California Business Practice Article

I recently had an article published in the inaugural issue of the California Business Practice. CBP is an e- business law magazine that features articles written by law professors, practicing attorneys, and students like myself. My article is about Facebook's IPO and discusses whether or not the state of California should have pinned its budget on the capital gains tax revenue expectations. The magazine is free to the public. Here is a link: http://www.calpractice.com/the-magazine/

Take a look and tell me what you think. I think there are pretty valid arguments for both sides of this discussion, but I find myself siding with not allowing the budget to include such risky numbers in their planning.

Social Entrepreneurship? Oh, you mean Toms?

Not quite.

I follow the business law blog The Conglomerate. Some of the stuff is not my cup of tea (which, I don't drink regardless). But, some of the articles hit right in my sweet spot.

There was an article yesterday talking about Social Entrepreneurship and how these hybrid companies, while helpful to those in need, are not S.E. companies. The argument is that these companies such as Toms, and Ben and Jerrys just sell premium products to a specific market niche. The prices are jacked up and thus they have plenty of money to donate an extra pair of low cost shoes to those in need. Real S.E is making an affordable low cost shoe available.

While I get the point the author is making, I find myself wrestling with the idea that these "do good" business are not social entrepreneurs. For example, Toms could just sell their unique product and not donate a shoe. Or, would that ruin their business model and make them less popular? Either way, I don't have a problem with these companies. People clearly want to buy the product and so they are doing something right. The question is whether or not the social aspect of the product is a big reason why people are purchasing.

Here is a link to the article: Conglomerate

Obamacare Revisited

Last week the Supreme Court wrapped up their review of the Obamacare trial. The verdict won't be out until some time this summer, but that won't keep voices from being heard. Mr. Obama finally decided to come out and play too. 


President Obama, who was a former Constitutional Law professor at the University of Chicago, said the following on Monday:


"I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress." 


I'm no law professor for a top 10 law school. But, I do have a little over 3 months of Con Law under my belt, and even I know that were the court to overturn Obama's health care bill, it would not be "unprecedented" territory. In fact, I could have told you after day one of con law class that this is not uncharted territory. Why? Because the most well known supreme court case in its history was covered on my first day of class. The case: Marbury v. Madison, of course...


"In Marbury in 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall laid down the doctrine of judicial review. In the 209 years since, the Supreme Court has invalidated part or all of countless laws on grounds that they violated the Constitution. All of those laws were passed by a "democratically elected" legislature of some kind, either Congress or in one of the states. And no doubt many of them were passed by "strong" majorities." http://online.wsj.com/article


Now, this is not to say that judicial activism is not alive and kicking. It most certainly is. I will leave that argument for another blog post. Needless to say, a supreme court decision ruling Obamacare unconstitutional would be a far cry from unprecedented territory. Based on precedent, it would be about as rare as a Portland Trail Blazers loss. 

Greg Oden, Portland Trail Blazers

(Yes, I'm a bitter Blazers fan. Yes, I was all about Greg Oden when we drafted him, and I probably would have been all about Sam Bowie when the Blazers drafted him over his airness, Michael Jordan, in the 1984 draft.)


Presiden Obama expressed his confidence that the justices would restrain from "activism":

"I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step."


"That Step," is a step the supreme court has taken many times before, and will likely take many times again. 

Hottest Ticket in Town...

 

Final Four? Nope. Miami Heat v. LA Lakers? Not that either. Baseball opening night? Naa.

The hottest ticket in town this week is for a seat in the supreme court chambers for the health care hearing. This is the week we've all been waiting for. Well, some of us at least. Mostly those of us who scour the news and get way too involved and passionate about politics.

President Obama's federal mandated insurance policy is in the ring with the supreme court. The holding on whether or not the plan is constitutional will not come until much later, but until then we have a lot to talk about.

The jist of the healthcare debate can be broken down into one question. Does congress have the power to federally mandate all individuals to buy health insurance? If people refuse to buy health insurance, then they receive a financial penalty.


MSNBC breaks this argument down here: http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-daily-rundown

There are 9 justices on the supreme court, and 4 of them are more notoriously conservative. Justice Kennedy will likely be a swing vote.




Conservative justices were chomping at the bit to wrestle with the counsel representing the United States. Here is an interesting article from WSJ on that topic: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000

Regardless of your political views, it is a very important and noteworthy case that will have a direct impact on all Americans.

Bob Loblaw's Law Blog

My name is Logan Pratt and I am currently in my first year of law school. The purpose of this blog is two-fold. First, I want to post on legal topics and headlines I find interesting, and hopefully others will too. Second, as I post on legal topics, I hope to personally learn more about the profession I am going into. I want to be an informed attorney, and I feel that this blog will allow me to learn and discover what type of law is most interesting to me.

So, following the footsteps of Mr. Bob Loblaw, I have started a legal blog.