Duke Class of 2013 Forum

[Jericwithers]

I remember half-priced books; that was the only good thing about Texas I can recall .

You must have a terrible memory...

We finally got a new newsletter, but not a mention about anything related to us 1Ls. I'm thinking about calling and asking when we can expect section assignments, so I can plan my summer gunner studies accordingly.

[paralegal]

Anyone else think that paralegal will be one of the 10% with a firm job? Seems to be very well versed and well connected

Thanks for the vote of confidence...honestly though....heading into this economy in pursuit of a 1L summer gig....is going to be challenging....

I wanted to go back and add to this because it sounds sort of pessimistic. Getting a 1L firm job is not important to your long-term career and professional goals. So, don't worry if you're in a U.S. Attorney's Office for the summer or some other unpaid position. As long as you get some kind of legal experience over the summer, you'll be well positioned going into OCI in your 2L fall.

Thanks....sounds promising....

[paralegal]

I'm thinking about calling and asking when we can expect section assignments, so I can plan my summer gunner studies accordingly.

....just ordered LEEWS audio CD program.....

[Jericwithers]

I'm thinking about calling and asking when we can expect section assignments, so I can plan my summer gunner studies accordingly.

....just ordered LEEWS audio CD program.....

I was thinking about advertising for a group to get the discounted rate to do live program in November, but I guess its too late now since you were the only other person I knew was interested in it. Let me know if the audio program is helpful (is it legal for me to split the cost and you share the material with me after you use it?).

[paralegal]

Let me know if the audio program is helpful (is it legal for me to split the cost and you share the material with me after you use it?).

Sure....I'll keep you posted....

[Reedie]

I think the two you will be playing topgun, while I pour margaritas in the back of the bus.

[Jericwithers]

I think the two you will be playing topgun, while I pour margaritas in the back of the bus.

Haha no way; I'm just over compensating for how anxious I am about it all. I feel too unprepared, so the logical response is to read and gain more knowledge about the experience. At best my efforts will land me middle of the bus (close enough for you to pass some of those drinks up my way).

Speaking of margaritas, where are the go to beaches in NC?

[someones alt]

Speaking of margaritas, where are the go to beaches in NC?

Outer Banks!

[thickfreakness]

Speaking of margaritas, where are the go to beaches in NC?

Outer Banks!

Yep. I've never been and I'm excited about it. Hell, I may head over there right after we move in just to see what's going on over there. Orange Beach, Gulf Shores, Destin/Ft. Walton have been my go-to beaches but they're a wee bit too oily for my liking right now.

[Jericwithers]

What does constitutional law consist of at Duke? Single semester course covering all articles and amendments?

[ObviouslyMasochistic]

What does constitutional law consist of at Duke? Single semester course covering all articles and amendments?

Single semester course, doesn't cover everything. They leave some stuff for Criminal Procedure. Here's my high-level outline for Con Law if you're interested in what you'll see. (formatting will undoubtedly be screwed)



•  Is a STATE LAW valid? (NOTE: No hook needed due to states' plenary power. )
 
1.  Does the state law violate a constitutional provision (Bill of Rights, EPC, DPC)?
 
a. Does the law violate EQUAL PROTECTION?
i.  What is the classification?
□ Discrimination on face of law?
□ Facially neutral but discriminatory purpose?
® NOTE: Discriminatory impact is not enough.
ii.  What is the level of scrutiny?
□ Race/national origin = strict scrutiny
® Compelling reason
® Narrow tailoring (look for over/under-inclusive), cannot be achieved by any less discriminatory means.
□ Gender = intermediate scrutiny
® Important reason
® Substantially related (over/under-inclusive not fatal)
□ All others = rational basis
® Legitimate reason
◊ Any conceivable purpose, not actual purpose.
® Rationally related  (over/under-inclusive is fine)
® However, if animus, rational basis PLUS.
iii.  Does the classification meet the level of scrutiny?
 
b. Does the state law violate SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS?
i. Does it involve family autonomy, procreation, sexual activity, sexual orientation, medical care decision-making, travel, voting, or access to the courts?
□ If so, law must meet strict scrutiny (see above).
□ If not, should the right curbed by state law be a fundamental right protected by DPC?
® Factors – history/tradition, national ethos, level of abstraction available to see a tradition.
ii. Does the state law infringe upon the fundamental right?
□ Absolute ban = infringement
□ If the law just burdens a person exercising that fundamental right, consider the directness and substantiality of the interference.
®  If abortion, undue burden/substantial obstacle.
□ If infringement found, strict scrutiny.
□ If no infringement, rational basis.
 
c. Does the state law violate the BILL OF RIGHTS (that have been incorporated)?
 
 
2. Is there PREEMPTION? Does federal law preempt state law? (Supremacy Clause)
a.  Is there express preemption?  Does the federal law expressly says it trumps state/local law?
§ Court must still decide the scope of the law.
b.  Is there implied preemption?  Three options:
§ Did Congress intend to have the federal law exclusively occupy the field? (Field preemption).  Ask:
□ Is this an area where the federal gov’t traditionally plays a role?
□ Has Congress expressed an intent in the text of the law or in LH that the law should be exclusive in this area?
□ Is there an important traditional state or local interest fulfilled by the state law?
□ Would allowing state/local regulations in this area risk interfering with comprehensive fed regulatory efforts?
□ NOTE: Look for field particularly in foreign policy/immigration laws.
§  Is there conflicts preemption?
□ Conflicts- impossibility preemption – occurs if it is physically impossible to comply with both state and fed law.
□ Conflicts- impediment preemption –  occurs when a person could comply with both but compliance with state law would undermine Congress’s purpose.
®  BUT, what about the idea that federal law is a floor and state law is building on it?
 
 
3. Does the state law violate the DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE by placing an undue burden on interstate commerce?
a. Is the law discriminatory against out-of-staters? 
§ Can be:
□ Discriminatory on its face,
□ Facially neutral but has a discriminatory purpose OR
□ Facially neutral but has a discriminatory effect.
§ If not discriminatory, balance burden on interstate commerce v. social benefits of the law (presumption of constitutionality here & low burden of proof on the state).
b. If discriminatory, is the law necessary to serve an important government function? (presumption of unconstitutionality here & a high burden of proof on the state).
§ Are there any other ways that state could go about achieving the goal in a less discriminatory fashion?
c.  Does the law fall under an exception to the dormant commerce clause?
§ Has Congress approved the state action?
□ If so, dormant commerce clause is no longer dormant --> no issue.
§ Is the state acting as a market participant?
□ Is the state favoring its own citizens over others in administering gov’t businesses or programs?
® If so, state is exempt under market participant exception.
□ Is the state attaching conditions to a sale that burden interstate commerce?
® If so, state violates dormant commerce clause.
 
 
4. Does state law violate the PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE?
a. Does the state law discriminate against out-of-staters in the realm of Constitutional rights or important economic activities (ability  to earn livelihood)?
§  If so, apply strict scrutiny (presumption of unconstitutionality).
§  No exceptions.

5. Does the state law violate the Privileges OR Immunities Clause?
§  Does the law burden the right to travel?
□  If so, apply strict scrutiny.
 
 
 
• Is the FEDERAL LAW valid? (law needs a hook due to federal government's enumerated powers only)
 
 
1. Note whether the statute is being challenged ON ITS FACE or AS APPLIED?
 
 
2. Is the law a valid exercise of COMMERCE CLAUSE power?
a. Is Congress regulating channels of interstate commerce?
b. Is Congress regulating persons, instrumentalities, or things in interstate commerce?
c. Is Congress regulating activities that substantially affect interstate commerce?
§ Does the regulation involve activities that substantially affect interstate commerce when viewed in the aggregate (cumulative substantial effect)?
□ If economic activity, valid under CC.
□ If noneconomic activity, invalid under CC.
 
 
3. Is the law a valid exercise of the TAX AND SPENDING power?
a. If a tax or spending law, does the purpose of the tax/spending law benefit the general welfare?
b. If a conditional spending law . . .
§ Conditions must be imposed for the general welfare (very deferential).
§ Conditions must be clearly stated (Court likely to scrutinize here).
□ State must know what is going to happen if they fail to follow the conditions.
□ Conditions must not be coercive (no statute has ever violated).
□ Conditions must not violate other provisions of the Constitution (10th amendment, e.g.).
□ Conditions must bear some relationship to the purpose of the spending program (no statute has ever violated).
 
 
4. Is the law a valid exercise of SECTION 5 OF THE 14th AMENDMENT power?
a. Is Congress regulating state actors?
§ If not, invalid under Section 5 power.
b. Is Congress attempting to create new rights or expand the scope of rights found by the Court?
§ If so, invalid under Section 5 power.
c. Is Congress acting to prevent or remedy violation of rights that have been recognized by the Court?
§ If so, law must be proportional and congruent to the Constitutional violation sought to be curbed (properly tailored).   Ask:
□ What is the Constitutional issue involved?
□ What is the Constitutional record of harms that exist (how big of problem)?
□ What is the statutory remedy provided?

5. If valid from above, does the law otherwise violate other provisions of the Constitution?
 
a. Is the law in violation of the 10th AMENDMENT?
i. Does the law commandeer state legislatures to pass laws and regulate on behalf of Congress?
□ If so, invalid as commandeering.
ii. Does the law commandeer state officials to enforce or administer federal law?
□ If so, invalid as commandeering.
iii. Does the law just treat the states as regulatory entities rather than surrogate regulators?
□ If so, valid, no commandeering.
 
b. Is the law in violation of DPC or EPC? (see state law section above)

[Jericwithers]

Amazing, ObvMaso, the best answer ever. Props on being such a great help to us 1Ls.

[thickfreakness]

What does constitutional law consist of at Duke? Single semester course covering all articles and amendments?

Single semester course, doesn't cover everything. They leave some stuff for Criminal Procedure. Here's my high-level outline for Con Law if you're interested in what you'll see. (formatting will undoubtedly be screwed)



•  Is a STATE LAW valid? (NOTE: No hook needed due to states' plenary power. )
 
1.  Does the state law violate a constitutional provision (Bill of Rights, EPC, DPC)?
 
a. Does the law violate EQUAL PROTECTION?
i.  What is the classification?
□ Discrimination on face of law?
□ Facially neutral but discriminatory purpose?
® NOTE: Discriminatory impact is not enough.
ii.  What is the level of scrutiny?
□ Race/national origin = strict scrutiny
® Compelling reason
® Narrow tailoring (look for over/under-inclusive), cannot be achieved by any less discriminatory means.
□ Gender = intermediate scrutiny
® Important reason
® Substantially related (over/under-inclusive not fatal)
□ All others = rational basis
® Legitimate reason
◊ Any conceivable purpose, not actual purpose.
® Rationally related  (over/under-inclusive is fine)
® However, if animus, rational basis PLUS.
iii.  Does the classification meet the level of scrutiny?
 
b. Does the state law violate SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS?
i. Does it involve family autonomy, procreation, sexual activity, sexual orientation, medical care decision-making, travel, voting, or access to the courts?
□ If so, law must meet strict scrutiny (see above).
□ If not, should the right curbed by state law be a fundamental right protected by DPC?
® Factors – history/tradition, national ethos, level of abstraction available to see a tradition.
ii. Does the state law infringe upon the fundamental right?
□ Absolute ban = infringement
□ If the law just burdens a person exercising that fundamental right, consider the directness and substantiality of the interference.
®  If abortion, undue burden/substantial obstacle.
□ If infringement found, strict scrutiny.
□ If no infringement, rational basis.
 
c. Does the state law violate the BILL OF RIGHTS (that have been incorporated)?
 
 
2. Is there PREEMPTION? Does federal law preempt state law? (Supremacy Clause)
a.  Is there express preemption?  Does the federal law expressly says it trumps state/local law?
§ Court must still decide the scope of the law.
b.  Is there implied preemption?  Three options:
§ Did Congress intend to have the federal law exclusively occupy the field? (Field preemption).  Ask:
□ Is this an area where the federal gov’t traditionally plays a role?
□ Has Congress expressed an intent in the text of the law or in LH that the law should be exclusive in this area?
□ Is there an important traditional state or local interest fulfilled by the state law?
□ Would allowing state/local regulations in this area risk interfering with comprehensive fed regulatory efforts?
□ NOTE: Look for field particularly in foreign policy/immigration laws.
§  Is there conflicts preemption?
□ Conflicts- impossibility preemption – occurs if it is physically impossible to comply with both state and fed law.
□ Conflicts- impediment preemption –  occurs when a person could comply with both but compliance with state law would undermine Congress’s purpose.
®  BUT, what about the idea that federal law is a floor and state law is building on it?
 
 
3. Does the state law violate the DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE by placing an undue burden on interstate commerce?
a. Is the law discriminatory against out-of-staters? 
§ Can be:
□ Discriminatory on its face,
□ Facially neutral but has a discriminatory purpose OR
□ Facially neutral but has a discriminatory effect.
§ If not discriminatory, balance burden on interstate commerce v. social benefits of the law (presumption of constitutionality here & low burden of proof on the state).
b. If discriminatory, is the law necessary to serve an important government function? (presumption of unconstitutionality here & a high burden of proof on the state).
§ Are there any other ways that state could go about achieving the goal in a less discriminatory fashion?
c.  Does the law fall under an exception to the dormant commerce clause?
§ Has Congress approved the state action?
□ If so, dormant commerce clause is no longer dormant --> no issue.
§ Is the state acting as a market participant?
□ Is the state favoring its own citizens over others in administering gov’t businesses or programs?
® If so, state is exempt under market participant exception.
□ Is the state attaching conditions to a sale that burden interstate commerce?
® If so, state violates dormant commerce clause.
 
 
4. Does state law violate the PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE?
a. Does the state law discriminate against out-of-staters in the realm of Constitutional rights or important economic activities (ability  to earn livelihood)?
§  If so, apply strict scrutiny (presumption of unconstitutionality).
§  No exceptions.

5. Does the state law violate the Privileges OR Immunities Clause?
§  Does the law burden the right to travel?
□  If so, apply strict scrutiny.
 
 
 
• Is the FEDERAL LAW valid? (law needs a hook due to federal government's enumerated powers only)
 
 
1. Note whether the statute is being challenged ON ITS FACE or AS APPLIED?
 
 
2. Is the law a valid exercise of COMMERCE CLAUSE power?
a. Is Congress regulating channels of interstate commerce?
b. Is Congress regulating persons, instrumentalities, or things in interstate commerce?
c. Is Congress regulating activities that substantially affect interstate commerce?
§ Does the regulation involve activities that substantially affect interstate commerce when viewed in the aggregate (cumulative substantial effect)?
□ If economic activity, valid under CC.
□ If noneconomic activity, invalid under CC.
 
 
3. Is the law a valid exercise of the TAX AND SPENDING power?
a. If a tax or spending law, does the purpose of the tax/spending law benefit the general welfare?
b. If a conditional spending law . . .
§ Conditions must be imposed for the general welfare (very deferential).
§ Conditions must be clearly stated (Court likely to scrutinize here).
□ State must know what is going to happen if they fail to follow the conditions.
□ Conditions must not be coercive (no statute has ever violated).
□ Conditions must not violate other provisions of the Constitution (10th amendment, e.g.).
□ Conditions must bear some relationship to the purpose of the spending program (no statute has ever violated).
 
 
4. Is the law a valid exercise of SECTION 5 OF THE 14th AMENDMENT power?
a. Is Congress regulating state actors?
§ If not, invalid under Section 5 power.
b. Is Congress attempting to create new rights or expand the scope of rights found by the Court?
§ If so, invalid under Section 5 power.
c. Is Congress acting to prevent or remedy violation of rights that have been recognized by the Court?
§ If so, law must be proportional and congruent to the Constitutional violation sought to be curbed (properly tailored).   Ask:
□ What is the Constitutional issue involved?
□ What is the Constitutional record of harms that exist (how big of problem)?
□ What is the statutory remedy provided?

5. If valid from above, does the law otherwise violate other provisions of the Constitution?
 
a. Is the law in violation of the 10th AMENDMENT?
i. Does the law commandeer state legislatures to pass laws and regulate on behalf of Congress?
□ If so, invalid as commandeering.
ii. Does the law commandeer state officials to enforce or administer federal law?
□ If so, invalid as commandeering.
iii. Does the law just treat the states as regulatory entities rather than surrogate regulators?
□ If so, valid, no commandeering.
 
b. Is the law in violation of DPC or EPC? (see state law section above)

I can't sort through all that damn legalese. Can't you dumb it down a little bit?

[Jericwithers]

Does anyone know how to find out what their Duke Unique ID # is? You can find it on the back of our ID card (which we don't have yet) and (supposedly) on the ACES system under Bio Information > Student Information. The DUID is needed to sign up for direct deposit and the insurance policy. I can't find it after searching through the ACES system though; any help? It supposedly starts with 0.

EDIT to delete my EDIT.

[Reedie]

Does anyone know how to find out what their Duke Unique ID # is? You can find it on the back of our ID card (which we don't have yet) and (supposedly) on the ACES system under Bio Information > Student Information. The DUID is needed to sign up for direct deposit and the insurance policy. I can't find it after searching through the ACES system though; any help? It supposedly starts with 0.

Log into ACES. It's near the top to the right of your name.

[Jericwithers]

Does anyone know how to find out what their Duke Unique ID # is? You can find it on the back of our ID card (which we don't have yet) and (supposedly) on the ACES system under Bio Information > Student Information. The DUID is needed to sign up for direct deposit and the insurance policy. I can't find it after searching through the ACES system though; any help? It supposedly starts with 0.

Log into ACES. It's near the top to the right of your name.

Thanks a bunch; I never would have found that! Tricky, tricky.

[Reedie]

Thanks a bunch; I never would have found that! Tricky, tricky.

I know . Is anyone else still seeing perkins stuff on their "todo" list? I filled the perkins stuff out last week.

Also--just curious--anyone have an idea about the value of Duke Law's endowment?

[thickfreakness]

No clue about endowment value. I just did the parking stuff and accepted loans, confirmed they received my transcript. I'm still trying to get this damn immunization thing filled out. I guess I'll do the loan counseling stuff, direct deposit stuff, and health insurance sometime later. I'm glad they've sent out a couple of follow-up e-mails this week, that's reminded me to get on the ball with some of this stuff.

[Jericwithers]

No clue about endowment value. I just did the parking stuff and accepted loans, confirmed they received my transcript. I'm still trying to get this damn immunization thing filled out. I guess I'll do the loan counseling stuff, direct deposit stuff, and health insurance sometime later. I'm glad they've sent out a couple of follow-up e-mails this week, that's reminded me to get on the ball with some of this stuff.

Just did all this stuff as well, but my DUID still isn't working on the insurance website. Let me know if you are able to log into the system. I just did all my finaid concealing today, so I'll let you know when my Perkins alert goes away Reedie.

Duke Law endowment was less than $78m in 2000 (not sure of the exact amount, but it did not make the top 20).

http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leit ... _scho.html

EDIT: It was $41m in 1999.

http://www.law.duke.edu/annualreport/fundcontent.html

[Reedie]

No clue about endowment value. I just did the parking stuff and accepted loans, confirmed they received my transcript. I'm still trying to get this damn immunization thing filled out. I guess I'll do the loan counseling stuff, direct deposit stuff, and health insurance sometime later. I'm glad they've sent out a couple of follow-up e-mails this week, that's reminded me to get on the ball with some of this stuff.

Just did all this stuff as well, but my DUID still isn't working on the insurance website. Let me know if you are able to log into the system. I just did all my finaid concealing today, so I'll let you know when my Perkins alert goes away Reedie.

Duke Law endowment was less than $78m in 2000 (not sure of the exact amount, but it did not make the top 20).

http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leit ... _scho.html

EDIT: It was $41m in 1999.

http://www.law.duke.edu/annualreport/fundcontent.html

Yes, I've seen those numbers. But I think they've had some good fund raising campaigns since then.

[prezidentv8]

Yo ObvMaso, what section were you in? And do you know me?

[paralegal]

I'm still trying to get this damn immunization thing filled out.

Me too...

[paralegal]

I just noticed this info.....it's pretty recent....dated June 1, 2010.

Brian Leiter's Law School Rankings 2010 (by student numerical quality)

1. Harvard
2. Yale
3. Columbia
4. NYU
5. U Chicago
6. Stanford
7. Duke ...............
8. U Michigan
9. Penn
10. Georgetown
11. Northwestern
12. UVA
13. Berkeley
14. UCLA
15. Cornell
15. Vanderbilt

Duke gained a significant increase in Leiter's rankings - in 2009 Duke ranked "13"
UVA dropped significantly in Leiter's rankings - in 2009 UVA ranked "7"

[Jericwithers]

I just noticed this info.....it's pretty recent....dated June 1, 2010.

Brian Leiter's Law School Rankings 2010 (by student numerical quality)

1. Harvard
2. Yale
3. Columbia
4. NYU
5. U Chicago
6. Stanford
7. Duke ...............
8. U Michigan
9. Penn
10. Georgetown
11. Northwestern
12. UVA
13. Berkeley
14. UCLA
15. Cornell
15. Vanderbilt

Duke gained a significant increase in Leiter's rankings - in 2009 Duke ranked "13"
UVA dropped significantly in Leiter's rankings - in 2009 UVA ranked "7"

Was any explanation given for the 'whose up, whose down' changes?

[paralegal]

Rank by average of 75th/25th LSAT (with some adjustment for GPA and class size)

"Below is a ranking of the top law schools in terms of 'student quality' as measured by the average of the 75th and 25th percentile LSAT scores for the full-time class that entered in fall 2009. Since it is clear that some schools sacrifice GPA in order to boost LSAT, we have factored in GPA as follows: where schools are within 100 in class size and have the same LSAT (or are only .5 apart in LSAT), the school with a GPA 0.1 or more higher than its peers is ranked first in that cluster. Class size (rounded to the nearest 50) served as a tie breaker: the larger school with the same LSAT credentials was ranked higher (for estimating class size, both full-time and part-time student enrollment were counted)."

I wanted to add (as you probably know) that Brian Leiter is highly respected in legal academia; he is a professor at the University of Chicago.

I also underlined his comments relating to the practice of some top law schools to sacrifice GPA in order to boost LSAT - and Duke is "clearly not one of those schools." In fact, Duke emphasizes GPA.....