Con law - 5 thoughts

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
irish017
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 1:19 pm

Con law - 5 thoughts

Postby irish017 » Tue May 03, 2011 2:27 am

If you could take 5 KEY thoughts into a con law final with you, what would they be?

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11722
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: Con law - 5 thoughts

Postby kalvano » Tue May 03, 2011 2:28 am

1) Fuck you, Thomas
2) Fuck you, Stevens
3) Fuck you, political question
4) Fuck you, Commerce Clause
5) Thanks for being contrary and awesome, Scalia

User avatar
Ty Webb
Posts: 517
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: Con law - 5 thoughts

Postby Ty Webb » Tue May 03, 2011 2:32 am

1) Congressional actions are always bound by 1)the provided power to act and 2)constitutional limits.

2) State legislative actions are bound only by the constraints of the constitution.

3) The varying levels of scrutiny and how to apply each

4) Equal protection deals with classifications, while substantive due process deals with deprivation of a fundamental right

5) A general working knowledge of the balance between enhancing federal power (Ginsburg, Breyer) and ensuring the sanctity of state's rights (Roberts, Scalia/Thomas, Alito).

User avatar
Ty Webb
Posts: 517
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: Con law - 5 thoughts

Postby Ty Webb » Tue May 03, 2011 2:32 am

kalvano wrote:1) Fuck you, Thomas
2) Fuck you, Stevens
3) Fuck you, political question
4) Fuck you, Commerce Clause
5) Thanks for being contrary and awesome, Scalia


Strange definition of awesome you're working with.

User avatar
uwb09
Posts: 574
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 2:09 am

Re: Con law - 5 thoughts

Postby uwb09 » Tue May 03, 2011 11:32 am

what about in relation to multiple choice questions? I've taken dozens but I still can't seem to get a grasp on how to deal with them... these con-law MC questions pwn me :?

User avatar
TCScrutinizer
Posts: 497
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 11:01 pm

Re: Con law - 5 thoughts

Postby TCScrutinizer » Tue May 03, 2011 11:34 am

Ty Webb wrote:
kalvano wrote:1) Fuck you, Thomas
2) Fuck you, Stevens
3) Fuck you, political question
4) Fuck you, Commerce Clause
5) Thanks for being contrary and awesome, Scalia


Strange definition of awesome you're working with.


You must be a supporter of the homosexual agenda.

User avatar
Ty Webb
Posts: 517
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: Con law - 5 thoughts

Postby Ty Webb » Tue May 03, 2011 2:42 pm

TCScrutinizer wrote:
Ty Webb wrote:
kalvano wrote:1) Fuck you, Thomas
2) Fuck you, Stevens
3) Fuck you, political question
4) Fuck you, Commerce Clause
5) Thanks for being contrary and awesome, Scalia


Strange definition of awesome you're working with.


You must be a supporter of the homosexual agenda.


:lol:

jkay
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 2:47 pm

Re: Con law - 5 thoughts

Postby jkay » Tue May 03, 2011 4:43 pm

TCScrutinizer wrote:You must be a supporter of the homosexual agenda.


Amazing.

Army2Law
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 4:35 pm

Re: Con law - 5 thoughts

Postby Army2Law » Tue May 03, 2011 4:52 pm

Ty Webb wrote:1) Congressional actions are always bound by 1)the provided power to act and 2)constitutional limits

Redundancy much?

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11722
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: Con law - 5 thoughts

Postby kalvano » Tue May 03, 2011 4:57 pm

Army2Law wrote:
Ty Webb wrote:1) Congressional actions are always bound by 1)the provided power to act and 2)constitutional limits

Redundancy much?



Not really, they are two separate concepts.

User avatar
Ty Webb
Posts: 517
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: Con law - 5 thoughts

Postby Ty Webb » Tue May 03, 2011 4:58 pm

Army2Law wrote:
Ty Webb wrote:1) Congressional actions are always bound by 1)the provided power to act and 2)constitutional limits

Redundancy much?


Hope you have a little time between now and your exam.

Army2Law
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 4:35 pm

Re: Con law - 5 thoughts

Postby Army2Law » Tue May 03, 2011 5:11 pm

Ty Webb wrote:
Army2Law wrote:
Ty Webb wrote:1) Congressional actions are always bound by 1)the provided power to act and 2)constitutional limits

Redundancy much?


Hope you have a little time between now and your exam.

Enumerated powers are a Constitutional limit. I assume you also meant things like the First Amendment as Constitutional limits outside the scope of Article I, but, you're still redundant, tiger.

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11722
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: Con law - 5 thoughts

Postby kalvano » Tue May 03, 2011 5:20 pm

Army2Law wrote:
Ty Webb wrote:
Army2Law wrote:
Ty Webb wrote:1) Congressional actions are always bound by 1)the provided power to act and 2)constitutional limits

Redundancy much?


Hope you have a little time between now and your exam.

Enumerated powers are a Constitutional limit. I assume you also meant things like the First Amendment as Constitutional limits outside the scope of Article I, but, you're still redundant, tiger.



Might want to re-check things.

For Congress to act, it must have both the power to act on the matter expressly granted by the Constitution AND it must not be overstepping any boundaries set by the Constitution.

Authorization versus limitation. Two separate things.

User avatar
Ty Webb
Posts: 517
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: Con law - 5 thoughts

Postby Ty Webb » Tue May 03, 2011 5:25 pm

Army2Law wrote:
Ty Webb wrote:
Army2Law wrote:
Ty Webb wrote:1) Congressional actions are always bound by 1)the provided power to act and 2)constitutional limits

Redundancy much?


Hope you have a little time between now and your exam.

Enumerated powers are a Constitutional limit. I assume you also meant things like the First Amendment as Constitutional limits outside the scope of Article I, but, you're still redundant, tiger.


Explaining enumerated powers as a "limit" is an interesting way to misconstrue the concept.

As Kalvano said, these are two very distinct concepts. Congress can't act without Constitutional authorization (i.e. its enumerated powers). Once Congress does act, it is only authorized insofar as its action doesn't run over the other lines laid out in the Constitution.

One concept deals with the topics on which Congress is authorized to act. The other concept deals more with the substantive content of the legislation and whether it bumps into other constitutional limits (among them are personal rights limits, state rights limits, etc.).

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11722
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: Con law - 5 thoughts

Postby kalvano » Tue May 03, 2011 5:27 pm

Think of it this way.

SEAL Team 6 is authorized to go in and get Bin Laden - enumerated powers.

However, they are not allowed to kill civilians or anyone who isn't a direct threat - Constitutional limits.

Army2Law
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 4:35 pm

Re: Con law - 5 thoughts

Postby Army2Law » Tue May 03, 2011 5:39 pm

Congress still has its powers limited by what it is granted by the Constitution. Meaning, Congress doesn't have unlimited power (even though CC + N&P makes it seem that way sometimes) subject only to limits outside Article I. We're saying the same thing in different words.

User avatar
MrKappus
Posts: 1685
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:46 am

Re: Con law - 5 thoughts

Postby MrKappus » Tue May 03, 2011 5:53 pm

Army2Law wrote:We're saying the same thing in different words.


You're really, really not.

Enumerated powers are not a constitutional limit on Congress's power, and if you conflate the two on an exam, you will miss median by a lot.

Enumerated power: "power to regulate commerce...among the several states..."
Constitutional limit: "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state"

Army2Law
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 4:35 pm

Re: Con law - 5 thoughts

Postby Army2Law » Tue May 03, 2011 5:58 pm

MrKappus wrote:
Army2Law wrote:We're saying the same thing in different words.


You're really, really not.

Enumerated powers are not a constitutional limit on Congress's power, and if you conflate the two on an exam, you will miss median by a lot.

Enumerated power: "power to regulate commerce...among the several states..."
Constitutional limit: "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state"

Yeah, I'm wrong, Article I isn't in the Constitution. Only having powers enumerated by the Constitution isn't having your power limited by what is granted by the Constitution. Congress is LIMITED by he powers granted to it by the CONSTITUTION That's a Constitutional limit, douchebag.

User avatar
ResolutePear
Posts: 8614
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:07 pm

Re: Con law - 5 thoughts

Postby ResolutePear » Tue May 03, 2011 6:04 pm

Army2Law wrote:
MrKappus wrote:
Army2Law wrote:We're saying the same thing in different words.


You're really, really not.

Enumerated powers are not a constitutional limit on Congress's power, and if you conflate the two on an exam, you will miss median by a lot.

Enumerated power: "power to regulate commerce...among the several states..."
Constitutional limit: "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state"

Yeah, I'm wrong, Article I isn't in the Constitution. Only having powers enumerated by the Constitution isn't having your power limited by what is granted by the Constitution. Congress is LIMITED by he powers granted to it by the CONSTITUTION That's a Constitutional limit, douchebag.


Implied powers. McColloch v. Maryland.

The power to tax and overall manage "the purse" implies the power to open a bank.

They can't for instance, pass a bill of attainer.

Or at least, that's my understanding of it.

User avatar
MrKappus
Posts: 1685
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:46 am

Re: Con law - 5 thoughts

Postby MrKappus » Tue May 03, 2011 6:10 pm

Army2Law wrote:Only having powers enumerated by the Constitution isn't having your power limited by what is granted by the Constitution. Congress is LIMITED by he powers granted to it by the CONSTITUTION That's a Constitutional limit, douchebag.


This is literally nonsense. I was just trying to help you out, but it's obvious umad.

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11722
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: Con law - 5 thoughts

Postby kalvano » Tue May 03, 2011 6:11 pm

Army2Law wrote:Yeah, I'm wrong, Article I isn't in the Constitution. Only having powers enumerated by the Constitution isn't having your power limited by what is granted by the Constitution. Congress is LIMITED by he powers granted to it by the CONSTITUTION That's a Constitutional limit, douchebag.



It's not my grade, dude, but when you have several people telling you something that is different from what you are saying, perhaps it might behoove you to listen.

dakatz
Posts: 2460
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 4:19 pm

Re: Con law - 5 thoughts

Postby dakatz » Tue May 03, 2011 6:15 pm

My thoughts on conlaw now that its over.

1. The constitution is treated like a piece of toilet paper the justices use to wipe their asses with as they interpret it to meet their poltical views.

2. To me it's nothing more than supposedly high-minded psudo-philosophy

3. I don't like con law.

4. Im in the minority because there are so many history, political science and philosophy kids in law school so they get off on this kind of "intellectual" masturbation

5. I want to make like Nicholas Cage, go to DC and steal the Constitution. But instead of looking for treasure maps, id like to do exactly what the justices do with it: use it as toilet paper.

User avatar
bjsesq
TLS Poet Laureate
Posts: 13383
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 3:02 am

Re: Con law - 5 thoughts

Postby bjsesq » Tue May 03, 2011 6:27 pm

Army2Law wrote:Yeah, I'm wrong, Article I isn't in the Constitution. Only having powers enumerated by the Constitution isn't having your power limited by what is granted by the Constitution. Congress is LIMITED by he powers granted to it by the CONSTITUTION That's a Constitutional limit, douchebag.


I would like to note to everyone that not all people who went to law school after time served in the army are quite this... yeah. You get the picture.

User avatar
I.P. Daly
Posts: 920
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 3:27 pm

Re: Con law - 5 thoughts

Postby I.P. Daly » Tue May 03, 2011 6:44 pm


User avatar
Ty Webb
Posts: 517
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: Con law - 5 thoughts

Postby Ty Webb » Tue May 03, 2011 6:59 pm

Army2Law should think of it in this way.

The enumerated powers are much more a "grant" than they are a limit. Without enumerated powers, Congress can do nothing. A "grant" is not a limit.

I guess the concept of enumerated powers, when taken in the abstract, could be considered a limit. I.E. Congress is limited to only its grants, but that is a *really* round-about way of thinking about it.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest