"as smart as a chess champ"
The question is not regarding chess champs intelligence. They are an odd lot.
My question is specifically is a magna cum laude from Harvard Law School sufficient qualification to evaluate the "free corn" proposal by the redistribution crowd.
It has become apparent this week that common sense folk are more qualified to evaluate proposals before the Supreme Court than magna cum laude Harvard Law School graduates.
Before this week, I was convinced that magna cum laude carried some minimum analytical skills.
That was before I saw this:
Harvard Law School Graduation Exam:
Choose and discuss one of the following questions:
1. Is it constitutional for the government to require the people to purchase cell phones?
2. Where does free corn come from?
3. Do people have free choice?
4. How many bullets does Homeland Security require to control the populace?
5. Can the government create debt willy-nilly?*
6. Is capital punishment constitutional as punishment for refusing to eat the free corn?
7. Did the pigs in Animal Farm receive free corn?
8. Is the Declaration of Independence still applicable since 1984? Specifically the part about "When in the course, etc"
9. When the founders wrote the Constitution, and designed the structure of the Congress, the Executive, and the Supreme Court branches, did they consider the future and what sort of degrees Harvard might be bestowing, were they aware of the consequences of "affirmative action" , etc. Could they envision what we have become? I mean what were they thinking? And what exactly was old Ben warning about?
PS. One word answers are acceptable.
PPS. Magna cum laude : please answer two.
Reference material:
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Can we go back to --Justice Breyer asked a question, and it kind of interrupted your answer to my question. And tell me if I'm wrong about this, but I thought a major, major point of your argument was that the people who don't participate in this market are making it much more expensive for the people who do; that is, they will get -- a goodly number of them will get services that they can't afford at the point when they need them, and the result is that everybody else's premiums get raised.
So, you're not -- it's not your free choice just to do something for yourself. What you do is going to affect others, affect them in a major way.
GENERAL VERRILLI: That -- that absolutely is a justification for Congress's action here.
* "The original meaning is 'whether one wishes to or not; willingly or unwillingly'. Example from the Elizabethan dramatist Thomas Middleton: "Thou shalt trust me in spite of thy teeth, furnish me with some money wille nille [sic].""
NOTE : THE FOLLOWING ARE ACTUAL QUESTIONS FROM HARVARD LAW:
1870 : Regarding selling potatoes in a field:
pds.lib.harvard.edu
1986 : Regarding demonstrating in front of an abortion clinic
pds.lib.harvard.edu
|
