Foreign Law

So teaching Constitutional Law has become something of a surreal experience. The casebook has all these old cases, addressing archaic controversies like . . . the constitutionality of the office of independent counsel, the line-item veto, presidential immunity from suit during office (Clinton v. Jones is in the casebook), congressional term limits . . . makes you remember the Clinton years. Good times.

But try to figure out what to even teach today. In a Constitutional Law class, I mean. We truly live in lawless times. I would date that era to a specific point in time--December 12, 2000. Bush v. Gore looks like a Supreme Court decision, except, well, there's no law in it. It's a one-time-only, one-and-off, pick of the president. I guess that the Supremos forgot to turn the law switch back on after they suspended the Constitution.

Now, the president claims the authority, not to be free from suit during his time in office, but to do whatever the hell he likes.

Btw, if you still don't think Clinton v. Jones was incorrectly decided, think of it this way. If GWB is right, and that the 1993 WTC attack marks some kind of start of the war against al Qaeda, then Clinton's case in Jones was even stronger. Because what kind of madmen would want to subject the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of Civilization, Goodness, and Light to a paltry civil suit for money damages, when he should be focused like a laser beam on defeating Evil and stopping the terrorists from "killing your families"?

Oh, yeah, I remember who those madmen were. They're the same madmen who today want to let the SCiCCGL have a free hand to torture, conduct domestic surveillance, whatever.

To get back to the point of this post, if it even has a point: The Clinton years, from a Constitutional Law standpoint, were a profoundly un-serious time. So my position is essentially like teaching a course in buying stocks on margin after the Crash. Because things have crashed.