ConLaw

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
dreman510
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 8:02 pm

ConLaw

Postby dreman510 » Mon Mar 15, 2010 3:45 pm

Is it weird that my Prof skipped McCulloch and doesnt plan on covering it? Isnt that a huge landmark case?

Ignatius J. Reilly
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 5:07 pm

Re: ConLaw

Postby Ignatius J. Reilly » Mon Mar 15, 2010 9:40 pm

The only thing I can think of is that it is an old case, but it is one of the cases that are usually always covered. Just know about the necessary and proper clause and that the states cannot tax the federal government.

User avatar
mikeytwoshoes
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:45 pm

Re: ConLaw

Postby mikeytwoshoes » Tue Mar 16, 2010 6:56 pm

dreman510 wrote:Is it weird that my Prof skipped McCulloch and doesnt plan on covering it? Isnt that a huge landmark case?

McCulloch v. Maryland is important but one could probably teach the concepts with other cases.

The most important is the test of instrumental rationality. This means that if the end is legitimate, then any means that is plainly adopted to further the end is constitutional. The other, IIRC is that Maryland's argument speaks to congress as well as the court. It tells congress that you have very limited powers because "necessary" will allow us to invalidate all kinds of means you choose because the federal government is one of enumerated powers. That the court rejects this speaks to the early court's views on federalism.

dreman510
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 8:02 pm

Re: ConLaw

Postby dreman510 » Tue Mar 16, 2010 8:22 pm

mikeytwoshoes wrote:
dreman510 wrote:Is it weird that my Prof skipped McCulloch and doesnt plan on covering it? Isnt that a huge landmark case?

McCulloch v. Maryland is important but one could probably teach the concepts with other cases.

The most important is the test of instrumental rationality. This means that if the end is legitimate, then any means that is plainly adopted to further the end is constitutional. The other, IIRC is that Maryland's argument speaks to congress as well as the court. It tells congress that you have very limited powers because "necessary" will allow us to invalidate all kinds of means you choose because the federal government is one of enumerated powers. That the court rejects this speaks to the early court's views on federalism.

Thanks. I triple checked the syllabus-in past years the prof has discussed this case and concept, but this year he skipped over the whole idea. I just thought it was kinda weird...

User avatar
mikeytwoshoes
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:45 pm

Re: ConLaw

Postby mikeytwoshoes » Tue Mar 16, 2010 8:46 pm

dreman510 wrote:
mikeytwoshoes wrote:
dreman510 wrote:Is it weird that my Prof skipped McCulloch and doesnt plan on covering it? Isnt that a huge landmark case?

McCulloch v. Maryland is important but one could probably teach the concepts with other cases.

The most important is the test of instrumental rationality. This means that if the end is legitimate, then any means that is plainly adopted to further the end is constitutional. The other, IIRC is that Maryland's argument speaks to congress as well as the court. It tells congress that you have very limited powers because "necessary" will allow us to invalidate all kinds of means you choose because the federal government is one of enumerated powers. That the court rejects this speaks to the early court's views on federalism.

Thanks. I triple checked the syllabus-in past years the prof has discussed this case and concept, but this year he skipped over the whole idea. I just thought it was kinda weird...

It does seem weird to skip over the most deferential test in con law, if not the law as a whole.

dreman510
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 8:02 pm

Re: ConLaw

Postby dreman510 » Tue Mar 16, 2010 8:49 pm

Another question re-Conlaw, since to me it appears to be the hardest class to get a handle on. Is it important to know the old commerce clause cases (pre-new deal)? Or since a new line of cases has been established, basically remove them from my outline?

User avatar
mikeytwoshoes
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:45 pm

Re: ConLaw

Postby mikeytwoshoes » Tue Mar 16, 2010 8:51 pm

dreman510 wrote:Another question re-Conlaw, since to me it appears to be the hardest class to get a handle on. Is it important to know the old commerce clause cases (pre-new deal)? Or since a new line of cases has been established, basically remove them from my outline?

It depends on whether you want to show the evolution of the cases. That seems important to me but YMMV.

legends159
Posts: 1090
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 4:12 pm

Re: ConLaw

Postby legends159 » Tue Mar 16, 2010 8:55 pm

mikeytwoshoes wrote:
dreman510 wrote:Is it weird that my Prof skipped McCulloch and doesnt plan on covering it? Isnt that a huge landmark case?

McCulloch v. Maryland is important but one could probably teach the concepts with other cases.

The most important is the test of instrumental rationality. This means that if the end is legitimate, then any means that is plainly adopted to further the end is constitutional.


any means except those that are unconstitutional or not rationally connected. Ex: the end is to support our soldiers in Afghanistan the means we use is to give royalty titles to the best soldiers. that's problematic.

The case is important mostly for use of the necessary and proper clause. Almost every brief/opinion that uses the necessary and proper clause will cite McCulloch at the outset.

dreman510
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 8:02 pm

Re: ConLaw

Postby dreman510 » Tue Mar 16, 2010 8:56 pm

legends159 wrote:
mikeytwoshoes wrote:
dreman510 wrote:Is it weird that my Prof skipped McCulloch and doesnt plan on covering it? Isnt that a huge landmark case?

McCulloch v. Maryland is important but one could probably teach the concepts with other cases.

The most important is the test of instrumental rationality. This means that if the end is legitimate, then any means that is plainly adopted to further the end is constitutional.


any means except those that are unconstitutional or not rationally connected. Ex: the end is to support our soldiers in Afghanistan the means we use is to give royalty titles to the best soldiers. that's problematic.

The case is important mostly for use of the necessary and proper clause. Almost every brief/opinion that uses the necessary and proper clause will cite McCulloch.

Right I get that, I just keep scratching my head because we never once mentioned the necessary and proper clause, nor does it appear on the syllabus anywhere. That seems a bit weird

User avatar
Pizon
Posts: 138
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2008 2:53 am

Re: ConLaw

Postby Pizon » Fri Mar 19, 2010 12:59 am

Our professor only mentioned the case in passing. It isn't a huge deal, IMO.

Esc
Posts: 724
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 4:09 pm

Re: ConLaw

Postby Esc » Fri Mar 19, 2010 1:30 am

its critically important in constitutional jurisprudence because of its interpretation of the federal relationship, the extent of the powers of the national government, and its influence on later cases

if your professor didn't mention it, it isn't important to you at all




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests