Commerce Clause - Lopez/Morrison/Raich

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:13 pm

Re: Commerce Clause - Lopez/Morrison/Raich

Postby chicago520 » Sat Jun 19, 2010 7:51 am

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 ( :twisted: ) 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....

Posts: 1161
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:51 pm

Re: Commerce Clause - Lopez/Morrison/Raich

Postby tram988 » Sat Jun 19, 2010 8:04 am

sanpiero wrote:
bernie shmegma wrote:Seriously? You guys don't see the connection between the Commerce Clause and Rehnquist's conditions to limit Congress' authority to tax and spend? It was a blatant response to concern for the political safeguards and institutional structure of federalism. To view Dole completely on its face as uhh, a taxing and uhh spending issue is to completely ignore the fact that the drinking age is a local/state issue, and but for the extralegal factors of that issue, it would not have been within Congress' power to regulate via taxing and spending. They Court had to make shit up beyond Constitutional structure. The power to tax and spend was broadened in Dole beyond the scope of Congress' enumerated powers as restricted under the CC. These conditions now allow Congress to circumvent their CC limitations. But, I'm just a 0L so wtf do I know?

you suggesting to the op to look at Dole does nothing to answer his/her question. you are just complicating things. everyone sees the connection you are making. but, for purposes of understanding Morrison/Wickard/Raich/Lopez it is not necessary. the op's question was directed at understanding the non economic/economic distinction in these cases. Dole doesn't address this issue like the aforementioned cases do, hence your contribution to this thread has only wasted everyone's time. we understand you are itching to impress everyone with your 0L knowledge of con law. we don't care.

I hope I don't have to spend three years with many people like you, Bernie. THE audacity I say!

Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests