Holy Hullabaloos, The Blog

Bracketology

I don't know about you but I'm hard at work on my brackets for the NCAA tournament and it's just killing me.  I like starting from the final four but even those are tough to call this year.  I've got DePaul and Marquette and then of course Brown but I can't figure out the final entry--maybe Cleveland or Juneau State, but again Juneau's prospects turn on whether Brinksy Leftwalleder is going to turn pro and if you look at what the pundits are saying it seems that he's very concerned with getting some sweet deals from the corporate sponsors, one rumor has it that Kia is going to pay him $4 million just to do a set of three short pieces with Cameron Diaz and a parrot that speaks only Lithuanian, whatever the fuck that's about.  So this leaves me with either Cleveland or possibly Arkonk, I'm just totally lost.  Any suggestions?

Happy Birthday, Holy Hullabaloos: The Blog

They say that most blogs fail within one year.  And I can understand why.  It's hard to blog consistently.  Tiring.  But I'm happy to say that Holy Hullabaloos: The Blog is one year old today.  Yay, Holy Hullabaloos: The Blog.  You look so grown up!  Anyway, it's been a good year I think, we got 38,110 page views as of midnight last night, which may not be as many as Huffington Post gets in thirty seconds, but still seems like a lot to me.  So thank you everyone who has come to Holy Hullabaloos: The Blog this past year.  I don't know quite what I'll be doing with the blog this coming year, but as of now I still plan to post at least a couple of times a week.  So I hope you'll check back from time to time.  Bye bye now.

Reading Video Now Online

For what it's worth (maybe four cents?), BU has put its video of my reading at the Barnes & Noble a little while back online.  You can check it out right here.

Tons of Fun at the Supreme Court

The Constitution of the United States has all sorts of weird things in it.  Indeed, I'm currently writing a book called "The Odd Clauses" for Beacon Press about some of these clauses.  One of the clauses I'm not talking about in the book is the so-called "Tonnage Clause" of Article I, Section 10.  How well do you know what the "Tonnage Clause" is?  To find out, take the following short "Tonnage Clause" quiz:

 

The Tonnage Clause provides that:

 

A)     Congress may not pass any law affecting interstate commerce involving goods weighing, in the aggregate, less than one ton;

 

B)    No state may impose any tax on any ship based on the ship's carrying capacity, without the consent of Congress;

 

C)    Rhinoceroses generally must weigh a certain number of tons;

 

D)     The President of the United States must obtain congressional approval before deploying any naval carrier weighing more than two-hundred thousand pounds.

 

If you guessed "C" you are wrong.  Under the Constitution, rhinoceroses can weigh whatever they want.  The correct answer is "B."  Specifically, the Constitution says that "No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage." 

 

That's kind of weird.  It's weird, isn't it?  (yes.)

 

The idea behind the clause is that the framers of the Constitution did not want states that happened to be on the sea to have an unfair economic advantage over inland states.  This whole "all states are equal" idea was a really important one in the nation's early days.  For example, the Constitution prohibits states from imposing taxes on imports.  If it weren't for this provision, a seaside state like Massachusetts could collect a tax on imports and get rich at the expense of consumers from other states who would then have to pay higher prices for whatever was imported (frying pans, for example, or cheese).  But the ban on taxing imports wouldn't really work if a state like Massachusetts could just charge big fees on ships using its ports.  "Ummm," the state would say, winking its commonwealthian eye: "This isn't a tax on imports; it's just a, uhh, you know, fee for using our port."  Ka-ching.  And thus, the Tonnage Clause.

 

I should probably add that the Tonnage Clause applies to cities as well as states.  The framers didn't want seaside cities to be able to impose taxes on using their ports any more than seaside states.  The framers weren't nitwits.

 

But what exactly does the Tonnage Clause prohibit?  We know, for example, that states can tax personal property.  If you have a car, your state can tax you for it.  If you use your car in another state for a good amount of time, that state can tax you for it.  So, what happens, for example, if a ship uses a state's port for a good amount of time (say, it docks in the state's port for thirty days per year).  Can't the state just say that it is imposing a personal property tax on the ship rather than a tax for using the port?  Does that get the state around the prohibition of the Tonnage Clause?

 

The Supreme Court actually considered this issue in its most recent term (it was a slow year).  The case was called Polar Tankers, Inc. v. City of Valdez, Alaska, and it involved the City of Valdez's attempt to impose a tax on boats "at least 95 feet in length" that brought at least $1 million of cargo to the city per year.  The city said it was a valid personal property tax, just like its tax on mobile homes and trailers.  The oil shipping company challenging the tax said that the city was charging to use its ports in violation of the Tonnage Clause.  The Supreme Court, in a convoluted bunch of opinions, agreed with the company and held the tax unconstitutional.  The following is a short play in which I present a fictional (but yet accurately representative) account of the Court's deliberations in the case.

 

Justice Breyer:  Has anyone noticed how big my head is?

 

Justice Stevens:  I'm so old.

 

Justice Alito:  Anyway, what do you guys think about the case?  And when I say "guys," I really pretty much mean "guys" because, you know, even though 52% of the population is female, we've only got one woman here.

 

Justice Ginsburg:  I'm lonely.

 

Justice Breyer:  Well, here's the deal.  This tax violates the Tonnage Clause, I'm sure of it.  The tax only applies to ships, and the amount depends on the ship's capacity. 

 

Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Roberts, Thomas, and Alito nod their heads vigorously.  Justice Kennedy, for some reason, does that robot dance from the eighties.

 

Justice Breyer:  Furthermore, while it is true that a city can tax ships in the same manner that it taxes other personal property of those who do business in the city, here the city has not actually taxed other kinds of personal property.  It doesn't tax cars, airplanes, or business machinery, and although it taxes mobile homes and trailers, it only taxes those things when they are "affixed" to a particular site, which means they are taxed as real property rather than personal property.  Thus, the city loses.

 

Justice Roberts:  I'm sorry, Steve, but I can't agree with you on that last point.  The Constitution says that cities can't impose taxes on ships for using their ports.  This, as you said earlier, is exactly such a tax.  That's the end of the story.  I don't agree that "a city can tax ships in the same manner that it taxes other personal property of those who do business in the city," so to me it doesn't matter if the city taxes other personal property or not.  In my view, you've pulled this exception straight out of your ass, which is exactly where it belongs.

 

Justice Kennedy:  [stops doing robot dance]  Ouch.

 

Justice Thomas:  I agree with Roberts on this one.

 

Justice Alito:  What?  Who was that?  Who said that?  Was that you, Clarence?  I've never heard you speak before. 

 

[silence]

 

Justice Stevens:  You're all wrong!  You're all always wrong.  I'm practically ninety years old, it's ridiculous how old I am.  Remember the Maine!

 

Justice Roberts:  Why don't you tell us why we're all wrong, John.  And please step down from the conference table.

 

Justice Stevens [stepping down from the conference table]: Right.  Sorry.  I think our cases establish that Valdez's tax is a legitimate personal property tax because it's based on the value of the ship and only applies to ships that have significant contacts with the city.  The Tonnage Clause only prohibits taxing ships for the privilege of entering a port.  The ships that are taxed here have done much more than just enter the port.  Most of these tankers spend forty days per year in the port, and the crews of these boats increase the town's population by 10%.  The city should be able to impose a tax to pay for the services required by these boats and their crews.

 

Justice Souter:  I agree with Brother Stevens on this.   And I'd add that even if it's true that a city can only impose a personal property tax on a port-using boat if it imposes similar taxes on other personal property, here the city of Valdez has imposed similar taxes on personal property.  The city's tax on mobile homes and trailers is just like its tax on boats—they can only be taxed if they have significant contact with the city.

 

Justice Breyer:  Well, that's nice, Souter.  But it looks like only you and Stevens would uphold this tax.  The other seven of us think it's a violation of the Tonnage Clause, although I guess only five of us think it's important that the city doesn't impose similar personal property taxes on other things.

 

Justice Alito:  Actually, only four of you think that.  I agree with you that the city doesn't impose similar property taxes on other things, but I'm not sure it's relevant.  In other words, I haven't decided whether I think your exception belongs in your ass or not, and I'll wait until a case comes up where it matters to decide. 

 

Justice Breyer tries to throw a pen at Justice Alito, but it hits the back of his own head instead.

 

Justice Souter [picking up duffel bag]:  Well, OK, then.  That's it.  I'm off to New Hampshire for the rest of my life, and I hope to never see any of you ever again.

Memoir Monday: I Was a Bank Teller

Like everyone I know, I had a lot of ridiculous jobs when I was a kid.  I was a paper boy for years, getting up at 5:20 am to deliver papers to 24 houses on Eisenhower and Truman roads and hoping that this friend of mine who inexplicably liked to come along with me for no money wouldn't steal another bottle of my father's Wild Turkey while I wasn't looking; I worked as a stock boy in a food store where everyone called me "College Boy" in really bad Boston accents; I inputted periodicals into a computer system at a library with a lady named Birdie. 

One of my early jobs, which I did the summer between high school and college, was working as a bank teller.  My mother worked in banks, and she knew lots of people who worked in banks, and so I got a job in a bank.  I hated working in the bank. For one thing, I sucked at working at the bank.  The whole goal of being a teller is to finish the day with the right amount of money in your drawer.  If you were supposed to give out three thousand four hundred and fifty two dollars and eighteen cents, according to the computer based on what you inputted throughout the day, then when you count up the money at the end of the shift, you have to show that you in fact gave out three thousand four hundred and fifty two dollars and eighteen cents, so as to prove that you didn't pocket a twenty or stick a hundred dollar bill up your ass or something.  Well, I never stuck a hundred dollar bill up my ass, but I also never ended up with the right amount of money in my drawer.  I don't know why.  It was always embarrassing though.

Once, a guy I knew from school came in to cash a check.  He gave me both the check and the check stub.  I gave him back the check and cashed the check stub.  The next day my boss came up to me, slammed the check stub down on the counter, and said, loudly: "Jay, where am I going to get the money for this?"  Oops.  Wexler=Doofus.  Luckily, since I knew the guy, I called him up and asked him if he could bring in the actual check.  Most people would have probably said they had thrown it away and then gone and cashed the check at some other bank, so as to receive twice the amount that they deserved.  This guy, however, was the most upstanding citizen of our school, the winner of some sort of "most upstanding guy in the school award" at graduation.  And, it turns out, he's done pretty well for himself, now being the Attorney General of New Hampshire and all.  Thanks for bringing back that check for me, Mike Delaney!

This was the first job where I had to dress up.  When I think about the clown-like outfits I wore that summer, it makes me want to cry.  I had one outfit that consisted of yellow pants (that's right: YELLOW PANTS), a blue and white striped shirt, and a blue square knit tie.  I had another outfit which involved a pair of pinstripe pants (black on white) with a pink shirt and a black knit tie.  Put this together with the butthead mullet hairdo I was sporting, and all I can say is OhdearsweetmotherofgodIhatemyself.

Next Memoir Monday installment: How I almost became a door to door meat salesman.

Review of HH at Lowering the Bar

The always hilarious Kevin Underhill has kindly posted a nice review of HH over at his very funny blog that you should visit often called Lowering the Bar, which is a very funny blog about law that you should visit often, have I said that already?

Here's the review.

I apologize for being blog-lame lately.  I am confident that in the next few days I will respond to popular demand and write not only an entry on the Salazar v. Buono oral argument, in which Justice Scalia said some really stupid stuff, but also a new Memoir Monday about how once, when working as a bank teller, I cashed a check stub by a classmate who is now the Attorney General of New Hampshire.

Last Night's Reading

Thank you to everyone who came out for my reading at Barnes & Noble last night.  The BU Daily Free Press has a very nice piece on it.  Thank you, BU Daily Free Press, you are nice.

I Changed My Snack!

After about a year or so, I finally changed the snack on my webpage.  Check it out, it's delicious!

Hullabalooza Continues over at On Faith

I have a post up this afternoon on the Newsweek/Washington Post blog about religion called "On Faith."  It's about school prayer, Senate prayer, and how they are not the same.  There's also a link to an excerpt from HH. 

Two More (pretty) Good Reviews of HH from the Blogosophere

It's very fun coming across reviews of HH on the blogosphere.  Even if they're negative, like the one I posted about yesterday, it's still nice to know that people are reading the book, and constructive criticism is helpful as I think about the book I'm writing now on the odd clauses of the Constitution.  Anyway, I came across two more reviews that are mostly positive.  There's this one from the Weekly Sift (kind of about 1/2 way down the page).  What I like most about this one is how the writer says that even if you don't agree with my political views (my jokes about Scalia), it doesn't matter because I make jokes about myself as well.  My favorite line: "If you don't agree, he's just a funny guy with funny ideas."

Then there's this review, in which the blogger totally hated all my jokes and stories but still "pretty much loved reading" the book and "learned a lot" and thought it was "fascinating."  My favorite part of this review is when she was faced with a woman who was planning a non-ironic trip to the Creation Museum and was trying to think of something to say.  She writes:  "'What would Jay Wexler say?' I thought frantically. It probably would have been something super corny."

She's right!  I would have said: "Uhhh, ehh, isn't it funny how Kansas City is in both Kansas and Missouri?  Isn't that weird?  I think it's weird."