Unemployed wrote:chicago520 wrote:There is no categorical no to regulation of activity that is not economic in nature. That is the point of the whole substantial effects test. What school do you go to?
enjoy your B-. anyway, YES there is a categorical distinction. it is just a flexible one.
and I quote: Raich: "thus far in our Nation's history our cases have upheld CC regulation of instrastate activity ONLY WHERE THAT ACTIVITY IS ECONOMIC IN NATURE."
I told you to supply a quote when responding. Darby's subs aff test is DUSTY. read some of the new law you dope.
I go to (apparently) a better school than you do hahhahahahahahahahahahaha
Quoted for Douche (and the irony of a Cardozo troll's touting pedigree).
I know this is beating a horse corpse, smelling and rotting, but here goes:
welcome to the legal profession where stupidity is laughed at ( ) and clarity is highly valued.
if you consider trolling: stating a very obvious holding from the most basic con law case, then im guilty. I'm no scholar, but I got a fucking A and know my shit cold. the confusion on this board is truly hilarious and a sign of the times. reread your cases and then re re re read them again.
And, yo Mr. Cls: you sound like a vapid little punk. I don't give a shit if you go to Yale, if you can't grasp CC issues, good luck man....