Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=209979
I know, but I was relying on the one exception to the rule, but the exception was not applicable. That was the point of my post.kalvano wrote: Jeffries mentioned that taxpayers don't have standing several times.
Ya, after I got that question wrong I went back and highlighted the fuck out of that "specific" word, haha.Reinhardt wrote:I would've gotten that question wrong too. Here's what Jeffries says though:
"An establishment of religion challenge to specific congressional appropriations can be challenged by any taxpayer."
Except to challenge violations of the Establishment Clause. This question angered me. It seems like the TP would have standing e/i the suit probably won't succeed as an actual violation of the EC.kalvano wrote:Talar wrote:You know Themis is getting technical as shit when you start getting problems like this:
30. (Question ID#3258)
The President created an office to encourage the improvement of local communities through faith-based organizations. The office was funded from monies appropriated by Congress for the general discretionary use of the President. The office provided support only to religious organizations. A taxpayer brought suit in federal court challenging the constitutionality of this office. The federal government has moved to dismiss this suit.
Should the court allow the taxpayer’s suit to proceed?
A. Yes, because the funding of the office violates the First Amendment Establishment of Religion Clause.
B. Yes, because the source of the funds for the office is a congressional appropriation.
C. No, because the plaintiff as a taxpayer lacks standing.
D. No, because the First Amendment Establishment of Religion Clause does not apply to the executive branch.
Incorrect: Answer choice C is correct. A taxpayer generally does not have standing to file a federal lawsuit simply because the taxpayer believes the government has allocated funds in an improper way. Answer choice A is incorrect because, although there is an exception to the rule that a taxpayer lacks standing to challenge a governmental expenditure when the expenditure violates the First Amendment Establishment of Religion Clause, this exception is very narrow. The exception does not apply to the expenditure of general discretionary funds by the executive branch. Answer choice B is incorrect because the narrow exception requires that Congress authorize the funds for a specific use that violates the Establishment Clause. Here, Congress merely authorized the funds for the President’s discretionary use, and not to fund the challenged office. Answer choice D is incorrect because, although the Establishment Clause reads “Congress shall make no law,” this clause has been interpreted to include actions taken by the federal government in general.
Jeffries mentioned that taxpayers don't have standing several times.
I assume nobody studies that shit and we'd all be in the same boat.JAGGER wrote:Yeah, just took a look at the Fed Tax outline for Illinois. I hope the bar examiners don't pick 2013 as the first time since 1992 or whatever this sh*t shows up.
releasethehounds wrote:...just took an evidence practice essay.
Number of characters (including spaces) that Arizona allows: 5000
Number of characters (including spaces) of the model answer: 12,994
.....uh.....
It definitely, definitely was.Bikeflip wrote:releasethehounds wrote:...just took an evidence practice essay.
Number of characters (including spaces) that Arizona allows: 5000
Number of characters (including spaces) of the model answer: 12,994
.....uh.....
I hate that bullshit. So so much. I bet 80% of the answer was either needlessly elaborate or unnecessary.
Am I supposed to know what regaling means?The owner of an antique pocket watch took it to a jeweler for a cleaning. The jeweler, who also sold watches, convinced the owner that the expensive watch had little value and fraudulently purchased it from the owner for $50. The jeweler sold the watch to a collector for $5,000 after regaling the collector with the story of its acquisition.
Does the collector have good title to the watch?
It means to entertain someone with a story.Charles Barkley wrote:Am I supposed to know what regaling means?The owner of an antique pocket watch took it to a jeweler for a cleaning. The jeweler, who also sold watches, convinced the owner that the expensive watch had little value and fraudulently purchased it from the owner for $50. The jeweler sold the watch to a collector for $5,000 after regaling the collector with the story of its acquisition.
Does the collector have good title to the watch?
That is exactly what I am banking on hahaDesert Fox wrote:I assume nobody studies that shit and we'd all be in the same boat.JAGGER wrote:Yeah, just took a look at the Fed Tax outline for Illinois. I hope the bar examiners don't pick 2013 as the first time since 1992 or whatever this sh*t shows up.
We just gotta bullshit better than the bottom 20%.wh3931110 wrote:That is exactly what I am banking on hahaDesert Fox wrote:I assume nobody studies that shit and we'd all be in the same boat.JAGGER wrote:Yeah, just took a look at the Fed Tax outline for Illinois. I hope the bar examiners don't pick 2013 as the first time since 1992 or whatever this sh*t shows up.
Preexisting duty rule.releasethehounds wrote:Someone high five me, I finally bit the goddamn bullet and took the AM session of the essay exam. You know. Reward me for shit I was supposed to do anyways.
locusdelicti wrote:Preexisting duty rule.releasethehounds wrote:Someone high five me, I finally bit the goddamn bullet and took the AM session of the essay exam. You know. Reward me for shit I was supposed to do anyways.