Last semester I took Conflict of Laws (highly recommended). This semester I'm in International Law and Federal Courts.
The overlap in these topics is fascinating to me, and the more I learn in each class, the more I understand that there's only so many of the heavily theoretical classes I can take. There's a significant overlap with a lot of common themes, including federalism, state power to reach beyond borders, and a few others.
I just started casually reading the fed. courts section of the book focusing on the Erie doctrine. It would be more engaging, I think, except that we covered it (and the following line of cases) in considerable depth in Conflict of Laws. So it's really pretty much a snoozer for me, and I'm only skimming it.
My point is that there has been a lot of overlap in several classes. And it seems to be common in those that are sort of high-brow philosophical and theoretical classes rather than those focusing on more practical areas of the law (like Secured Transactions). This makes me wonder what the limits are. The only 'theory' class I haven't taken--and I regret not taking it, but it conflicted with a required class--is Jurisprudence. It just seems like at a certain point they all seem to blend together into only a couple different general areas.
Can anyone shed light on this? I'm still a neophyte when it comes to the law, particularly when looking at the Big Picture questions and philosophies. I'd enjoy hearing from those more knowledgeable. So, pretty much everyone.
