As the New York Times reports today, applications from aspiring JDs are on pace to hit a thirty year low. About 30,000 brave souls have applied for a spot this fall's law school class, a staggering 20 percent drop from this time last year, and down 38 percent from 2010, as shown in the graph below from the Law School Admissions Council.  When all is said and done, about 40,000 students are projected to enroll, which would cap off a 24 percent free-fall in just three years -- or the time it takes your average student to graduate. 

In 2006 I had to make a choice between going to law school or buying a home.

The only winning move was not to play.

Frankly, the real culprit here is the hours that people are expected to work, but I don't know the structural reasons for that.

Law School Applications Are Collapsing (As They Should Be) - Jordan Weissmann - The Atlantic

For the last four months, Chinese hackers have persistently attacked The New York Times, infiltrating its computer systems and getting passwords for its reporters and other employees.

Chinese Hackers Infiltrate New York Times Computers - NYTimes.com

Lamar Alexander:

I think video games is a bigger problem than guns, because video games affect people.

Yes, a US Senator just said games are a bigger problem than guns | Ars Technica

“The lack of equity is causing both a lack of homes for sale and a lack of potential new buyers.”

Inventory and the Low Equity/No Equity Homeowner | The Big Picture

Lanny Breuer is leaving his position as head of the Justice Department’s criminal division, The Washington Post reported Wednesday.

Breuer was featured in FRONTLINE’s documentary, The Untouchables, which aired on Tuesday and explored the reasons why no Wall Street executives have been prosecuted for fraud in connection with the financial crisis.

This isn't enough.

Report: DOJ Criminal Chief Lanny Breuer Stepping Down | The Untouchables | FRONTLINE | PBS

By ROBERT J. SHILLER

WE’RE beginning to hear noises that we’ve reached a major turning point in the housing market — and that, with interest rates so low, this is a rare opportunity to buy. But are such observations on target?

It would be comforting if they were. Yet the unfortunate truth is that the tea leaves don’t clearly suggest any particular path for prices, either up or down.

Housing Market’s Future Still Has Many Clouds - NYTimes.com

Interesting progressions some of these things went through:

Georgia: 

1865:  "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  Art. I, § 4.
      
1868:  "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but the general assembly shall have power to prescribe by law the manner in which arms may be borne."  Art. I, § 14.

(That didn't take long, did it?)

1877: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne."  Art. I, § 1, ¶ VIII

[Self-defense right protected, McCoy v. State, 157 Ga. 767 (1924).]

Tennessee:

1796: "That the freemen of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence." Art. XI, § 26.

1834: "That the free white men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence." Art. I, § 26.

(Stay classy, Tennessee!)

1870: "That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime." Art. I, § 26

(Note the change in the spelling of the word defense.)

[Self-defense right protected, State v. Foutch, 34 S.W. 1, 1 (Tenn. 1896).]

Pennsylvania:

1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power. Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII.

(Of State Constitutional provisions protecting an individual right this is the oldest and strongest.)

1790: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. Art. 1, § 21 (enacted 1790, art. IX, § 21).

[Self-defense right protected, Sayres v. Commonwealth, 88 Pa. 291 (1879).]

(Duh!)

Kentucky:

1792: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Art. XII, § 23.

1799: "That the rights of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Art. X, § 23.

1850: "That the rights of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned; but the General Assembly may pass laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed arms." Art. XIII, § 25.

(A response to a contrary court holding on concealed carry. Tennessee's court ruled that concealed carry could be regulated under the original wording of their provision, but they later amended the language anyway.)

1891: "All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned: ...
Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons." § 1

State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions

I found this interesting - the southern states used militia to suppress slave revolts. The right to a militia independent of the federal government was important to them because of both the need to act quickly to suppress slave revolts as well as the risk that a federal army influenced by free states might not do so.

Focusing too much on this single datapoint in understanding the Second Amendment is surely an oversimplification. The authors of the Fourteenth Amendment stated that they wished to protect the right of recently liberated slaves to keep arms for self defense. It is, nevertheless, an interesting window into the reasons for the Second Amendment and the context of the passage of the Constitution.

Patrick Henry:

The 10th section of the 1st article, to which reference was made by the worthy member, militates against himself. It says, that “no state shall engage in war, unless actually invaded.” If you give this clause a fair construction, what is the true meaning of it? What does this relate to? Not domestic insurrections, but war. If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress insurrections. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress. The 4th section of the 4th article expressly directs that, in case of domestic violence, Congress shall protect the states on application of the legislature or executive; and the 8th section of the 1st article gives Congress power to call forth the militia to quell insurrections: there cannot, therefore, be a concurrent power. The state legislatures ought to have power to call forth the efforts of the militia, when necessary. Occasions for calling them out may be urgent, pressing, and instantaneous. The states cannot now call them, let an insurrection be ever so perilous, without an application to Congress. So long a delay may be fatal.

Confirmed: Second Amendment Framers Wanted to Protect Slavery | BobCesca.com | Liberal Politics Blog and Podcast

UNAMA found sufficiently credible and reliable evidence that more than half of 635 detainees interviewed (326 detainees) experienced torture and ill-treatment in numerous facilities of the Afghan National Police (ANP), National Directorate of Security (NDS), Afghan National Army (ANA) and Afghan Local Police (ALP) between October 2011 and October 2012. This finding is similar to UNAMA’s findings for October 2010-11 which determined that almost half of the detainees interviewed who had been held in NDS facilities and one third of detainees interviewed who had been held in ANP facilities experienced torture or ill-treatment at the hands of ANP or NDS officials. (See Map 2).

UNAMA’s new study noted that while the incidence of torture in ANP or ANBP facilities increased compared to the previous period, detainees interviewed in NDS custody experienced torture and ill-treatment at a rate that was slightly lower than the previous period. UNAMA observed that of the 105 child detainees interviewed, 80 children (76 percent) experienced torture or ill-treatment, an increase of 14 percent compared to UNAMA’s previous findings.

Lawfare › UN Assistance Mission Report on Torture in Afghan Detention Centers

The first thing I'd say on the political issue is that the film shows without any hesitation that the United States brutally tortured countless suspects - innocent and guilty - in ways that shock the conscience.

You could put the American in a Nazi uniform and the movie would be indistinguishable from any mainstream World War II movie. Yes, that's what we became...

In so many ways, this movie echoes what we are told the Senate Intelligence Committee report concludes. We got bin Laden when we stuck to Western values. When we acted like the Nazis or the Communists, we failed.

God damnit I wish conservatives in this country GOT that.

Kathryn Bigelow: Not A Torture Apologist - The Dish | By Andrew Sullivan - The Daily Beast