File #4516: "DICTA_vol15_no4_2014.pdf"


VOL. XV∙ NO. 4
MAY 2014

Congratulations class of 2014
By Allie Deangellis
Change is inevitable. That’s easy to understand. Inertia mandates that life as we
conceive it today will be different tomorrow, ten days from now, ten years from
now. What is not so easy to understand is
how we’ve come to collectively acknowledge the passage of time as a vehicle for
our transformation. Things don’t simply
change; they are imbued with a sense of
betterment, a sense of purpose. And we
pay homage to this ideal, unknowingly perhaps, every time we tell someone to ‘give it
time’; that ‘things will get better’; and ‘good
things come to those who wait’. Like the gi-

Continued on page 3


Write-On Competition Approaches
By: Alex Maur
It’s May 14th, and you’ve just walked out of
your Torts final – you’re done 1L! The last thing
you’ll want to do is think about anything school
or law related, and you shouldn’t! Instead, you
should probably do a lot of relaxing, sleeping
and binge Netflix watching for a couple of days.
You’ll want to do a lot of resting up, because on
May 19th at 9:00am all the important materials
for the Write-On Competition will become available on Campus Cruiser.

The way I would describe 1L year is like
some kind of extreme marathon, so I know that
it’s hard to imagine sitting down and committing two more weeks to learning a new style
of writing and submitting a complete piece of
writing. But it’s worth it! Joining a journal provides students with the opportunity to develop
great editing and writing skills that employers
always appreciate. You’ll definitely be surprised
how well you know that pesky Bluebook by the
end next year. And being on a journal isn’t only
about the work; it’s also a great chance to meet
Continued on page 2

Marathon, Pages 4 & 5
Letter to SULS Women, Page 6
Justice John Marshal, Page 7
Commentary Page 8
Ski Trip, Page 9

MAY 2014


Don’t Forget About
the Write On!
Continued from Page 1

2Ls from other sections and 3Ls
that are on each of the editorial
boards. It’s definitely another way
to branch out and meet some new
people during your second year.
My biggest piece of advice for
the competition would be to take
it one day at a time. Although it
seems daunting to tackle an unknown piece of legal writing, the

information packets you will receive on the first day will be full
of details and they will make clear
what is expected for your submission. Everyone is in the same boat,
so there’s no point worrying too
much about the fact that you’ve
never written anything like this
While everyone has different
approaches, I took
the first week to concentrate on getting familiar with the topic,
research the relevant
case law and outline
my piece. Then I
slowly started the actual writing process.
Keep in mind that you
Tuesday, April 27: Open
will likely get frusHouse hosted by all the journals
trated and want to just
on 4th Floor from 11am-1pm and
give up on the whole
5pm-7pm. Come by ask any questhing. I remember
tions you might have about the
finding it hard to stay
Write-On Competition.
motivated for a few
reasons, including the
Wednesday, May 14:
fact that this isn’t a
Last day of finals.
graded exercise and
since it is completely
Monday, May 19:
optional. Just rememCompetition Writing Packber that it will only
ets will be available on Campus
be more frustrating
Cruiser at 9:00am.
if you end up submitting nothing at all.
Sunday, June 1:
Good luck on all
All submissions are due on Camyour finals! The finpus Cruiser by 5:00pm.
ish line is definitely
in sight. So make sure
Sunday, July 13:
to conserve some of
Honor Boards will make calls
that 1L energy for the
notifying all selected students (keep
post-finals Write-On those phones on ring).
you won’t regret it!

Jennifer Faillace

Opinion Editor
Alex Zamenhof

Managing Editor
Alexandra Hassell

Staff Writers & Copy Editors
Allie DeAngelis
Jeff Gangi
Shannon O’Connor
Lucas Oliver
Alex Maur

Art Director
Yuen Yi Chung
News Editor
Andrew K. Di Iorio
Layout Editor
Hillary S. Cheng

Board of Publishers
Jennifer Faillace
Alexandra Hassell
Melanie Klibanoff
Casandra Medeiros

Dicta is the official student newspaper of the Suffolk Law School
community, existing solely to help foster a sense of community
through communication. The goal of Dicta is to educate, inform,
enlighten, and entertain the student body through outstanding
reporting and editorials on news, events, trends, sports, arts, food,
and popular culture.
The opinions and views expressed in Dicta are not necessarily
those of the Dicta staff and are not the opinions of Suffolk
University Law School or the student body. Suffolk Law School
students control and conduct all facets of this paper. Dicta does not
discriminate against any persons and complies with the university
policies concerning equality.
Dicta encourages students, alumni, faculty, and administrators to
submit letters to the editor and articles for publication. Submissions
should include the author’s name, class and/or position at the
university or in the community. Dicta reserves the right to edit
and publish all submissions. Anonymous submissions will not be


MAY 2014


Commencement 2014
Continued from Page 1

gantic flag aloft in Sargent Hall, this is a notion
uniquely American. Every time we utter one of
these phrases we espouse a National belief that
ties our sense of self-worth directly to our ability to improve ourselves: “Pull yourself up by
your Bootstraps” they say.
The decision to attend law school is a decision many of us made with the prospect of our
own future prosperity in mind. Much like the
Great Generation who so admired self-reliance,
many people become lawyers so they can make
their own luck. Despite ourselves and this oftromanticized bootstrap mentality, I think what
we all have learned is not simply how to make
ourselves better, but how to enrich the world
around us.
Making ourselves better, making things better, it doesn’t end at graduation. Rather it beings
today in this beautiful space. The Wang Theater
opened its doors in 1925 under a different moniker. Initially named the Metropolitan Theater,
this place was the unofficial Boston landmark of
the roaring twenties and remains the largest theater in New England today. Since its restoration,

Commencement is
a day for reconciling
how to begin with what
we’ve just finished.
Change is inevitable,
but what remains
constant is the value
we’ve invested in ourselves...
we can experience the theater now as it stood in
all its original splendor.
Look around you. This theater is not a temple
unto itself but a testament to the great American
works that have been performed here. It is not

admired because it is beautiful—it is admired
because it stands to serve the people who come
to enjoy it. Our law school education may be
compared to this theater: elaborate like these
gilded walls and forged by the same decades of
history. The three or four long years of training stand as unwavering as these Ionic columns
while our tedium over legal minutiae is the paint
chipping at the walls. The groundwork you’ve
laid is as dense and precise as the smooth marble footing by which we shall make our descent
out of this place. We went to law school for ourselves, but I believe we’ve left with a greater
sense of purpose for this education.
Commencement is a day for reconciling how
to begin with what we’ve just finished. Change
is inevitable, but what remains constant is the
value we’ve invested in ourselves, and the
wealth we create when we use that value in the
service of others. I want to say we all have the
courage to be optimistic; and as the Chairman
of the Board would remind us, the best is yet
to come.
Thank you Mom and Dad and Congratulations Class of 2014.



26.2 Miles is Wicked Far
The 2014 Boston Marathon
By Melanie Klibanoff (Editor-In-Chief)
In the devastating aftermath of the 2013 Boston Marathon, several in the Suffolk Law community qualified and registered for the 2014
Boston Marathon. On April 21st, along with
about 36,000 runners, Mark Dolan (3L), Greg
Galizo (2L), Meghan McIver (2L), David Chorney, and Melanie North (library staff) ran the
26.2-mile stretch. In addition to the training and

Greg Galizo stops to work out the cramps


MAY 2014

physical pain, many of our Suffolk Law members raised funds for their respective charities.
As law students, most of us live in between
the 5th and 7th floors of the Moakley Law Library. Melanie North, the circulation reserve
supervisor for the past 14 years, is part of the
heart and backbone of that library many Suffolk law students call our second home. When
asked about why she ran and what it meant to
finish, Mel said, “I ran the marathon this year
due to the tragic events that happened last year,
I was stopped at mile
25 and was unable to
finish. I have survived
cancer twice, surgeries, treatments and the

High fives for Mark Dolan


sudden loss of my father in 2012, which is why
I decided to run last year to prove to everyone
that struggles with adversities that you can over
come anything to achieve your dream. Strength,
passion, determination, and pure heart led me to
the finish this year. Crossing that finish line was
a dream come true for me, so many emotions;
tears of joy, and pride were present as soon as
I crossed! It was a day that I will never forget,
a day of pure joy and accomplishment.” North
ran for Team Mass Eye & Ear and embodies the
resilience and determination the Suffolk Law
community represents.
A fellow section mate, Meghan McIver (2A),
ran the marathon for family, friends, survivors,
first responders, and the Lenny Zakim Foundation. “This years Boston Marathon was unbelievable! I was so honored and proud to be
running for this great city!” Meghan raised over
$2,100 on behalf of the Lenny Zakim Fund.
Another section mate, Greg Galizio (2A), ran
Continues on Page 5



MAY 2014

Marathon Monday
Continued from Page 4

solo this year after running on the MA
State Police team last year. “Growing
up in Massachusetts, I always wanted
to run the Boston Marathon. During
my 1L year in 2013 I trained for the
marathon for months but became one
of the 5,000 plus runners who were
stopped inside mile 25 when the finish line was shutdown. There was no
shortage of motivation to run the Boston Marathon this year and be a small
part of what was an extraordinary day
for this city. Turning onto Boylston
Street, seeing the scores of people
lining the course well into the afternoon as I finally finished this race on
Monday was something I will never
On behalf of Dicta, congratulations
to all that ran! It is a major accomplishment and a lifetime experience.
We are Boston Strong, but even more
we are #SuffolkStrong! Thank you all
for proudly representing the Suffolk
Law community.

Melanie North

Meghan McIver




An Open Letter to the
Women of Suffolk Law
By Allie Deangelis
If I have to sit through another class where the girl in front of me is online
shopping I am going to scream. I’m serious. I stand behind this not because
it is distracting to those around you, which it is, and not because it is a waste
of what is often borrowed money, which it is. It’s because of Katy Perry.
It all started back in 2012 when Katy Perry, in her acceptance speech for
Woman of the Year Award, proclaimed that she was not a feminist. And expectedly, the twitter sphere raged on. When everyone had just about moved
on with their lives and their editorial pieces, Miss Katy was asked earlier this
month whether or not she considered herself a feminist. And with an utterly
quizzical tone, she proclaimed that she was. Redemption? Almost.
Why do we care about Katy Perry. We aren’t sure she knows what the
term ‘feminist’ means, not to mention the fact that we, as a group of decently-educated Americans, should publicly announce once and for all we
no longer need people like Seth Rogan or Katy Perry to make politically
charged statements about topics they have zero education or relevant experience concerning. If you don’t resent the fact that celebrities, Canadians no
less, can speak before a Congressional hearing and you can’t, then you might
as well become a felon, move to Alabama, and disenfranchise yourself. We
care about Katy Perry (not to mention Beyoncé’s new “***Flawless”) because finally a famous female artist is striking the right chord.
The internet is the most ubiquitous near essential coming of the next wave
of something we haven’t even thought of yet; or maybe it’s something we
cannot imagine. Besides instantaneous communication, it’s most dramatic
effect to date bears on the collection and organization of data. Availability
of vast amounts of information, recalled effortlessly, is changing our quest

MAY 2014

for knowledge in a way that will hopefully change the world. And you, you
are using it to buy shoes.
When I see a woman shopping during class, I see her fulfilling a stereotype. When I see a woman shopping during class, I see her endless pursuit of
stuff. I see her perpetuating some endless cycle of consumption. When I see
a woman shopping during class, I see her imagining how to adorn herself like
an ornament and how to hold herself like the pictures on the screen. When I
see a woman shopping during class, I see her wasting her time.
‘Feminist’ isn’t an easy word to throw around in conversation. In fact,
it’s downright alienating. Some people don’t like to hear the word feminist
because they are tired of hearing about an imaginary war between the sexes
fought by bra-burners and lesbians, and then there are some that think men
and women have met parity and there’s no need to bring it up in the first
place. That Hilary seems to be doing pretty well for herself. While Hilary is
doing pretty well for herself, there’s no reason to stop there. Just because we
have a black president doesn’t mean racism is no longer a problem.
Katy Perry proclaimed herself a feminist because she is a strong, professional, successful woman, and she stands behind that assessment. It’s not
about competing with men, it’s not about replacing men, it’s about sustaining
meaningful opportunities for women in a world where over half of college
graduates are female but comprise less than one-fifth of the executives in
businesses of the Fortune 500 and less than 20% of the seats in Congress.
Perry’s proclamation is important because she is reinforcing the notion of female-empowerment amidst this unequal statistical backdrop, and we should
take note of the message regardless of the fact it comes from a woman who
shoots whip cream from her bikini top.
Feminism isn’t dead, but it does need smart, professional women like
yourself to keep its manifesto alive. Would you call yourself a feminist? In
public? To a stranger? To Taylor Swift? If you’ve never even thought about
it, maybe it’s time to figure that out. Feminism is a good thing and the more
we openly stand behind women who publicly support it, the more mainstream it will become.

It’s Not Goodbye,
It’s See You Later
A Farewell to Faillace
By Melanie Klibanoff
There comes a time when the torch gets passed down. People graduate and
move on to what we have all worked for at least three years for, the chance to
practice as an attorney. Jennifer Faillace, Dicta’s Editor-In-Chief for the past
few years, is graduating and taking the MA and VT bar exams.
From the entire Dicta team of staff writers, layout, editors, and eboard members – we wish you well Jenny as you depart us and embark on your incredibly
bright future as an attorney. I have enjoyed working with you and honored to
call you a friend. You better come back for “Fries and Pies” next year!

Jennifer Faillace (R) & Melanie Kibanoff



MAY 2014

Justice John Marshall:
By Daniel Benevento

The Preservation of Power

Thomas Jefferson had just defeated John
Adams in the fourth race for the presidency.
Adams was a Federalist while Jefferson was of
the opposing Anti-Federalist worldview. Political parties were new labels for old ideologies
and both of these men had deep convictions concerning the future of their new country. Adams
foresaw his soon-to-be successor’s plans, which
were bent on abolishing Federalism. So, within
the final week of Adams’ presidency, Adams
appointed forty-two Federalist justices of the
peace in order to maintain power for his party.
One of the men whom Adams appointed was
named William Marbury. However, Marbury’s
commission by Adams, which had been signed
and sealed, had failed to be delivered by James
Madison—Jefferson’s secretary of state—before Jefferson had taken his oath of office. As
far as Marbury, Adams, and the Federalists
were concerned, Marbury’s position had been
legally secured. On the other hand, as far as
Madison, Jefferson, and the Anti-Federalists
were concerned, Marbury’s position—along
with numerous other hopeful justices of the
peace—had missed the deadline.
The Federalists sought a “writ of mandamus,” from the Latin meaning literally “we
command.” Under the Judiciary Act of 1789,
this writ was an order that could have forced the
Anti-Federalists to recognize Marbury’s commission via the Supreme Court. Then entered
Chief Justice John Marshall. Here was a man
who had fought alongside Washington at Valley Forge, was appointed as one of the “XYZ”
commissioners sent to deal with the French in
1798, and had served briefly as John Adam’s
secretary of state. Furthermore, Marshall was
the justice who read Jefferson his oath of office.
William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court 24
(2001). This swearing-in would prove to be a
historical scene not unlike when Pope Leo III
crowned Charlemagne, where it took a minister
to make a king. In spite of all of Marshall’s
achievements, it would be his opinion in Mar-

bury v. Madison that would unexpectedly shape
the future of the United States and ultimately
be his biggest contribution to American sovereignty.
Marbury’s only hope for becoming justice
of the peace would be for the Supreme Court
to uphold this writ. Marshall declared, “It is
therefore decidedly the opinion of the court,
that when a commission has been signed by the
president, the appointment is made; and that
the commission is complete when the seal of
the United States has been affixed to it by the
secretary of state.” Erwin Chemerinsky, Constitutional Law 3 (2013). In other words, the
Court saw the delivery as irrelevant because the
signature of the president was the final step of
the commission.

Rather than fight against
the grain, Marshall simply permitted the presidential cabinet to have
what they wanted.
If Marshall’s opinion had ended there, the
Federalists would have had a victory. However, Marshall then commented on the nature of
the Act itself. “The authority, therefore, given
to the supreme court, by the act establishing
the judicial courts of the United States, to issue
writs of mandamus to public officers, appears
not to be warranted by the constitution.” Id. at
6. In other words, Marshall believed that the
Constitution restricted the Supreme Court to
certain perimeters. When Congress passed the
Judicial Act, they had extended those perimeters
beyond the implicit boarders of the Constitution. That is to say, if Congress were permitted to create powers that broadened the scope
of any given branch of government, it would
reduce the Constitution—the supreme law of

the land as delegated in Article VI—to a mere
guideline. Here, Marshall foresaw a slippery
slope, which is why the Supreme Court ruled
that the Judiciary Act was unconstitutional. In
short, the Court rejected Congress’ granting
of extended power. It was a wise ruling that
stalled Congress from treating the Constitution like a Russian doll that would eventually
be engulfed by larger dolls. In sum, the Court
declared that although Adam’s signature was
sufficient for Marbury to become a justice, and
although the Judiciary Act did give the Court
the power to literally push this envelope, Marshall’s opinion was that Congress had given the
Court too much power. Without the writ, the
Court had no jurisdiction to hear the case. In
the end, Marbury never got the job.
Those are the facts of Marbury v. Madison,
but the fun begins upon speculation. Imagine
Jefferson’s state of mind when this case was
going to the Court. On the one hand, should
the Supreme Court have ruled that the writ
should be denied, Jefferson would have obviously won. On the other hand, should the Court
have ruled that the writ should be upheld, as
the executive with no precedents having been
set, Jefferson probably would have just ignored
the Court’s ruling. This is a situation known
as “damning the dilemma.” Either way, Jefferson and the anti-Federalists had no chance of
failure. However, I am sure that Jefferson was
not expecting what Marshall actually did. Marshall did not simply say that Jefferson won, but
that the Act gave the Supreme Court too much
power. The irony is that by denying this power,
the Court found itself as the most powerful of
the Three Branches. Yes, the Federalists “won”
when the Court declared that it had no jurisdiction to hear the case, but Jefferson must have
realized that he had only won because the Supreme Court permitted Jefferson’s victory.
Perhaps Marshall was just making the decision
that he deemed to be the wisest. Nevertheless,
he found himself in a position where if he had
accepted more power, it would have ultimately
reduced his power the moment when Congress
Continues on Page 8



1L is the
by Allie Deangelis
I’ve been thinking about what I want to do when
I graduate. Really evaluating the decision to practice, to become a courtroom attorney. I’ve got it
spun like this: when you ask someone to picture a
lawyer, about 90% of the population will describe
someone in a suit standing up in a courtroom. And
I think just about every law student has at least once
imagined himself or herself in a suit, standing up in
court. The attorney archetype seems to be one who
stands in court in front of a judge and beside an
opponent in order to mete out a resolution to a conflict. The standing, the arguing, the presentation—
it’s about advocacy. You are there to do someone
else’s bidding. We don’t stand for ourselves.
Which brings me to another point I’ve been
thinking about lately: going to law school is an incredibly alienating task. Think about your life as
a student for a moment; let’s begin as a 1L. The

MAY 2014

strangest phenomenon is the Socratic method. You
are singled out from about 100 other people for no
other reason but to reinforce the fact that potentially, one day, you may have to stand up in court
and speak out loud yourself. (If you’re in the ‘it
gets students to do their reading’ camp, I’m sorry
to inform you that you’re wrong. Do you think a
system that evaluates competency entirely on one
grade generated from the sole examination offered
in that course reflects the desire to determine how a
student is keeping a particular pace in learning that
material?) When you study, you read. When you
read, you read by yourself. You sit in the library by
yourself. And since I see others doing it so often, I
can say you take all the breaks in between by yourself. You take the bar by yourself. And then when
you pass, you hang the iconic shingle by yourself.
Compared to the end game, this advocacy business,
it all seems a little ironic. In order to represent others you must first completely alienate yourself from
What can we distill from all this? I’m not sure.
I think the best way to fight the loneliness is to
turn the machine in the other direction. In the late
1960s, Rutgers Law School did a 180. The dean
invited Arthur Kinoy, lead lawyer in the southern
civil rights movement, to join the faculty. Following a racially charged police riot in 1967 that killed
26 people and saw 10 million dollars in destroyed

Continued from Page 7

passed an act granting itself more power. Rather than fight against the grain
and form an opinion that would have been challenged and maybe even made
the Court to appear silly upon being ignored, Marshall simply permitted the
presidential cabinet to have what they wanted. Moreover, Marshall’s clever
maneuver permitted him to maintain respect from the Federalists, the AntiFederalists, and each of the Justices, as he was a man who had a talent for
unifying opposing ideologues. That is the beauty behind Marbury v. Madison.
Throughout the years, similar Court decisions have been made. In William
J. Clinton, President of the United States v. City of New York 524 U.S. 417
(1998), the Court declared that Congress’ Line Item Veto
Act was unconstitutional because it permitted the president to carve Congress’ budgetary bills without having to have them reviewed by Congress before signing them. Id. at 333. Although this act was made in an effort to
save money, Justice Stevens followed in the basic tradition of John Marshall,
recognizing the potential problems of permitting the president to pass certain

property, the school opened its doors as headquarters for the local civil rights movement. The student
body began to transform, attracting social activists,
women, and minorities. By their demand, the curriculum did a 180, providing for politically relevant
courses while Rutgers pioneered a clinical education system now embraced by mainstream legal
institutions across the county. Infamously dubbed
‘The People’s Electric Law School’, Rutgers was
transformed by an electrified student body that was
in turn transformed by a legal education of their
own making.
I’m not sure what became of those electric Rutgers graduates so much as I’m not sure my ‘Ban
Fracking Now’ sticker does much good brandished
from my cubicle wall. It’s a start. We can all do our
own part to move the machine. Open your eyes: this
is the sleepiest three to four years of your life and
you’ll be tempted to hit the snooze with a post-grad
gig less creative than a P.F. Changs after it’s all
over. We’ve spent hours of solitude learning what
the professors tell us to, but at the end of the day
they’re not using this stuff to do any real advocating. Demand to learn what you need in order to
represent the interests of people you actually care
about. Because that way, you won’t be using all the
lonely hours just to do something for someone else,
you’ll be doing it for yourself, too.

budgetary bills in any from he should desire. Id. at 334. In Immigration &
Naturalization Service v. Jagdish Rai Chadha 462 U.S. 919 (1983), the Immigration and Nationality Act authorized one House of Congress to invalidate the
decision of the Executive Branch, pursuant to authority delegated by Congress
to the Attorney General of the United States, allowing a particular deportable
alien named Chadha to remain in the United States. Id. at 345. Here, 180 years
after Marshall delivered his opinion in Marbury, his concern had been realized
most directly because it was an example of Congress granting itself power
beyond the Constitution. So, it was Chief Justice Burger’s turn to uphold
the traditions of the Marbury trilogy. Id. at 350. Like Marbury and Clinton,
Chadha found himself at a loss because of the wise, selfless, powerful tradition that John Marshall had begun in 1803. Predictably, this act was declared
unconstitutional as well.
Marbury v. Madison was a definitive moment for the country because it
marked the beginning of the preservation of the Constitution. Without John
Marshall’s wisdom, the slippery slope that he foresaw would certainly have
become the destruction of a great country. In the words of Justice Robert H.
Jackson and his opinion of the power of the Supreme Court, “[W]e are not final
because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.”


MAY 2014


Suffolk Law
Ski Trip

On February 28th, fourty-eight Suffolk Law students headed north to Jay Peak resort in Northern
Vermont, close to Canada and Burlington. Featuring a year-round indoor water-park, ice arena,
championship golf course, and the best skiing and
snowboarding in the East, Jay Peak is far from your
ordinary mountain getaway. With law school being
such a high-stress environment, I encourage all Suffolk Law members to take part in the best trip Suffolk Law has to offer. The Suffolk Law Ski Trip is
a chance to unwind, make some new friends, and
crush as much powder as you’re up for.