages to read in the Possessory Interests and Future Estates Primer. Regardless of what you are reading, whether it be Con Law, Contracts or Torts, 80 pages is a formidable task. To compound the voluminous reading, the assignment takes forever because you can't just read what a Fee Simple Subject to Executory Limitation consists of and then move on. These are very abstract concepts that must be practiced in order to comprehend. But to top everything off is the quote by Prof Property, "This might look like a lot of reading, but it reads a lot faster than the case book." Yeah right, are you freaking serious?

Even though I might seem upset, admittedly, I am somewhat intrigued with the complexities and nuances of Possessory Interests and Future Estates. However, I keep saying to myself, O.K. remainder or reversion follows a finite estate but what the hell does that mean and how is that practical? So far so good. In the distance I sense the Rule Against Perpetuities lurking, waiting to pounce and destroy every iota of confidence.

AirTime

If I could jump like this I would jump every day, everywhere, and on everything. Man this Dude has Ups!!

The Futility of it All

School can seem so distant at times. Off on the horizon, it lurks as you analyze the point, the worth, the investment. Then realization comes crashing in reminding you of the worth, the point, the good investment. There seem so many other paths and roads to take in life and reflection, I feel, is somewhat necessary in order to make sense and closure of it all. We are master's of our destiny, whatever that may be, however, at times we seem relegated to assume certain roles rather than exploring our true interests. But in the end it all makes sense in the grand scheme.

On a less ideological note, why did the framers of the constitution make life so damn difficult? Understandably they had to write a document governing multiple bodies of the U.S. without stepping on the poor little states toes. They also had to possess enough foresight to envision the evolution of our country and write a document with enough teeth to effectively govern such a diverse and widespread nation. However, it seems the flexibility of the Constitution that allowed such an innovative country to be ruled also provided great difficulty in determining the framers intentions. This lone conundrum provides us with a whole entire course called Con Law, which is devoted to the exciting task or playing, What Would the Framers Do? (I think we need bracelets analogous to the "What Would God/Jesus Do" WWJD). My question remains, why did they not just say hey look, this is what we mean when we say "among the states" or the Tenth Amendment is not a truism, and to be completely honest we never intended the states to have that many powers at all.

Realistically they could never have conceivable done anything remotely close to that because such strict language would probably have never given the Constitution such the staying power it currently enjoys, not to mention we wouldn’t have the wonderful Con Law course. As I write this analysis/rant Prof. Chemerinsky and his wonderful book entitled "Constitutional Law" (how creative) beckons from my bed, begging me to delve into the wonderful subject of the Taxing and Spending Power.

P.S. Prof. Rosenn is da MAN!! even though he seems to think every modern justice writes opinions that make no sense.

Another Beautiful February Day

Lake Osceola - I could not resist taking this picture on my walk home after my late afternoon class.

The Christening

Insert Random Rambling