dabigchina wrote: PeanutsNJam wrote: dabigchina wrote: Indifference wrote:
I'd be on board for simplifying the fucking constitution before we go after the tax code.
This is miserable.
the tax code is easy because there are actual rules and doctrines that you can follow.
Con Law basically hinges on what Kennedy had for breakfast on that particular day.
I can't remember a single unanimous decision I read in con law. Maybe a squib case. But even for 8-1 decisions my professor is like "well I think the lone dissent was right" so idk wtf to do with that on an exam.
Also can anybody tell me whether it's useful or not at all to analyze the Commerce Clause in the context of the three eras? My prof did say he doesn't want us to use arguments from overruled cases, but we spent a significant amount of time going through overruled cases, so......?????????? You also have cases that were technically overruled but the Court seems to be swinging back to that school of thought so is it really
overruled? Can I use it on my exam?
that's going to 100% depend on your professor. I've heard of people having to analyze comm clause based on if they were in 1800, 1935, and now.
I've seen this on some of my professor's practice exam.
There are actually 4 eras. Pre-1887 (Gibbons v. Ogden
), 1887-1937, 1937-1995, 1995-Present. These eras also make sense with the way the Court handled many other economic issues (Taxing/Spending, Necessary and Proper, Lochner Era, Dormant Commerce Clause, etc.)