Replies

"what we decided to do was to supplement this standard curriculum with three new required classes"

Okay. According to your post, the 1L curriculum included the classes I mentioned: civil procedure, criminal law and procedure, torts, property, and contracts. It wasn't a case of me being lucky or smart. Those are simply core 1L classes.

But your posts also doesn't say that any of these classes were eliminated - the 'basic common law" ones being torts, property, and contracts. It says the standard curriculum was 'supplemented' with three new classes. Only one of the three dealt with international law. One was on complex issues. That makes sense; in the real world few legal matters are simply "hey, that's a fee simply determinable! We win!"

One is on legislation and regulation. I took classes in those areas, just not general classes and not as a 1L. The sad fact is that it would be virtually impossible to practice law today without understanding how legislation is interpreted and enforced by regulation. (I hate that, although two federal laws and the accompanying regulations have basically been my career; I advice people on how to keep the government at bay.)

You and I could probably spend a long afternoon agreeing on how judicial activism and liberals have perverted the Constitution - but as a conservative attorney, a member of the Federalist Society, I don't see anything in this new curriculum that scares me. And I don't see a thing about bowing to imperial law, or shifting to "Positive Law." You may not have quoted all you meant to quote, because I didn't see the term "Positive Law" "mentioned specifically." And we do live in a 'regulatory state." You need lawyers to protect you from that as much as the government needs lawyers to ensnare you in that (although I wish we only needed two lawyers, total, in the nation). At some point we need lawyers who understand the 'regulatory state' to dismantle it, solely because Semtex and C-4 don't work. (That was a joke, Homeland Security)

I'm simply not distressed by these changes in the curriculum, but I appreciate your concern for the Constitution.

Thank you for your valuable infomation in your post #133.

Re my post. I should proof these things at the review stage. "Post" instead of 'posts'; 'simple', not 'simply', 'advise', not 'advice', and so on.

The only good thing is I can't give lawyers a bad name.