The Grace by which I stand

When we are too weak to find the words to ask for what we need, the Spirit intercedes for us. We are reminded that we can do all things through Him that strengthens us.

My pastor said that to be a leader, it takes courage. We must face off with trials, stand up when tested, prove true through conflict, and stay the course trusted. Courage sets us apart. When he was tested, it was because of King David's convictions and his commitment to God that he gathered up courage, went to battle against the giant Goliath, defeated him, and overcame the great enemy of the Israelites at the time.

Daddy: thank you for teaching me the power of prayer.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Artist : Brian Littrell
Song : In Christ Alone

In Christ alone will I glory
Though I could pride myself in battles won
For I've been blessed beyond measure
And by His strength alone I overcome
Oh, I could stop and count successes like diamonds in my hands
But those trophies could not equal to the grace by which I stand

In Christ alone
I place my trust
And find my glory in the power of the cross
In every victory
Let it be said of me
My source of strength
My source of hope

Is Christ alone

In Christ alone do I glory
For only by His grace I am redeemed
For only His tender mercy
Could reach beyond my weakness to my need
And now I seek no greater honor in just to know Him more
And to count my gains but losses to the glory of my Lord

In Christ alone
I place my trust
And find my glory in the power of the cross
In every victory
Let it be said of me
My source of strength
My source of hope

Is Christ alone

A Legal Marvel

The following article really speaks for itself. I used Tribe's book this past semester. Good stuff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Laurence Tribe's Big Surprise
Tony Mauro
Legal Times
05-27-2005


Ordinarily, the announcement by a law professor that he is not completing the second volume of the third edition of his book would not even merit a yawn.

But when that professor is Harvard Law School's liberal lion Laurence Tribe, the book is his famed treatise "American Constitutional Law" and he announces his decision in a letter to a Supreme Court justice, legal academics are left gasping in surprise and reaching deep for the appropriate metaphor.

"It's like Michael Jordan leaving basketball at the top of his game," says Ross Davies of George Mason University School of Law.

"This is like George Lucas announcing that he would not finish Episode III," adds Florida International University law professor Thomas Baker.

More esoterically, Yale Law School Professor Jack Balkin compares Tribe's announcement to Harvard Professor Henry Hart sitting down and refusing to deliver his third Holmes Lecture at Harvard Law School in 1963. "I can't think of a scholarly decision of similar symbolic importance," Balkin wrote on his Balkinization blog.

Tribe's treatise, first published in 1978, has been acclaimed as the leading -- or at least the most provocative -- modern synthesis of constitutional doctrine, assigned to countless law students and cited in more than 60 Supreme Court decisions. He revised it in 1988 and again in 1999 when the first volume of the third edition was published.

That most recent volume made headlines, surprisingly enough, because in it Tribe embraced a more individual rights view of the Second Amendment than he had before -- a shift that the National Rifle Association and other gun rights advocates seized on as vindication of their longtime assertions.

Now, with the nonpublication of the second volume, Tribe may make headlines again. Tribe's announcement came April 29 in a letter to Justice Stephen Breyer, who had asked him casually how he was coming on the second volume, which was scheduled to cover individual rights issues.

Tribe decided to write Breyer back. His "Dear Steve" letter and a 12-page elaboration will be published by Green Bag, Davies' law review at George Mason.

Tribe, 63, said neither personal factors nor ennui were at issue in his decision not to proceed. "It's not my health, which is fine," he wrote. "Or that I've lost interest in the questions the unpublished chapters would have discussed or the drive to pursue them doggedly."

Rather, Tribe said he had made his decision because, as he told Breyer, "conflict over basic constitutional premises is today at a fever pitch," moving rapidly in unpredictable directions. "No treatise, in my sense of that term, can be true to this moment in our constitutional history -- to its conflicts, innovations and complexities."

Tribe implies that a mere catalog or hornbook reciting recent decisions might be achievable, even if rapidly outdated. But a treatise seeking to explain constitutional themes and pull together seemingly disparate doctrines can't be done now, Tribe asserts. "I do not have, nor do I believe I have seen, a vision capacious and convincing enough to propound as an organizing principle for the next phase in the law of our Constitution."

Comparing the current turmoil to the beginning of Franklin D. Roosevelt's presidency in 1932, Tribe said, "attempting to proclaim a new synthesis would bespeak utter hubris were it not so manifestly quixotic."

Tribe cited the current debate over the use of international law in Court decisionmaking, renewed discussion of the "Constitution in Exile" movement, and sharp divisions over Establishment Clause doctrine as examples of flux in constitutional law. He also took a swipe at the "tragic" handling of the Terry Schiavo case by President George W. Bush and others, and conveyed a general discontent with the combative conservatism that he sees dominating the legal landscape.

Tribe's statement marks "an important moment" in legal scholarship, Yale's Balkin says, because of Tribe's status as the leading symbol of liberal constitutional interpretation. "When Larry Tribe says that a paradigm shift may be on the way, it is worth sitting up and taking notice."

Georgetown University Law Center professor Mark Tushnet, former president of the Association of American Law Schools, also said Tribe's decision is noteworthy -- and understandable. "There is always fluctuation, a buzz about certain doctrines," says Tushnet. "But here he's saying, correctly I think, that the uncertainty is much greater. Constitutional law has been proceeding on a plateau or a mesa, but now we are moving toward the edge."

Vanderbilt University Law School Professor Suzanna Sherry says Tribe is "a little late in realizing there is no grand unifying theory." She adds that Tribe's treatise was "invaluable when it was published, but now there are many more resources available."

George Mason's Davies held out hope that Tribe, like Michael Jordan, might "come back and take another swing at it." He added, "I refer to it all the time. When you are reading his book, it's like reading a book, not an encyclopedia. There's a rhetorical flair." Baker at Florida International agrees: "I feel a sense of loss that such a gifted and capable scholar has thrown up his hands."

Tribe's publisher is more optimistic. "Foundation Press will wait," said publisher Steve Errick. "We'll write Larry next year about his plans and keep the light on." Errick added, "Other texts and other publishers might fill the gap for now, but Larry's book defines and leads the way."

Tribe's decision gives a boost to his two main competitors in the market for constitutional treatises: Erwin Chemerinsky's "Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies" and "Treatise on Constitutional Law: Substance and Procedure" by Ronald Rotunda and John Nowak.

Authors of both books had different reactions to Tribe's announcement.

Chemerinsky, now a law professor at Duke, once worked as a research assistant to Tribe for his first edition. "Larry Tribe's book is the most brilliant book on constitutional law that I have read. Everyone -- judges, lawyers, professors, students -- will be worse off for not having up-to-date editions of this landmark book. It's a huge loss."

Rotunda, a professor at George Mason, said, "I can sympathize. It's a lot of work to synthesize." But Rotunda did not agree that the current flux of the law made synthesis impossible. "Every time is a transition time. There are always new directions in the law. I'm not sure this time is all that different."

Law as a Profession

A common stereotype, and one that probably deserves some credibility, is that practicing law is a lucrative choice of a profession. There are many lawyers who earn a lot of money. What is more, our culture builds up this image, much like it does the medical profession. Doctors and lawyers - marry one and you are set for life.

The sad fact of the matter is that the legal profession's image takes away from its higher calling: justice. The powerful dollar (or yen, or euro, or whatever) becomes a glittering deterrent for a newly minted attorney in deciding what jobs to consider and which one to take. Paying back student loans, buying fast cars, and living in the ultra-nice areas all entice and enslave the profession. We forget those principles of justice learned in our opening days and months of law school. We set aside those legal ideals of great jurists past in favor of current trends and impressions.

As a profession, we should not focus on money or power. Both are finite and corrupting. Instead, we should focus on what my Con Law professor called the General Level. Every now and then, and more often than we do, we should think about the cases we are presenting before the court and what they mean in the larger scheme. We should think about how we are contributing to precedent, and whether it is in a good or a bad way. We should carry with us always those principles of justice so rooted in our society that they are fundamental ways of thinking - or at least they should be for practicing attorneys. We should not choose the area of law that earns us the most money, but the area of law we would most enjoy practicing in and to which we could contribute the most. That may very well be business torts, but it may also be civil litigation for people in rural areas. It should be our conscious, not our wallet, that guides our practice as individuals and as a profession.

Set Apart

I begin with a statement: The essence of humanity is spiritual. There is logic and emotion, yes, but that is not what makes a person, a person. In the beginning, the world was created - the oceans, the land, the animals, and the heavens. Then, God created man. "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." (Gen 1:27). What sets us apart is that we were created in the image of God.

The question at this point becomes, what does that mean? Does God have two legs and arms, a head full of hair, a sense of smell? I do not think it is our physical nature that the Bible is referring to, but the spiritual nature of man that was created in God's image. That is what sets us apart from all the other creatures on the earth.

Nothing in the physical world gives us salvation; it is through faith, by a decision of the heart, a decision of our spirit to accept and follow Christ that we rise from the fall and come to God again. For many years, physical offerings were given to God for forgiveness. Ultimately, however, it was a spiritual offering that brought salvation to the entire world. "I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live." (John 5:25). If the essence of humanity is not spiritual, then how could it be that those who are dead physically can still hear the word of God and chose life? Humanity is spiritual, and that spirit was created in God's image, and that is what sets us apart from the rest of creation.

This has great significance today. For example, in the debate about homosexuality, some people justify it by saying it is natural and point to species of, say, African frogs that can change sex on call. However, though frogs are a part of creation and received the breath of life (See Gen 1:30), they were not set apart and created in God's image. Men have a higher calling than frogs and the rest of creation. We are called to serve God and submit to Him in love because He loves us. There is a specific prohibition against homosexuality in the book of Leviticus, and we must follow it.

Another example is in the abortion debate. When does life begin? Life begins at conception with the zygote. God knew us before and during our growth in our mother's womb (Jer 1:5). The physical status of a person does not correlate to his or her spiritual status. If we are spiritual, then abortion must be murder, since the spirit already resides in the mother's womb no matter the size of child.

This particular blog entry may offend some people who think they can't help but be homosexual or that it is woman's body, she may do as she chooses. We all belong to God because He created us. We are called to treat our bodies as temples to the Lord. That is so very important when living in a culture of pleasure, gratification, and sin.

Can we amend some amendments?

This will be short due to time constraints. Nonetheless, I must rant.

The 9th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America says, "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The 10th Amendment to the Constitution says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Well, now isn't that great? It is pretty clear there are some "rights" out there not mentioned in the constitution, like the highly inclusive right of privacy perhaps, but it isn't clear who has them and who isn't allowed to mess with them except that the Federal Government neither has them nor can touch them. So, my fellow Constitutional law scholars, we have a problem; a problem the Court has yet to really address.

Really these amendments need to be changed...Replaced...something. I'm very much the advocate of states rights, but I'm even more an advocate for individual rights. Ultimately, fundamental rights (and yes, that is ambiguous in and of itself) should be retained by the people exclusively. States should have no say in that area.

Now the question really is, what is fundamental? If the right to an abortion fundamental? What about the right to marry someone of the same sex? The question depends on how you define the right; there may not be a fundamental right to have an abortion, but there may be a fundamental right to privacy and decisional autonomy. Should the government have any say at all in what we do with our bodies? Or is that ultimately a moral choice - one which has consequences before God and no other? Then again, if you say it is a moral choice, the bible if very clear about civil obedience and the need to obey the government. No man (or woman) has power but for the grace of God.

Regardless, the Framers could have been a lot more clear about who has what rights. If they had just said that rights not given to the Federal Government or States in the Constitution or the amendments were reserved to the people, that would make studying for a Con Law exam easier...and Constitutional jurisprudence more manageable. However, we are faced with debates of static and dynamic rights, of expressed and implied liberties, of original intent versus evolving mores. Posterity has been given the task of defining individual rights, who has them, and who can limit them. Wouldn't it have been better to say that in the first place?