OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS) Forum

[Tiago Splitter]

Finally got a ConLaw outline started. McCulloch can kiss my ass

[stillwater]

Finally got a ConLaw outline started. McCulloch can kiss my ass

the only thing ConLaw has given me is less respect for the institution itself

[bananapeanutbutter]

Finally got a ConLaw outline started. McCulloch can kiss my ass

the only thing ConLaw has given me is less respect for the institution itself

i'm sure the supreme court cares about your opinion of them. i heard justice scalia always searches the internet for comments, and cries when you complain about the court.

[Jsa725]

.

[Birdnals]

Finally got a ConLaw outline started. McCulloch can kiss my ass

the only thing ConLaw has given me is less respect for the institution itself

i'm sure the supreme court cares about your opinion of them. i heard justice scalia always searches the internet for comments, and cries when you complain about the court.

We will see who gets the last laugh when my red equal sign facebook profile picture is cited in the record when Scalia becomes the swing vote to overturn DOMA

[nucky thompson]

Absolutely dude. There's a ton of things that start out as a dissent or concurrence and later become doctrine. Like applying intermediate scrutiny to gender based equal protection, or strict scrutiny to affirmative action.

you mean Metro Broadcasting isn't good law? Frontiero is out?

Wasn't Metro overruled by Adarand v. Pena?

Yea Metro was overruled by Adarand. Metro was a strange departure, it tried to say Congressionally-approved affirmative action plans would only be subjected to intermediate scrutiny but local and state initiatives would presumably still be subjected to strict scrutiny. The plurality in Frontiero advocated strict scrutiny for gender classifications but Craig ultimately applied intermediate scrutiny. However, Ginsburg's "exceedingly persuasive justification" language in US v. VA sounded stricter than intermediate...

Metro is kind of interesting. The argument goes something like - congress is acting under § 5 14 amendment authority, whereas states act under general police powers reserved to the states. 14th amendment was passed in response to cases like Dred Scott, where the supreme court failed to protect individual rights from the infringing majority. Section 5 gives express authority to enforce the provisions. Thus, one could argue the Amendment gave congress the specific - constitutionally enumerated power to prevent discrimination, and remedy past/continuing discrimination.

Again - congress is acting under this express authority, authority provided in response to SCOTUS fails, therefore SCOTUS should not take as close a look

But, the O'Conor (citing Powell Bakke) Strict Scrutiny adopted in Adarand is not your ol strict scrutiny "strict-in-theory-fatal-in-fact" test, but rather a SS test that recognizes the difference between purposeful / noxious racial classification is not the same as AA/benign classification

[Birdnals]

Metro is kind of interesting. The argument goes something like - congress is acting under § 5 14 amendment authority, whereas states act under general police powers reserved to the states. 14th amendment was passed in response to cases like Dred Scott, where the supreme court failed to protect individual rights from the infringing majority. Section 5 gives express authority to enforce the provisions. Thus, one could argue the Amendment gave congress the specific - constitutionally enumerated power to prevent discrimination, and remedy past/continuing discrimination.

OK, so here is the deal. § 5 of the 14 amendment only applied to state actions. Which means to enforce other anti-discrimination things not involving state actions the fed gov almost always relies on the commerce power. (any private entity with any sort of commerce function can be controlled against discrim and such using commerce power)

For state actions Katzenback v. morgan said "Yo Congress, you can make laws which deter/remedies constitutional violations, even if the action being deterred isn't, in itself, unconstitutional."

Later, in City of Borne . Flores the Court was like "hold up congress, we said you could ENFORCE the laws, not decide what the laws do, that's still our job bitch."

So now states were like "sweet, we can hella discriminate as employers because we have sovereign immunity and shit" and the Court was like "Uhh, kinda bro, but if there is congruence and proportionality between what right congress is trying to protect and the law they are doing it with then fuck your sovereign immunity sometimes, Lane/Hibbs/GA cases bitches! SC OUT!"


ETA: This is all about what rights congress can give to people in states under 14th, not how SC actually deals with enumerated personal rights, which my prof doesn't deal with in a more than cursory manner (I do know religion used to get strict and now gets rational review under Oregon v. smith though! Thanks memo!"

[stillwater]

Finally got a ConLaw outline started. McCulloch can kiss my ass

the only thing ConLaw has given me is less respect for the institution itself

i'm sure the supreme court cares about your opinion of them. i heard justice scalia always searches the internet for comments, and cries when you complain about the court.

yea bro, and I care deeply what you think.

[bananapeanutbutter]

Finally got a ConLaw outline started. McCulloch can kiss my ass

the only thing ConLaw has given me is less respect for the institution itself

i'm sure the supreme court cares about your opinion of them. i heard justice scalia always searches the internet for comments, and cries when you complain about the court.

yea bro, and I care deeply what you think.

i really thought we had something special, you and i. this is crushing. i might as well just drop out.

[dannynoonan87]

do implied easements (by prior use, necessity, and/or prescription) run with the land?

If the answer is yes, is it because that is the law? Or is it because the successor in interest to the property will have the same conditions (e.g. will also need the easement by necessity, or can also make the argument for prior use since his predecessor had an implied easement and likely used it)?

[Birdnals]

do implied easements (by prior use, necessity, and/or prescription) run with the land?

If the answer is yes, is it because that is the law? Or is it because the successor in interest to the property will have the same conditions (e.g. will also need the easement by necessity, or can also make the argument for prior use since his predecessor had an implied easement and likely used it)?

Yes, easements run with the land and can only be terminated if it is an easement with a time frame "You can use my land for 5 years but after that you can't", or from the dominant tracts and subservient tracks becoming united under one owner, or abandonment.

Easements are property rights and can be sold like any other property right. It's like asking "when a house gets a new owner, does it stop being private property?"

[MauriceGains]

Only easements appurtenant, not easements in gross. Those only last until the holder's death.

[Jsa725]

.

[stillwater]

I'm about to do that crim law thing

[gaud]

Sup bros.

Getting down on some reading and admin today. OHH YEAAA

[mephistopheles]

question for y'all..

do you know of any depositories of property multiple choice questions?

half of my exam is mc, and we haven't really been given any practice problems...

[bananapeanutbutter]

On property, are deeds only conveyed for the physical sale of property? Can you convey a deed to a life estate or a future interest, or would these just be governed by a standard contract?

[Jsa725]

.

[bananapeanutbutter]

On property, are deeds only conveyed for the physical sale of property? Can you convey a deed to a life estate or a future interest, or would these just be governed by a standard contract?

IIRC...yes, you can convey deed for life estate. examples:

O -->A life estate (conveyed by deed)
A dies
the record shows O only gave A a life estate and the Probate record will show A's death
therefore, when doing a title search, buyers are on notice (probate record) that O is the owner once A dies.

O --> A for life, then to B (deed)
A dies
Probate record shows A's death
when doing chain of title buyers will see A has LE and B has FSA
Probate shows A's death
therefore Buyers know B owns the land in FSA

Thanks!

Under a general/special warranty deed, how would this would relate to the present convenant Right To Convey - it would just be that O had the right to convey a life estate, because he owned the FSA?

[Jsa725]

.

[SportsFan]

Spent like half an hour making short attack outlines for each of my classes. Despite making them pretty quickly (they're more like checklists than anything else, at least until I add some BLL to them as I update them before finals), I'd say 2 of them really helped my understanding of 2 of my classes. I'm into the part of the semester where 90% of my time needs to be spend doing practice tests/problems and studying my outlines. Definitely my least favorite part of the semester.

[Blumpbeef]

We will see who gets the last laugh when my red equal sign facebook profile picture is cited in the record when Scalia becomes the swing vote to overturn DOMA

[Nelson]

I'm into the part of the semester where 90% of my time needs to be spend doing practice tests/problems and studying my outlines.

If you're actually doing this you're ahead of the vast majority of us for sure.

[Birdnals]

I'm into the part of the semester where 90% of my time needs to be spend doing practice tests/problems and studying my outlines.

If you're actually doing this you're ahead of the vast majority of us for sure.

My first final is in 20 days. It's crunch time for me too.

[Nelson]

I'm into the part of the semester where 90% of my time needs to be spend doing practice tests/problems and studying my outlines.

If you're actually doing this you're ahead of the vast majority of us for sure.

My first final is in 20 days. It's crunch time for me too.

I mean, mine is in 15 days, but I've barely touched a practice exam yet.