Con law - 5 thoughts

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
MrKappus
Posts: 1685
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:46 am

Re: Con law - 5 thoughts

Postby MrKappus » Tue May 03, 2011 7:03 pm

Ty Webb wrote: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.


Under this logic, my legs don't grant me the ability to walk, but rather limit my ability to run 50 mph. I liked your other posts more.

User avatar
starchinkilt
Posts: 361
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 4:22 am

Re: Con law - 5 thoughts

Postby starchinkilt » Tue May 03, 2011 7:41 pm

Army2Law wrote: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.


The wording in your first sentence is conflating (1) Congress' inability to do something not expressly/implicitly granted to them in the Constitution with (2) The inability to use that power in the way that Congress chose to use it. As stated by other posters, the test in this area requires requires two different analyses.

First, you must determine if Congress has the implicit/explicit power to do something. (Usually McCulloch NP analysis)

Second, you must determine if the means chosen are Constitutional and not limited by some other section. So, as in New York v. US, if Congress wanted to preempt state law and create its own national radioactive waste regulations, it could. However, the manner Congress chose to do this was considered commandeering and unconstitutional. This analysis has nothing to do with whether or not Congress had powers granted.

Edit: typo

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

Re: Con law - 5 thoughts

Postby Army2Law » Tue May 03, 2011 7:46 pm

MrKappus wrote: Under this logic, my legs don't grant me the ability to walk, but rather limit my ability to run 50 mph.

You are limited to the power your legs grant to your body. That is a limit. Having to tie any Congressional action to an existing power, even if it is implied from another one (like dormant commerce) is a limit.
"[Certain] comments of Hamilton and others about federal power reflected the well-known truth that the new Government would have only the limited and enumerated powers found in the Constitution. . . . Even before the passage of the Tenth Amendment, it was apparent that Congress would possess only those powers 'herein granted' by the rest of the Constitution." United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 592 (1995).

U mad that SCOTUS agrees with me?

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

Re: Con law - 5 thoughts

Postby MrKappus » Tue May 03, 2011 7:54 pm

Army2Law wrote:
MrKappus wrote: Under this logic, my legs don't grant me the ability to walk, but rather limit my ability to run 50 mph.

You are limited to the power your legs grant to your body. That is a limit. Having to tie any Congressional action to an existing power, even if it is implied from another one (like dormant commerce) is a limit.
"[Certain] comments of Hamilton and others about federal power reflected the well-known truth that the new Government would have only the limited and enumerated powers found in the Constitution. . . . Even before the passage of the Tenth Amendment, it was apparent that Congress would possess only those powers 'herein granted' by the rest of the Constitution." United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 592 (1995).

U mad that SCOTUS agrees with me?


The powers are limited because they are enumerated (i.e., the enumerated list is not infinite). But the enumeration itself is not what one refers to as a "constitutional limit." I'm not mad at you, SCOTUS, or anyone else, but I am blown away by your breathtaking and willful ignorance.

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

Re: Con law - 5 thoughts

Postby ResolutePear » Tue May 03, 2011 7:55 pm

Are we seriously debating this?

Lets go back to debating between pancakes and french toast.

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

Re: Con law - 5 thoughts

Postby Army2Law » Tue May 03, 2011 7:56 pm

Nah, u mad.

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

Re: Con law - 5 thoughts

Postby MrKappus » Tue May 03, 2011 7:56 pm

French toast.

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

Re: Con law - 5 thoughts

Postby Army2Law » Tue May 03, 2011 7:58 pm

MrKappus wrote:Freedom toast.

Fixed. :D

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

Re: Con law - 5 thoughts

Postby ResolutePear » Tue May 03, 2011 7:59 pm

MrKappus wrote:French toast.


Pancakes.

Scalia eats pancakes. Therefore, cake pans.

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

Re: Con law - 5 thoughts

Postby MrKappus » Tue May 03, 2011 8:02 pm

Army2Law wrote:
MrKappus wrote:Freedom toast.

Fixed. :D


Someone needs to read up on his Revolutionary War history. Without the French, we wouldn't have won at Yorktown.

User avatar
starchinkilt
Posts: 361
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 4:22 am

Re: Con law - 5 thoughts

Postby starchinkilt » Tue May 03, 2011 8:02 pm

Tonga Toast ftw

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

Re: Con law - 5 thoughts

Postby Army2Law » Tue May 03, 2011 8:03 pm

MrKappus wrote:
Army2Law wrote:
MrKappus wrote:Freedom toast.

Fixed. :D


Someone needs to read up on his Revolutionary War history. Without the French, we wouldn't have won at Yorktown.

Someone needs a sense of humor.

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

Re: Con law - 5 thoughts

Postby ResolutePear » Tue May 03, 2011 8:05 pm

MrKappus wrote:
Army2Law wrote:
MrKappus wrote:Freedom toast.

Fixed. :D


Someone needs to read up on his Revolutionary War history. Without the French, we wouldn't have won at Yorktown.


That is true, but we saved their ass during WWII. Without us, they'd be NAZI now. (sorta-not-really-sorta)

And what did we get for it? THEY CALLED THEIR DEBT IN FROM US..!

(Alright, it didn't exactly happen like that... but smelly and ungrateful nontheless!)

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

Re: Con law - 5 thoughts

Postby MrKappus » Tue May 03, 2011 8:06 pm

Sorry, but it's exams time. Senses of humor are in short supply.

Edit: that said, I just lol'd at "smelly and ungrateful."

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

Re: Con law - 5 thoughts

Postby ResolutePear » Tue May 03, 2011 8:07 pm

MrKappus wrote:Sorry, but it's exams time. Senses of humor are in short supply.


As Hobbes would say: your senses, they are decaying. T'is is okay.

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

Re: Con law - 5 thoughts

Postby Army2Law » Tue May 03, 2011 8:08 pm

MrKappus wrote:Sorry, but it's exams time. Senses of humor are in short supply.

Edit: that said, I just lol'd at "smelly and ungrateful."

Trolling people on TLS is always a good way to blow off steam, haha.

de5igual
Posts: 1463
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 11:52 pm

Re: Con law - 5 thoughts

Postby de5igual » Tue May 03, 2011 11:32 pm

dakatz wrote: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.


That's basically my con-law outline in a nutshell. Every lecture was basically my prof going off on a rant on how illegitimate SCOTUS is and how every decision is basically the court's way of imposing their views on an unwilling public.

User avatar
BruceWayne
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 9:36 pm

Re: Con law - 5 thoughts

Postby BruceWayne » Tue May 03, 2011 11:34 pm

f0bolous wrote:
dakatz wrote: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.


That's basically my con-law outline in a nutshell. Every lecture was basically my prof going off on a rant on how illegitimate SCOTUS is and how every decision is basically the court's way of imposing their views on an unwilling public.


Except for Civil Procedure and Criminal procedure and a few other courses this seems to be true of law school in general.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests