Top Law Schools

I don't understand why, in all of these recent threads on this topic - everyone seems to stake out one position or the other.

If AA is unconstitutional, it should be banned at public universities. However, why shouldn't private universities be able to do whatever the fuck they want?

Edit: Mods, if this should be posted in off-topic feel free to move it. I forget where these are supposed to go.

For the same reason they're not able to say they'll only admit white students.

I think interstate commerce clause can be used.

People don't "debate" about AA on the internet. They yell.

Also: IBTL

Veyron wrote:However, why shouldn't private universities be able to do whatever the fuck they want?

Massive federal subsidization?

D-ROCCA wrote:I think interstate commerce clause can be used.

Sure, but then again, the Icommerice clause can be used to do just about anything. But I'm coming at this from the conservative perspective that it SHOULDN'T. Certainly people with a similar outlook, as most AA proponents profess to share, would have to agree that the government messing with the admissions policies of a school is undesirable.

Although... I do see the elegance of your argument. Is education interstate commerce if I fly from X state to Y state to attend school? Possibly - even for the strict constructionist. Its a nice way to avoid using the 14th amendment as a hook since the private thing would give you more problems there.

Nogameisfair wrote:

Veyron wrote:However, why shouldn't private universities be able to do whatever the fuck they want?

Massive federal subsidization?

So people who live in section 8 housing should have their lives similarly regulated?

Veyron wrote:

Nogameisfair wrote:

Veyron wrote:However, why shouldn't private universities be able to do whatever the fuck they want?

Massive federal subsidization?

So people who live in section 8 housing should have their lives similarly regulated?

What the... Are you a 1L? This is such a "I learned to make [strained] analogies," moment.

Nogameisfair wrote:

Veyron wrote:

Nogameisfair wrote:

Veyron wrote:However, why shouldn't private universities be able to do whatever the fuck they want?

Massive federal subsidization?

So people who live in section 8 housing should have their lives similarly regulated?

What the... Are you a 1L? This is such a "I learned to make [strained] analogies," moment.

What the... are you a junior high school student. This is such a "I learned to make ad hominem attacks" moment.


If you want to give me the beat down with some legal reasoning, on the other hand, I'd be glad to take it. I'm trying to build some constitutional analysis skills here.

Veyron wrote: What the... are you a junior high school student. This is such a "I learned to make ad hominem attacks" moment.


If you want to give me the beat down with some legal reasoning, on the other hand, I'd be glad to take it. I'm trying to build some constitutional analysis skills here.

I'll take your unnecessary use of latin as a "yes." I wasn't really attacking you. Your analogy doesn't at all respond to my comment... so I didn't see a need to answer. But, I get a kick out of the absurd analogies you draw... To answer your question, YES. Section 8 housing is by definition government regulation. The very name is a reference to a statute... AND yes, those living in Section 8 housing are, and should be, regulated by the government. But, I don't really understand what this has to do with constitutional analysis.

Veyron wrote:Edit: Mods, if this should be posted in off-topic feel free to move it. I forget where these are supposed to go.

This tells me you knew well enough that you shouldn't be doing this. Enjoy your tempban.