July 2015 California Bar Exam

redblueyellow
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:50 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby redblueyellow » Wed Jul 29, 2015 11:19 pm



Awesome, I'll get to reading!

Underoath
Posts: 235
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 8:49 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby Underoath » Wed Jul 29, 2015 11:22 pm

Ok, I gotta get off here. This forum is a distraction. Good night all and good luck tomorrow.

Zaizei
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun May 24, 2015 7:05 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby Zaizei » Wed Jul 29, 2015 11:25 pm

redblueyellow wrote:
BuenAbogado wrote:can congress violate a treaty?


Yea, can't they just pass a new law afterwards (last in time wins) that contradicts it?


Yep

redblueyellow
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:50 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby redblueyellow » Wed Jul 29, 2015 11:44 pm

Zaizei wrote:
redblueyellow wrote:
BuenAbogado wrote:can congress violate a treaty?


Yea, can't they just pass a new law afterwards (last in time wins) that contradicts it?


Yep


Why couldn't this have been an MBE question? :/

starryski
Posts: 235
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2015 2:04 am

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby starryski » Wed Jul 29, 2015 11:45 pm

redblueyellow wrote:
Zaizei wrote:
redblueyellow wrote:
BuenAbogado wrote:can congress violate a treaty?


Yea, can't they just pass a new law afterwards (last in time wins) that contradicts it?


Yep


Why couldn't this have been an MBE question? :/



i think it was one...

redblueyellow
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:50 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby redblueyellow » Wed Jul 29, 2015 11:49 pm

starryski wrote:
redblueyellow wrote:
Zaizei wrote:
redblueyellow wrote:
BuenAbogado wrote:can congress violate a treaty?


Yea, can't they just pass a new law afterwards (last in time wins) that contradicts it?


Yep


Why couldn't this have been an MBE question? :/



i think it was one...


Oh.

notcool
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 10:29 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby notcool » Wed Jul 29, 2015 11:58 pm

This might be a dumb question, but I'm freaking out (hopefully) irrationally. I lightly circled the question number for one of the questions on the Scantron sheet as a reminder to go back to it (I then, stupidly, forgot to actually go back to it as I finished right at the end of the first MBE session. So I forgot to erase the mark)... This is not, like, going to screw up my whole test. I'm assuming I'll just get the question wrong and that'll be that. Right? I just need reassurance.

The whole "don't make stray marks thing" and all.. Bar exam is making me crazy.

redblueyellow
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:50 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby redblueyellow » Wed Jul 29, 2015 11:59 pm

redblueyellow wrote:
a male human wrote:
redblueyellow wrote:For Con Law:

How would one structure an essay that dealt with Congressional/Presidential powers analysis/whatnot?

I can do most of the other big stuff as long as I remember, although substantive due process' analysis (and commerce clause as well, I suppose) seem to be ridiculously short. "Uhh, this is a fundamental right, thus strict scrutiny applies b/c i'm losing my life, liberty, or property in some fashion, and this is the test for strict scrutiny."

I'm concerned because there's a couple predictions regarding the non-obvious con law stuff and I have absolutely no idea how to work up an essay on presidential powers or congress or whatnot.

I think you'd start by checking the congressional authorization 3-prong test first.


Would it be listed under something else? I just looked through my (commercial) outlines and my Kaplan stuff and I don't see it. Either that, or I'm really really out of it right now. Sorry :/


Found it! I was taught this with the Chevron case and interpretation in ls. Not like I remember it, but now I know what to look for!

redblueyellow
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:50 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby redblueyellow » Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:01 am

notcool wrote:This might be a dumb question, but I'm freaking out (hopefully) irrationally. I lightly circled the question number for one of the questions on the Scantron sheet as a reminder to go back to it (I then, stupidly, forgot to actually go back to it as I finished right at the end of the first MBE session. So I forgot to erase the mark)... This is not, like, going to screw up my whole test. I'm assuming I'll just get the question wrong and that'll be that. Right? I just need reassurance.

The whole "don't make stray marks thing" and all.. Bar exam is making me crazy.


No; several things may happen.

1. the mark is sufficiently far away from this scantron reader to where it will not even count
2. the mark is still within the scantron reader's "live" area, so you will likely lose a point if it finds the stray mark on the same line as the bubble choice answer (because now you've marked two answers instead of one)
3. if the mark was light enough, reader may not even recognize it
4. if the mark was egregious (this one doesn't sound like it), the entire test will get kicked out for human review

notcool
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 10:29 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby notcool » Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:07 am

redblueyellow wrote:
notcool wrote:This might be a dumb question, but I'm freaking out (hopefully) irrationally. I lightly circled the question number for one of the questions on the Scantron sheet as a reminder to go back to it (I then, stupidly, forgot to actually go back to it as I finished right at the end of the first MBE session. So I forgot to erase the mark)... This is not, like, going to screw up my whole test. I'm assuming I'll just get the question wrong and that'll be that. Right? I just need reassurance.

The whole "don't make stray marks thing" and all.. Bar exam is making me crazy.


No; several things may happen.

1. the mark is sufficiently far away from this scantron reader to where it will not even count
2. the mark is still within the scantron reader's "live" area, so you will likely lose a point if it finds the stray mark on the same line as the bubble choice answer (because now you've marked two answers instead of one)
3. if the mark was light enough, reader may not even recognize it
4. if the mark was egregious (this one doesn't sound like it), the entire test will get kicked out for human review


Okay, thanks! I know it's dumb to freak out over something as stupid as this, haha.

User avatar
a male human
Posts: 1677
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby a male human » Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:15 am

redblueyellow wrote:


Awesome, I'll get to reading!

Looks like you already found material for it but yeah that question has relevant sample rule statements.

Are people really predicting con law to appear?

User avatar
robinhoodOO
Posts: 874
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:08 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby robinhoodOO » Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:23 am

a male human wrote:
redblueyellow wrote:


Awesome, I'll get to reading!

Looks like you already found material for it but yeah that question has relevant sample rule statements.

Are people really predicting con law to appear?


Yes.

http://barexamguru.com/

redblueyellow
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:50 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby redblueyellow » Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:30 am

FRE - Character Evidence

Crim case:

1. D is on trial for forgery. D, on direct, calls Witness (his old co-worker), and on direct, W says that when D used to be a mechanic in W's auto shop, he would never lie to a customer and charge them more money than they really owe.

2. D is on trial for battery. D, on direct, calls Witness (his old co-worker), and on direct, W says that when D used to be a patron at W's bar, D would never get into any fights with anyone even if the other party wanted to fight him.

Valid use of specific acts on direct in a crim case?

User avatar
BuenAbogado
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 3:43 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby BuenAbogado » Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:36 am

If a state has a facially discriminatory practice, it has to be necessary to an important government interest right?

You only go into undue burden if it's not facially discrim?

User avatar
robinhoodOO
Posts: 874
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:08 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby robinhoodOO » Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:49 am

BuenAbogado wrote:If a state has a facially discriminatory practice, it has to be necessary to an important government interest right?

You only go into undue burden if it's not facially discrim?


Depends on the law, but usually yes, that's the rule. If something is facially discriminatory as to its respective area, strict scrutiny applies

User avatar
BuenAbogado
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 3:43 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby BuenAbogado » Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:59 am

robinhoodOO wrote:
BuenAbogado wrote:If a state has a facially discriminatory practice, it has to be necessary to an important government interest right?

You only go into undue burden if it's not facially discrim?


Depends on the law, but usually yes, that's the rule. If something is facially discriminatory as to its respective area, strict scrutiny applies


In a dormant commerce clause situation. A state has a law that its residents can only buy hinges from in state to preserve its hinge industry.

If I were to answer this as invalid because it's discriminatory and not rational to a legitimate state interest that would be wrong right? But if I were to do an undue burden test that would be wrong too since its facially discrim?

User avatar
robinhoodOO
Posts: 874
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:08 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby robinhoodOO » Thu Jul 30, 2015 1:04 am

BuenAbogado wrote:
robinhoodOO wrote:
BuenAbogado wrote:If a state has a facially discriminatory practice, it has to be necessary to an important government interest right?

You only go into undue burden if it's not facially discrim?


Depends on the law, but usually yes, that's the rule. If something is facially discriminatory as to its respective area, strict scrutiny applies


In a dormant commerce clause situation. A state has a law that its residents can only buy hinges from in state to preserve its hinge industry.

If I were to answer this as invalid because it's discriminatory and not rational to a legitimate state interest that would be wrong right? But if I were to do an undue burden test that would be wrong too since its facially discrim?


In that scenario, it is facially discriminatory against out of state manufacturers and strict scrutiny applies (Burden on state to show the law is necessary to serve a compelling government purpose).

If it is merely incidental, a balancing test is employed: Weight public interest/benefit against burden on interstate commerce + must be narrowly tailored.

User avatar
SpAcEmAn SpLiFF
Posts: 291
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 5:16 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby SpAcEmAn SpLiFF » Thu Jul 30, 2015 1:10 am

redblueyellow wrote:FRE - Character Evidence

Crim case:

1. D is on trial for forgery. D, on direct, calls Witness (his old co-worker), and on direct, W says that when D used to be a mechanic in W's auto shop, he would never lie to a customer and charge them more money than they really owe.

2. D is on trial for battery. D, on direct, calls Witness (his old co-worker), and on direct, W says that when D used to be a patron at W's bar, D would never get into any fights with anyone even if the other party wanted to fight him.

Valid use of specific acts on direct in a crim case?

I think the D can only open the door with reputation and opinion for character evidence.

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15459
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby Tiago Splitter » Thu Jul 30, 2015 1:11 am

No for DCC if it burdens interstate commerce by discriminating against out of staters it needs to be necessary to achieve an important government purpose. If Congress consents or the market participant exception applies it's all good.

If no discrimination balance the benefit to the state against the burden on interstate commerce. Nothing in my notes about narrowly tailored.

redblueyellow
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:50 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby redblueyellow » Thu Jul 30, 2015 1:13 am

robinhoodOO wrote:
BuenAbogado wrote:
robinhoodOO wrote:
BuenAbogado wrote:If a state has a facially discriminatory practice, it has to be necessary to an important government interest right?

You only go into undue burden if it's not facially discrim?


Depends on the law, but usually yes, that's the rule. If something is facially discriminatory as to its respective area, strict scrutiny applies


In a dormant commerce clause situation. A state has a law that its residents can only buy hinges from in state to preserve its hinge industry.

If I were to answer this as invalid because it's discriminatory and not rational to a legitimate state interest that would be wrong right? But if I were to do an undue burden test that would be wrong too since its facially discrim?


In that scenario, it is facially discriminatory against out of state manufacturers and strict scrutiny applies (Burden on state to show the law is necessary to serve a compelling government purpose).

If it is merely incidental, a balancing test is employed: Weight public interest/benefit against burden on interstate commerce + must be narrowly tailored.


So to confirm, the P&I test is if there is a "substantial relationship" between the discriminatory practice and the state's interest and is narrowly tailored, right?

EDIT: assuming this is one of the many fundamental rights, or some other economic activity.

redblueyellow
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:50 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby redblueyellow » Thu Jul 30, 2015 1:15 am

Tiago Splitter wrote:No for DCC if it burdens interstate commerce by discriminating against out of staters it needs to be necessary to achieve an important government purpose. If Congress consents or the market participant exception applies it's all good.

If no discrimination balance the benefit to the state against the burden on interstate commerce. Nothing in my notes about narrowly tailored.


This is what I have in my stuff as well.

I'm not sure how we got to the strict scrutiny test even if it's discriminatory against out of state commerce.

EDIT: Barcode has the test above.

EDIT 2: Kaplan has the compelling state interest (SS) test for facial discrimination.

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15459
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby Tiago Splitter » Thu Jul 30, 2015 1:21 am

redblueyellow wrote:EDIT 2: Kaplan has the compelling state interest (SS) test for facial discrimination.

for facial discrimination related to the dormant commerce clause?

IceManKazanski
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 6:10 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby IceManKazanski » Thu Jul 30, 2015 1:22 am

Tiago Splitter wrote:No for DCC if it burdens interstate commerce by discriminating against out of staters it needs to be necessary to achieve an important government purpose. If Congress consents or the market participant exception applies it's all good.

If no discrimination balance the benefit to the state against the burden on interstate commerce. Nothing in my notes about narrowly tailored.


Anyone have a clear way to distinguish DCC from P/I of Art. IV?

I know that Art. IV applies to the equal treatment of citizens vs. non-citizens re: "fundamental rights" like the right to work, buy land etc. (but not to voting) where as DCC applies to anything burdening interstate commerce. DCC applies to corporations, P/I doesn't.

Does P/I need to be discriminatory on its face? If so, intermediate scrutiny?

Anything I am missing?

redblueyellow
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:50 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby redblueyellow » Thu Jul 30, 2015 1:23 am

Tiago Splitter wrote:
redblueyellow wrote:EDIT 2: Kaplan has the compelling state interest (SS) test for facial discrimination.

for facial discrimination related to the dormant commerce clause?


Yup! They also make no note of the "important non-economic state interest" that barcode uses as an exception along with market participant for either facially discriminatory or the facially non-discriminatory categories.

redblueyellow
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:50 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby redblueyellow » Thu Jul 30, 2015 1:26 am

IceManKazanski wrote:
Tiago Splitter wrote:No for DCC if it burdens interstate commerce by discriminating against out of staters it needs to be necessary to achieve an important government purpose. If Congress consents or the market participant exception applies it's all good.

If no discrimination balance the benefit to the state against the burden on interstate commerce. Nothing in my notes about narrowly tailored.


Anyone have a clear way to distinguish DCC from P/I of Art. IV?

I know that Art. IV applies to the equal treatment of citizens vs. non-citizens re: "fundamental rights" like the right to work, buy land etc. (but not to voting) where as DCC applies to anything burdening interstate commerce. DCC applies to corporations, P/I doesn't.

Does P/I need to be discriminatory on its face? If so, intermediate scrutiny?

Anything I am missing?


I thought the default "rule" was to just apply both if the regulation is facially discriminatory. If not facially discriminatory (or a Corp/alien is bringing the cause of action), then don't worry about it.

Kaplan also mentions that discrminiation against citizens of residents in regards to an essential economic right or liberty triggers the Art IV of P&I, whereas general economic discrimination against a business or entity is more viewed using DCC.




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests