Just started con law and I am already starting to hate life Forum

[Nebby]

People who love Constitutional Law are pretty suspect to me. They tend to have odd priorities.

I love ConLaw

Sorry, you tend to have odd priorities. Meanwhile, students who love classes like Contracts and Remedies tend to have normal priorities.

[michaelscotch99]

OP, if you told me this last year, I would have agreed with you.

However, now, I suggest you start appreciating it more. Con law has never been more relevant than it is today (well I'm not 100% sure if this is true... but it's pretty important today). We are living in unprecedented times and the Constitution has never been put to such a strenuous test before (well, maybe not really. I don't know).

Basically, pay attention in class because it's pretty relevant right now.

This is coming from someone whose least fave class was con law. I would love to re-take this class now.

[RCSOB657]

OP, if you told me this last year, I would have agreed with you.

However, now, I suggest you start appreciating it more. Con law has never been more relevant than it is today (well I'm not 100% sure if this is true... but it's pretty important today). We are living in unprecedented times and the Constitution has never been put to such a strenuous test before (well, maybe not really. I don't know).

Basically, pay attention in class because it's pretty relevant right now.

This is coming from someone whose least fave class was con law. I would love to re-take this class now.

Where was your uproar when the War Powers Resolution was approved by the legislature? Where were you when Habeus Corpus was suspended by the POTUS? heheh, this shit isn't new.

[rpupkin]

OP, if you told me this last year, I would have agreed with you.

However, now, I suggest you start appreciating it more. Con law has never been more relevant than it is today (well I'm not 100% sure if this is true... but it's pretty important today). We are living in unprecedented times and the Constitution has never been put to such a strenuous test before (well, maybe not really. I don't know).

Basically, pay attention in class because it's pretty relevant right now.

This is coming from someone whose least fave class was con law. I would love to re-take this class now.

Where was your uproar when the War Powers Resolution was approved by the legislature? Where were you when Habeus Corpus was suspended by the POTUS?

....or the establishment of a National Bank....or the explosion of the administrative state during the New Deal....or Truman's attempt to seize the steel industry.

[stego]

People who love Constitutional Law are pretty suspect to me. They tend to have odd priorities.

I love ConLaw

QED

[pancakes3]

loving con law isn't probative of disfunction. loving fed courts is.

[Hikikomorist]

People who love Constitutional Law are pretty suspect to me. They tend to have odd priorities.

I love ConLaw

Sorry, you tend to have odd priorities. Meanwhile, students who love classes like Contracts and Remedies tend to have normal priorities.

Most law students have the good sense not to love anything of their classes.

[zhenders]

loving con law isn't probative of disfunction. loving fed courts is.

Loving Fed Courts is just evidence of Stockholm Syndrome.

(I'm seeking help.)

[rpupkin]

loving con law isn't probative of disfunction. loving fed courts is.

Loving Fed Courts is just evidence of Stockholm Syndrome.

(I'm seeking help.)

tbf, if you're going to work in big-law litigation, Fed Courts is generally more relevant and useful than Con Law.

[Nebby]

Fed Courts was a dry class but definitely intellectually stimulating. It was one of my favorite classes. I only wish I had the time to have taken Conflicts, too.

[RCSOB657]

Fed Courts was a dry class but definitely intellectually stimulating. It was one of my favorite classes. I only wish I had the time to have taken Conflicts, too.

I'm doing conflicts now. The later cases are ducking complicated but it seems like an easy subject to me.

[TheSpanishMain]

Man, I'm hilariously screwed on the bar. Taking all 3L blow off classes.

[BlendedUnicorn]

[youtube]rzyt-9m8F4c[/youtube]

This is Jefferson

[abogadesq]

You made a big mistake in going to law school.

[mjb447]

[youtube]rzyt-9m8F4c[/youtube]

This is Jefferson

Has anyone ever noticed that he looks EXACTLY like the Marquis de Lafayette?

[GreenEggs]

i thought con law sucked. then again civ pro was my favorite class so i don't think my opinion is worth much

[Tortious Conduct]

My school splits Con Law into two segments: Con Law I focuses on the branches of government; separation of powers; federalism; commerce clause, dormant commerce clause. Con Law II focuses on the limits imposed on the federal government with respect to individuals. I'll be taking that in the fall.

I found Con Law I to be hit and miss. Some cases were thoroughly enjoyable to read (Jackson's concurrence in Youngstown, the Obamacare case). Others were downright awful (pre- New Deal commerce clause).

Although I'd taken a Con Law course as an undergrad, I imagine it'll resemble my school's Con Law II more than anything; I wasn't really expecting Con Law I to look like what it did. It definitely took some getting used to.

[Tortious Conduct]

i thought con law sucked. then again civ pro was my favorite class so i don't think my opinion is worth much

I enjoyed Civil Procedure as well.

[tsujimoto74]

i thought con law sucked. then again civ pro was my favorite class so i don't think my opinion is worth much

I enjoyed Civil Procedure as well.

Con Law and Civ Pro were my 2 favorite classes of 1st year. There must be something wrong with me.

[PeanutsNJam]

before starting con law, I was actually excited because I like to know my constitutional rights. I want to know if I give someone the middle finger, what can happen to me.

You don't already know the answer to this question? Although, given that you don't know who TJ is, maybe I shouldn't be surprised.

[BlendedUnicorn]

Crim Pro is the best con law class.

[2807]

On a related subject it pains me that people think of "rights" as opposed to "limits." The Bill of Rights are limitations on government authority, not rights vested in individuals.

Anyway, carry on...

The force is strong in this one

[pml87]

You don't want to know how the Document created 200 years ago has managed to withstand the test of time for so long? Its structure governs our politics today, its rights guide people's thinking when a cop pulls them over, and, yes, its flaws have required a Civil War and massive bloodshed to remedy. Did you know that there are and have been democracies in the world where their Heads of State can unilaterally suspend their citizen's rights in a time of crisis (ahem...Germany) ? Our countries have faced crises before: how did the Const withstand that test, or did it? I think you haven't considered how the Const deeply affects your life.

[Phil Brooks]

On a related subject it pains me that people think of "rights" as opposed to "limits." The Bill of Rights are limitations on government authority, not rights vested in individuals.

Anyway, carry on...

Ugh, I'm so tired of this point being trotted out as some kind of "gotcha." There are two conceptions of rights: positive rights and negative rights. Positive rights are goods and services that the state is required to provide to individuals, while negative rights are things that the state is prohibited from doing to individuals.

Yes, the United States believes only in negative rights and therefore includes only negative rights in the constitution. But this does not mean that positive rights do not exist; in fact every other industrialized country has them.

[grixxlybear99]

On a related subject it pains me that people think of "rights" as opposed to "limits." The Bill of Rights are limitations on government authority, not rights vested in individuals.

Anyway, carry on...

Ugh, I'm so tired of this point being trotted out as some kind of "gotcha." There are two conceptions of rights: positive rights and negative rights. Positive rights are goods and services that the state is required to provide to individuals, while negative rights are things that the state is prohibited from doing to individuals.

Yes, the United States believes only in negative rights and therefore includes only negative rights in the constitution. But this does not mean that positive rights do not exist; in fact every other industrialized country has them.

Sad.