So, there was a moment when I sat down to read an article and realized that someone had already written on the topic that I thought was going to be my own. Immediate reaction? I very big "SHITE" in the margin, a word chosen specifically because I was in a room that was going to be filling up with high school students in the near future. And then I realized that I wasn't going to be writing to compare the arguements that Congress made against human rights treaties during the Bricker Amendment movement and more recently. Why? BECAUSE I'M SUPPOSED TO BE WRITING ABOUT THE PRESIDENCY.
On a side note, I found several mistakes in the article. Is it too late to write to Human Rights Quarterly to let them know? The article's only 16 years old....
Anyway, Jules and I had a lie down on the hideous couch at Charlie's coffeeshop to hash out my topic while staring at the ceiling. I knew that I was supposed to be writing on the presidency and had done too much research on the Bricker amendment to let all that slip by the wayside. So, we came up with this question: Is the possible abuse of presidential power still a concern for opponents of human rights treaties? If so, in what context are these arguements framed and how does that compare with the context of those arguements during the fight over the Bricker amendment? At the moment, I'm still struggling to come up with an "If not..." question.
I also managed to drink too much coffee tonight, which was making it a bit hard to type and stay focused. Tomorrow I should try to do some outlining of the new focus and start thinking about where I want to do this research. I anticipate much reading in the IUPUI law library toward the end of this week. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not at this point.