.

User avatar
denimchickn
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 11:57 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby denimchickn » Mon Jul 22, 2013 2:06 pm

as stars burn wrote:
denimchickn wrote:Just hit that glorious 75% mark!

Still haven't done the practice essay exam though (and don't know that I will). I feel like my time at this point might be better spent learning rules and doing some practice questions here and there than burning myself out on a simulated test, potentially getting discouraged, and losing all willpower to continue doing anything else that day.

Anyone else feeling the same way?


I barely did any studying this weekend, and I'm just starting to study now. I'm just over it and want to get this ridiculous thing over with. While I totally understand you don't want to burn yourself out we're still 8 days away from the exam, and I really found the simulated essay exam to be helpful in that it sort of prepares you to be ready for anything. The actual exam isn't going to tell you what the essays are on before you read the prompt so it can be somewhat of a shock at first since you're not really sure what subject you're in until you get to the call of the question or even after you read the fact pattern. Even if you don't take the whole simulated in a day I do recommend doing it.


Yeah I'm still debating it. I've never been a practice exam person. I don't think I did a single one in law school and it worked out just fine for me, so I'm kind of torn between the seemingly contradictory "don't reinvent the wheel" vs. "do a million practice essays" advice Themis is giving us.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby 09042014 » Mon Jul 22, 2013 2:12 pm

denimchickn wrote:
as stars burn wrote:
denimchickn wrote:Just hit that glorious 75% mark!

Still haven't done the practice essay exam though (and don't know that I will). I feel like my time at this point might be better spent learning rules and doing some practice questions here and there than burning myself out on a simulated test, potentially getting discouraged, and losing all willpower to continue doing anything else that day.

Anyone else feeling the same way?


I barely did any studying this weekend, and I'm just starting to study now. I'm just over it and want to get this ridiculous thing over with. While I totally understand you don't want to burn yourself out we're still 8 days away from the exam, and I really found the simulated essay exam to be helpful in that it sort of prepares you to be ready for anything. The actual exam isn't going to tell you what the essays are on before you read the prompt so it can be somewhat of a shock at first since you're not really sure what subject you're in until you get to the call of the question or even after you read the fact pattern. Even if you don't take the whole simulated in a day I do recommend doing it.


Yeah I'm still debating it. I've never been a practice exam person. I don't think I did a single one in law school and it worked out just fine for me, so I'm kind of torn between the seemingly contradictory "don't reinvent the wheel" vs. "do a million practice essays" advice Themis is giving us.


I'm issue spotting and writing out rules for a billion essays, just not writing them out. It's kinda nice to see which parts of the law are KEY and which ones are pretty minor.

Talar
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 3:56 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Talar » Mon Jul 22, 2013 2:13 pm

1. (Question ID#3242)
Congress, without holding hearings or providing public notice, passed a bill immediately signed into law by the President. The bill terminated supplemental security income (SSI) payments to all resident aliens. The reason for the legislation was to address a budgetary shortfall. A resident alien who depended upon the payments to acquire food and shelter filed suit to challenge the constitutionality of the law.

How is the court likely to rule on the law’s constitutionality?
A. Uphold it, because Congress has plenary power over aliens.
B. Uphold it, because a person does not have a property interest in a government benefit.
C. Strike it down, because the law violated the plaintiff’s procedural due process rights.
D. Strike it down, because alienage is a suspect class.

Incorrect: Answer choice A is correct. Because Congress has plenary power over aliens under Article I, a federal alienage classification is likely valid unless it is arbitrary and unreasonable. Since the reason for the law (i.e., to reduce the deficit) is rational, it is constitutional. Answer choice B is incorrect because a person’s interest in receiving a government benefit is a property interest for which due process must be provided in the denial or termination of that benefit. However, Congress still had the authority to enact this law based on its plenary power over aliens. Answer choice C is incorrect because due process protection does not extend to the process by which a law is enacted. A person does not have a right to notice as to proposed legislation, nor does a person who would be affected by the legislation have a right to be heard. Answer choice D is incorrect because although alienage is a suspect class with regard to action taken by a state government, the statute in question was a federal statute.


Can anyone explain this? For some reason I thought that legislation also was subject to the procedural due process analysis. Is it only proceedings then? I didn't think that the answer's explanation was sufficient.

hlsperson1111
Posts: 239
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2012 11:10 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby hlsperson1111 » Mon Jul 22, 2013 2:18 pm

Generally applicable legislation typically does not require a procedural due process analysis even if individualized government action that had the same effect would require it. (This is the basic thrust of cases like Bi-Metallic).

Talar
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 3:56 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Talar » Mon Jul 22, 2013 2:22 pm

So, for the answer above, the legislation would not be subject to due process analysis but once that legislation is applied to individual persons by whatever government agency is empowered to enforce it those persons being deprived of their benefits WOULD be able to raise procedural due process?

Thanks for the help, by the way.

hlsperson1111
Posts: 239
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2012 11:10 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby hlsperson1111 » Mon Jul 22, 2013 2:25 pm

Talar wrote:So, for the answer above, the legislation would not be subject to due process analysis but once that legislation is applied to individual persons by whatever government agency is empowered to enforce it those persons being deprived of their benefits WOULD be able to raise procedural due process?

Thanks for the help, by the way.


Yes, when SSA cuts someone's benefits off, they are entitled to a hearing, but they are not entitled to a hearing to challenge a generally applicable law that will have the effect of threatening their benefits.

Talar
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 3:56 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Talar » Mon Jul 22, 2013 2:26 pm

Awesome! thanks again

User avatar
Shawnology
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 6:47 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Shawnology » Mon Jul 22, 2013 3:09 pm

Hey Themis Bretheren first of all hope everyone is doing well this last week. I hope we can all kill it so I can continue to talk about my friends who spend three times as much for the same result.

With that being said, can anyone help me with this, I feel the answer is contradictory the explanation.

Spoiler MBE Mixed Set Session 8

31. (Question ID#2817)
A defendant is on trial for the murder of his father. The defendant’s defense is that he shot his father accidentally. The prosecutor calls a police officer as a witness to testify that on two occasions in the year prior to this incident, he had been called to the defendant’s home because of complaints of loud arguments between the defendant and his father, and had found it necessary to stop the defendant from beating his father.
Defense counsel objected to the introduction of the police officer’s testimony. How should the court rule?
A. Exclude the testimony, because it is improper character evidence.
B. Exclude the testimony, because the police officer lacks firsthand knowledge of who started the quarrels.
C. Admit the testimony, to show that the defendant killed his father intentionally.
D. Admit the testimony to show that the defendant is a violent person.
Incorrect: Answer choice C is correct. In criminal cases, evidence of the defendant’s bad character is not admissible to prove that the defendant has a propensity to commit crimes and therefore is likely to have committed the crime in question. Therefore, answer choice D is incorrect. Although a defendant’s prior bad acts would not be admissible as character evidence, they could be admissible under the MIMIC rule. Here, the evidence of the defendant beating his father could be used to help show intent. Answer choice A is a true statement about admissibility as character evidence, but the evidence would still be admissible under a different theory, the MIMIC rule. Answer choice B is incorrect because firsthand knowledge of who started the quarrels is irrelevant.
The foregoing NCBE MBE question has been modified to reflect current NCBE stylistic approaches; the NCBE has not reviewed or endorsed this modification.

User avatar
Reinhardt
Posts: 458
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 2:27 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Reinhardt » Mon Jul 22, 2013 3:14 pm

hlsperson1111 wrote:
Talar wrote:So, for the answer above, the legislation would not be subject to due process analysis but once that legislation is applied to individual persons by whatever government agency is empowered to enforce it those persons being deprived of their benefits WOULD be able to raise procedural due process?

Thanks for the help, by the way.


Yes, when SSA cuts someone's benefits off, they are entitled to a hearing, but they are not entitled to a hearing to challenge a generally applicable law that will have the effect of threatening their benefits.


I don't want to belabor the point, but in this particular instance, where we have a law enacted that says "aliens are no longer eligible for social security payments," they are entitled to notice and a hearing before the benefits are actually taken away?

JDCA2012
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 9:45 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby JDCA2012 » Mon Jul 22, 2013 3:21 pm

Shawnology wrote:Spoiler MBE Mixed Set Session 8

Incorrect: Answer choice C is correct. In criminal cases, evidence of the defendant’s bad character is not admissible to prove that the defendant has a propensity to commit crimes and therefore is likely to have committed the crime in question. Therefore, answer choice D is incorrect. Although a defendant’s prior bad acts would not be admissible as character evidence, they could be admissible under the MIMIC rule. Here, the evidence of the defendant beating his father could be used to help show intent. Answer choice A is a true statement about admissibility as character evidence, but the evidence would still be admissible under a different theory, the MIMIC rule. Answer choice B is incorrect because firsthand knowledge of who started the quarrels is irrelevant.
The foregoing NCBE MBE question has been modified to reflect current NCBE stylistic approaches; the NCBE has not reviewed or endorsed this modification.


It's just saying that you can't use prior bad acts to show that he is a violent person and therefore was violent in this instance. It's saying though that you can use them to show he intentionally killed him because of the prior evidence to lead to why he would have done it (MIMIC).
This is a bad explanation by me. Sorry.

Talar
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 3:56 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Talar » Mon Jul 22, 2013 3:24 pm

Shawnology wrote:Hey Themis Bretheren first of all hope everyone is doing well this last week. I hope we can all kill it so I can continue to talk about my friends who spend three times as much for the same result.

With that being said, can anyone help me with this, I feel the answer is contradictory the explanation.

Spoiler MBE Mixed Set Session 8

31. (Question ID#2817)
A defendant is on trial for the murder of his father. The defendant’s defense is that he shot his father accidentally. The prosecutor calls a police officer as a witness to testify that on two occasions in the year prior to this incident, he had been called to the defendant’s home because of complaints of loud arguments between the defendant and his father, and had found it necessary to stop the defendant from beating his father.
Defense counsel objected to the introduction of the police officer’s testimony. How should the court rule?
A. Exclude the testimony, because it is improper character evidence.
B. Exclude the testimony, because the police officer lacks firsthand knowledge of who started the quarrels.
C. Admit the testimony, to show that the defendant killed his father intentionally.
D. Admit the testimony to show that the defendant is a violent person.
Incorrect: Answer choice C is correct. In criminal cases, evidence of the defendant’s bad character is not admissible to prove that the defendant has a propensity to commit crimes and therefore is likely to have committed the crime in question. Therefore, answer choice D is incorrect. Although a defendant’s prior bad acts would not be admissible as character evidence, they could be admissible under the MIMIC rule. Here, the evidence of the defendant beating his father could be used to help show intent. Answer choice A is a true statement about admissibility as character evidence, but the evidence would still be admissible under a different theory, the MIMIC rule. Answer choice B is incorrect because firsthand knowledge of who started the quarrels is irrelevant.
The foregoing NCBE MBE question has been modified to reflect current NCBE stylistic approaches; the NCBE has not reviewed or endorsed this modification.


The explanation to the answer is correct: "In general, evidence of the defendant's bad character is not admissible to prove that the defendant has a propensity to commit crimes and therefore is likely to have committed the crime in question." In this case, that's not the reason that the evidence is being admitted. Rather, it is being admitted to show the absence of ACCIDENT or MISTAKE by the defendant. See, if you are admitting the evidence to show that the son had a motive or perhaps did not like his father, then you're countering his defense of "oops, it was an accident."

User avatar
elysiansmiles
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 9:17 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby elysiansmiles » Mon Jul 22, 2013 3:27 pm

Kretzy wrote:
But the essay exam seems less useful than memorizing and doing questions throughout the day. Has anyone found it useful to sit and do the full 3 hour essay exam, though? Should I just buck up and do it one afternoon?


I thought it was helpful for me for practicing dividing up my time properly. I also ended up finishing super early (like 30-40 minutes). When I checked the sample answers I wasn't too far off, so maybe I'm just quick at the essays. This is great information to have now, when I can check my answers. I know myself - if I finish with that much time left on the actual bar, I would flip out assuming I did it all wrong. I knew that I was finishing on the early side of essays generally, but I didn't know how much it was adding up until I did them all back-to-back. At least now I can figure out a strategy for what to do with my extra time, and if I finish up early on the big day I'll be less likely to freak out.

Talar
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 3:56 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Talar » Mon Jul 22, 2013 3:29 pm

Reinhardt wrote:
hlsperson1111 wrote:
Talar wrote:So, for the answer above, the legislation would not be subject to due process analysis but once that legislation is applied to individual persons by whatever government agency is empowered to enforce it those persons being deprived of their benefits WOULD be able to raise procedural due process?

Thanks for the help, by the way.


Yes, when SSA cuts someone's benefits off, they are entitled to a hearing, but they are not entitled to a hearing to challenge a generally applicable law that will have the effect of threatening their benefits.


I don't want to belabor the point, but in this particular instance, where we have a law enacted that says "aliens are no longer eligible for social security payments," they are entitled to notice and a hearing before the benefits are actually taken away?


I don't know the answer to this. If you look at our outline though, they say that generally there are two times when a hearing must be held BEFORE benefits are taken away: if you are revoking someone's driving license (unless it's an emergency or something and you fear he's going to hurt people) and when you're taking away welfare benefits. The other times, including disability benefits, you can have the hearing after so long as it is prompt and fair. Outside of these categorical examples, I assume that the answer depends on those factors that our con law outline lays out: the interest at stake, the benefit of providing additional procedures, and the state's interest in efficiency and costs. Thus, for social security benefits, given that they are not listed as a categorical rule in our outline, I would assume you apply those three factors.

User avatar
Bikeflip
Posts: 1833
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:01 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Bikeflip » Mon Jul 22, 2013 3:43 pm

Desert Fox wrote:I'm issue spotting and writing out rules for a billion essays, just not writing them out. It's kinda nice to see which parts of the law are KEY and which ones are pretty minor.



I'd have to agree. I know how to write these damn things, but I want to know what's important. I can quickly see which rules are important, how those rules fit in with other rules and keep moving on.

User avatar
Reinhardt
Posts: 458
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 2:27 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Reinhardt » Mon Jul 22, 2013 3:50 pm

It just seems to be completely pointless to have a hearing either before or after taking the benefits. I guess the person could dispute whether they actually are an alien?

GARLICKNOTS
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:26 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby GARLICKNOTS » Mon Jul 22, 2013 3:55 pm

Quick Qs:

Taking the bar at Javits and it seems unconstitutionally usurious to pay $20 day for a sandwich and a bag of chips there. I know that mcdonalds/subway/whatever have 14 hour long lines during the bar so would an almond butter, siracha and greens sandwich count as a "quiet snack" that I could I put in my gallon-sized zip lock bag to eat during lunch? Not finding any good answers online.

Also, tea in a clear bottle to sip?

Re.

User avatar
Bikeflip
Posts: 1833
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:01 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Bikeflip » Mon Jul 22, 2013 4:03 pm

GARLICKNOTS wrote:Quick Qs:

Taking the bar at Javits and it seems unconstitutionally usurious to pay $20 day for a sandwich and a bag of chips there. I know that mcdonalds/subway/whatever have 14 hour long lines during the bar so would an almond butter, siracha and greens sandwich count as a "quiet snack" that I could I put in my gallon-sized zip lock bag to eat during lunch? Not finding any good answers online.

Also, tea in a clear bottle to sip?

Re.



Sounds like you're in NY. Call the bar exam people in NY. Also, are you allowed to stash a lunch in a backpack? You may just want to do that instead and have a different snack for the exam.

As for tea, IDK about NY, but in CO it's fine.
Last edited by Bikeflip on Mon Jul 22, 2013 4:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

JD_done
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 9:04 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby JD_done » Mon Jul 22, 2013 4:03 pm

GARLICKNOTS wrote:Quick Qs:

Taking the bar at Javits and it seems unconstitutionally usurious to pay $20 day for a sandwich and a bag of chips there. I know that mcdonalds/subway/whatever have 14 hour long lines during the bar so would an almond butter, siracha and greens sandwich count as a "quiet snack" that I could I put in my gallon-sized zip lock bag to eat during lunch? Not finding any good answers online.

Also, tea in a clear bottle to sip?

Re.



I dont think your lunch has to be quiet since you will be eating it during the break. The snacks have to be quiet because they don't want us munching on pretzels and distracting other exam takers. I love almond butter but the rest of it sounds like to would give someone an upset stomach. I'm planning on playing it as safe as possible food wise.

thebull
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:49 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby thebull » Mon Jul 22, 2013 4:09 pm

JD_done wrote:
GARLICKNOTS wrote:Quick Qs:

Taking the bar at Javits and it seems unconstitutionally usurious to pay $20 day for a sandwich and a bag of chips there. I know that mcdonalds/subway/whatever have 14 hour long lines during the bar so would an almond butter, siracha and greens sandwich count as a "quiet snack" that I could I put in my gallon-sized zip lock bag to eat during lunch? Not finding any good answers online.

Also, tea in a clear bottle to sip?

Re.



I dont think your lunch has to be quiet since you will be eating it during the break. The snacks have to be quiet because they don't want us munching on pretzels and distracting other exam takers. I love almond butter but the rest of it sounds like to would give someone an upset stomach. I'm planning on playing it as safe as possible food wise.


What's the website to see what we can and can't bring to the NY Exam?

User avatar
Bikeflip
Posts: 1833
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:01 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Bikeflip » Mon Jul 22, 2013 4:12 pm

thebull wrote:
JD_done wrote:
GARLICKNOTS wrote:Quick Qs:

Taking the bar at Javits and it seems unconstitutionally usurious to pay $20 day for a sandwich and a bag of chips there. I know that mcdonalds/subway/whatever have 14 hour long lines during the bar so would an almond butter, siracha and greens sandwich count as a "quiet snack" that I could I put in my gallon-sized zip lock bag to eat during lunch? Not finding any good answers online.

Also, tea in a clear bottle to sip?

Re.



I dont think your lunch has to be quiet since you will be eating it during the break. The snacks have to be quiet because they don't want us munching on pretzels and distracting other exam takers. I love almond butter but the rest of it sounds like to would give someone an upset stomach. I'm planning on playing it as safe as possible food wise.


What's the website to see what we can and can't bring to the NY Exam?


Here's some help: http://www.nybarexam.org/Docs/secpolicy.pdf

thebull
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:49 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby thebull » Mon Jul 22, 2013 4:26 pm

Bikeflip wrote:
thebull wrote:
JD_done wrote:
GARLICKNOTS wrote:Quick Qs:

Taking the bar at Javits and it seems unconstitutionally usurious to pay $20 day for a sandwich and a bag of chips there. I know that mcdonalds/subway/whatever have 14 hour long lines during the bar so would an almond butter, siracha and greens sandwich count as a "quiet snack" that I could I put in my gallon-sized zip lock bag to eat during lunch? Not finding any good answers online.

Also, tea in a clear bottle to sip?

Re.



I dont think your lunch has to be quiet since you will be eating it during the break. The snacks have to be quiet because they don't want us munching on pretzels and distracting other exam takers. I love almond butter but the rest of it sounds like to would give someone an upset stomach. I'm planning on playing it as safe as possible food wise.


What's the website to see what we can and can't bring to the NY Exam?


Here's some help: http://www.nybarexam.org/Docs/secpolicy.pdf


Thanks!

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11720
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby kalvano » Mon Jul 22, 2013 4:33 pm

I'm jealous of people that get to bring food and drink into the exam.

releasethehounds
Posts: 163
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 5:11 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby releasethehounds » Mon Jul 22, 2013 5:03 pm

kalvano wrote:I'm jealous of people that get to bring food and drink into the exam.


Samesies. Particularly since it's going to be too hot to keep food in m'car. But "there will be drinking fountains throughout the examination room." Which is just weird to me, I feel like that'd be MORE distracting because now I have movement in my periph and will inevitably end up watching these people. Particularly weird given the lengths Arizona goes to to make sure THERE ARE NO DISTRACTIONS OR NOISES (ex: can't wear backless footwear, can't bring in feminine hygiene products, can't bring in any food or drink). But go ahead and walk around?

User avatar
Dr. Review
Posts: 1797
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 1:51 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Dr. Review » Mon Jul 22, 2013 5:06 pm

kalvano wrote:I'm jealous of people that get to bring food and drink into the exam.


Pitt is giving us boxed lunches on both days of the exam. 8)

Vatican
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 4:59 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Vatican » Mon Jul 22, 2013 5:14 pm

Reinhardt wrote:
hlsperson1111 wrote:
Talar wrote:So, for the answer above, the legislation would not be subject to due process analysis but once that legislation is applied to individual persons by whatever government agency is empowered to enforce it those persons being deprived of their benefits WOULD be able to raise procedural due process?

Thanks for the help, by the way.


Yes, when SSA cuts someone's benefits off, they are entitled to a hearing, but they are not entitled to a hearing to challenge a generally applicable law that will have the effect of threatening their benefits.


I don't want to belabor the point, but in this particular instance, where we have a law enacted that says "aliens are no longer eligible for social security payments," they are entitled to notice and a hearing before the benefits are actually taken away?

I doubt it!

If Congress says no more SSI to aliens, aliens don't get no more SSI. Goldberg (and Matthew v. Eldrige, etc...) were predicated on statutory entitlements. If the statute isn't there any more, well, then... that's that. Remember, Congress could kick every alien out of the country tomorrow if it really wanted to. Though in real life, I could see an SDP vested-rights-esque argument getting 5 votes, I think for bar-purposes, plenary really means plenary.




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest