.

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
nmg5211
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 9:40 am

.

Postby nmg5211 » Sat Dec 22, 2012 2:42 pm

.
Last edited by nmg5211 on Fri Aug 16, 2013 10:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ph14
Posts: 3225
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: Aftermath of "Creative" Con Law Exam Answers

Postby ph14 » Sat Dec 22, 2012 3:00 pm

nmg5211 wrote:Disclaimer: I already know I need to move on but I can't stop/won't stop about the costly mistakes I made on my con law exam. If anyone wants to humor me in this discussion, by all means...

Big Picture fact pattern, biggest question on commerce clause, spending and taxing (sound familiar). Supposed to argue against the federal law...By "creative" (euphemism) answers I mean I got carried away and Lopez-ed/Sebelius-ed the hell out of the commerce and spending power when the issues probably were not capable of being Lopez (by that I mean Morrison too) and Sebelius-ed, but I was under the impression that arguing against the federal law required using the line of cases to cut back on modern commerce power/only case to strike down Spending. I didn't mean to be creative or outside of the box, by the way.

Seems everyone in my class said the federal law was perfectly acceptable use of the commerce power and spending and didn't even mention Sebelius. I'm concerned I was flat out wrong to do this. The analysis itself was decently cogent but it was a stretch. F***.


What? I don't understand what you mean to say. If you are saying that you argued that, given the Court's increasingly aggressive protection of federalism, as evidenced by Sebelius (and Lopez/Morrison) suggests that they would cut back on the spending power as well, I think that is a perfectly fine argument. But I hope you provided doctrinal arguments in addition to legal realist arguments.

Probably best to just move on and forget about the exam. Nothing you can do about it now.

Myself
Posts: 1372
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2012 1:36 pm

.

Postby Myself » Sat Dec 22, 2012 3:17 pm

.
Last edited by Myself on Wed Nov 27, 2013 1:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

nmg5211
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 9:40 am

Re: Aftermath of "Creative" Con Law Exam Answers

Postby nmg5211 » Sat Dec 22, 2012 3:28 pm

I actually did more doctrinal than legal realism...

I know its hard to gage anything when I'm being so vague about the fact pattern but the school has put the fear of god in me about posting in forums so I'm afraid to go into too great of detail until after grades come out. I know, I know, don't post in online forums then, but sometimes compulsion trumps (sigh).

I tried to work in how a particular fact could be construed as noneconomic a la Lopez (when the obvious answer would be that it was economic and acceptable, kinda how the guns in Lopez could easily be construed as economic in the pre 95 reasoning) and then went with the court's analysis from Lopez and Morrison because this particular fact was traditionally of state domain (emphasizing the latter of course). Same for Sebelius and the inactivity distinction. I basically used the same reasoning as those cases did and applied it to the set of facts. The problem is that I don't think those cases (Lopez, Sebelius) could be applied to this set of facts. Like I said it was a big time stretch.

Fortunately, I backed up the Spending part with Dole analysis as well even though I don't think Dole and Sebelius can be reconciled in parts, so the end result was odd in that I ended up focusing mainly on coercion and downplayed relatedness because the two schools of thought didn't fit together on that point.

I agree though, I should probably move on and at least it was reasoned out even if it was wrong.

schweitziro
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Aftermath of "Creative" Con Law Exam Answers

Postby schweitziro » Sat Dec 22, 2012 3:38 pm

nmg5211 wrote:I actually did more doctrinal than legal realism...

I know its hard to gage anything when I'm being so vague about the fact pattern but the school has put the fear of god in me about posting in forums so I'm afraid to go into too great of detail until after grades come out. I know, I know, don't post in online forums then, but sometimes compulsion trumps (sigh).

I tried to work in how a particular fact could be construed as noneconomic a la Lopez (when the obvious answer would be that it was economic and acceptable, kinda how the guns in Lopez could easily be construed as economic in the pre 95 reasoning) and then went with the court's analysis from Lopez and Morrison because this particular fact was traditionally of state domain (emphasizing the latter of course). Same for Sebelius and the inactivity distinction. I basically used the same reasoning as those cases did and applied it to the set of facts. The problem is that I don't think those cases (Lopez, Sebelius) could be applied to this set of facts. Like I said it was a big time stretch.

Fortunately, I backed up the Spending part with Dole analysis as well even though I don't think Dole and Sebelius can be reconciled in parts, so the end result was odd in that I ended up focusing mainly on coercion and downplayed relatedness because the two schools of thought didn't fit together on that point.

I agree though, I should probably move on and at least it was reasoned out even if it was wrong.


There is likely at least 4 SCOTUS justices which would agree with your analysis.

User avatar
typ3
Posts: 1362
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 12:04 am

Re: Aftermath of "Creative" Con Law Exam Answers

Postby typ3 » Sun Dec 23, 2012 12:38 am

schweitziro wrote:
nmg5211 wrote:I actually did more doctrinal than legal realism...

I know its hard to gage anything when I'm being so vague about the fact pattern but the school has put the fear of god in me about posting in forums so I'm afraid to go into too great of detail until after grades come out. I know, I know, don't post in online forums then, but sometimes compulsion trumps (sigh).

I tried to work in how a particular fact could be construed as noneconomic a la Lopez (when the obvious answer would be that it was economic and acceptable, kinda how the guns in Lopez could easily be construed as economic in the pre 95 reasoning) and then went with the court's analysis from Lopez and Morrison because this particular fact was traditionally of state domain (emphasizing the latter of course). Same for Sebelius and the inactivity distinction. I basically used the same reasoning as those cases did and applied it to the set of facts. The problem is that I don't think those cases (Lopez, Sebelius) could be applied to this set of facts. Like I said it was a big time stretch.

Fortunately, I backed up the Spending part with Dole analysis as well even though I don't think Dole and Sebelius can be reconciled in parts, so the end result was odd in that I ended up focusing mainly on coercion and downplayed relatedness because the two schools of thought didn't fit together on that point.

I agree though, I should probably move on and at least it was reasoned out even if it was wrong.


There is likely at least 4 SCOTUS justices which would agree with your analysis.


There are maybe 4 people in the whole U.S. who would pay for his con law analysis.

User avatar
buckythebadger
Posts: 292
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2010 12:08 am

Re: Aftermath of "Creative" Con Law Exam Answers

Postby buckythebadger » Sun Dec 23, 2012 11:45 am

Quit seeking validation. The exam is over. It's break and time to relax a little bit. Go have a beer or something




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 6 guests