Bad Purpose

So today has been at least slightly more productive than yesterday on a few fronts. Though I haven't left my house all day (except to take out the trash, which let's face it, lacks a certain ambiance) I have pretty much solidified my grasp on the 14th amendment. Seeing as how that is my ConLaw prof's pet topic and will probably encompass half of the exam, I'm viewing it as a good thing. Despite this, I found plenty of time to procrastinate nonetheless. In my own defense, it was really all Katie's fault...

Laws:

Anyone who would argue that math has no place in the law, has clearly never spent time studying the law. In my view, it seems that everything in Constitutional Law centers around some incredibly complex formula. For example,

Race + multiple other factors, considered in the totality = a perfectly acceptable Affirmative Action scheme. But, Race as a plus point - individualized admissions consideration = a big smack down from the SCOTUS.

Or,

Ancient and unyielding Justices, who were no friends of FDR + New Deal objectives = big fail. So, (FDR + astronomical electoral popularity) x some intense constitutional finagling = Court Packing Plan.

If you're not familiar with the Court Packing Plan, it was, by far, one of the most inventive uses of the Constitution's intentional ambiguity that I have ever encountered. In the mid-1930s, the Great Depression was still consuming most of the country and FDR was winning big electoral victories with his vision of a "New Deal for America". The New Deal was fueled almost entirely by very progressive legislation, all of which was subject to review by the SCOTUS. Initially, it seemed that most of the legislation would survive but in 1935 the court dealt it's first blow to FDR's plans and then all hell broke loose. The court invalidated law after law, and decimated many of FDR's best laid plans.

FDR however, was not to be trifled with. In '36, he was handed one of the largest electoral victories in history, and he really took it out for a spin. At the time, 6 of the justices were not at all inclined to side with FDR on anything. 2 were centrists, less staunchly conservative than others, but still no friends of the New Deal legislation. The other 4 are famously known as "The Four Horsemen", all of whom were incredibly and unshakably against all progressive actions. Additionally, 6 of the justices on the SCOTUS were also over the age of 70. FDR put all these factors together and came up with his solution. Since the Constitution does not specify just how many justices will sit on the SCOTUS, he would simply add more. 6 more to be exact, one for every member of the court over the age of 70, all of whom would, coincidentally, agree with FDR in every way imaginable. Though the plan ultimately failed (due mainly to the indignation of the justices themselves, as well as an unforeseen ideological shift by one of the centrists) it was an incredible, not to mention ballsy, move by a strong executive (who later got to name several new justices anyway) and serves to illustrate just how malleable our legal system really is.

On it's face, this kind of intense variability doesn't really square with the rigidity of formulas and mathematics, though it's clear that all these elements are present in the diverse field of the law. Nonetheless, throw in some Aristotelian logic, a little bit of civil liberties and some old fashioned work ethic and you have my day today. At least I can be thankful that its not all rote, and sometimes, legal history isn't quite as rigid and dismal as it sounds.

Sausages:

So back to it all being Katie's fault. Katie is my former roommate and friend from undergrad. She basically serves as some strange marriage of sister, soul mate and sarcastic old-lady best friend, and is currently paying her dues to the grad-school gods down in Mississippi. We are both completely obsessed with cooking, organics and traditional foods. We spoke on the phone briefly this afternoon (which is really saying something for us, trust me) and she mentioned in passing that she had made some homemade pasta before she left to go out, which she would later cook up and have for dinner. Pasta-making is one of her new found loves in the food world and I've been meaning to get on board for a while now. So, what better time to try it than when I should be studying? Below is the recipe for my Italian Herb Pasta that I made this afternoon in between the 14th amendment and Federalism. I haven't perfected the technique quite yet, but it was a pretty good (and very tasty) attempt. Like I said, it was all Katie's fault...

Italian Herb Pasta:

1 cup flour
1/4 tsp. salt
1 egg
1/8 cup water
2 tsp. olive oil
1 tbs. assorted herbs (I used rosemary, basil, thyme and parsley)


Mix flour, salt and herbs in a mixing bowl and dump onto your countertop. Make a well in the flour and put the egg, water and oil in it. Slowly incorporate the wet and dry ingredients until you have a ball of dough (you can add some more water if its too crumbly). Put the ball of dough back in the mixing bowl, cover and let rest for at least 15 mins. After resting, put the dough back on a lightly floured countertop and knead. And knead. And knead. At least 10 minutes, until your dough is workable. Then separate the dough into 2 equal parts and work with one at a time (keep the other half covered to avoid drying). Roll the dough into a rectangle, 1/8-1/16 inches thick. Once rolled out, fold it lengthwise into thirds and slowly cut the pasta into thin strips (for linguine) with a sharp knife. Then let the pasta dry for at least a half hour (use a pasta rack if you're fancy, or the back of a chair, a wooden spoon between 2 glasses, whatever...).

To cook: Boil water. Add pasta. Cook about 5 minutes (when pasta floats, start testing for done-ness).