I found Huffman (one the three profs you had to deliver a paper to) somewhat sarcastic and condesending, which might be fine on a personal blog site, but on the front page of the op-ed section?

I made another one of my huge comments over at the BlueOregon site on the M37 topic. As usual, out of habit, I try to paint folks as idiots, particularly lawyers.

It sort of supports the striking of M37 but the reasoning is far different than that of the judge. Note that the law school dean that offered an opinion piece in the Oregonian was one of the three professors to whom I had to deliver a paper so as to eventually practice law for money. I did not go chat about topics because well, I was, am, too shy . . if you can believe that.

I do like your argument skills.

Yes, the authors of M37 weren’t thinking through the legal aspects of their measure. That’s the problem with the initiative process. It’s populist by nature and often populism lacks foresight as it did in this case and in the case of Measure 36.

Any M37-based-claimant surely has blood relatives, by definition, that could have done exactly the same.

The notion that my parents could demand the payment of cash from the government would thus be wholly inapplicable. They could not get cash by reason of a government denial of a right to build, because they can build.

The equal privileges and immunities (EPI) analysis, to reflect a mere vigorous attention to defining the class, must further confine the blood relative’s notion to those folks who did not avail themselves of the then-existing-opportunity to build (or at least divide).

I could say a whole lot more, but the issue above lets me isolate on the EPI issues and avoid entirely the great debates about property.

Now, if I can shake free from the documents of ownership held by the state and the feds to all the future fruits of my labor (by reason of attending law school), for life, then I might be able to get hitched and have kids and raise a few cows and ride some horses and grow some strawberries. Let’s talk about liberty and property from the guy who IS “property” of the state. I am a state slave; albeit a state slave that has a far greater chance of getting an amicus accepted by the supreme court on the M37 case than your run-of-the-mill member of the bar.

Don’t forget that one of the justices has a heightened interest in administrative procedures. He would know exactly what I mean with the argument about narrowing the definition of the class for purposes of EPI.

Sid, I would assert that the protagonists are acting like beginners . . or at least like kids. The wording of M37 was idiotic from the get go but what would I know?

BTW — do you know any single gals that can handle shoveling manure and can enjoy a good debate, as banter rather than as a personal affront? My liberty interest has been substantially reduced by reason of the advancement of the self-interest of banks to avoid being taxed to cover appropriations . . . but it was given the happy name of “student loans.” The BUS Project folks should be the first to recognize this deception where the real beneficiary and the nominal beneficiary are not one in the same . . . but I am astounded that such deceptions just keep multiplying in the mystifying name of progress.