BarbellDreams wrote:36 hours till Civ Pro Exam, I am slowly going through everything with BOTH the E & E and the Glannon Guide but it seems like this is just too time consuming so I am thinking of just doing the Glannon Guide and only do the practice problems from the E & E without actually reading the substantive materials. Good idea? Bad idea? Great idea?
Page limit on every question. We also have to quote from cases and include page numbers; so it's definitely not a test geared towards "racehorses".Sogui wrote:Is there a world limit?keg411 wrote:I'll trade you my 8 hour ConLaw take home for a 3-4 hour in-class.Sogui wrote:I had 1 take-home exam last semester and none this semester. I *really* wish we had more take-home exams.
The one I had was 8 hours, open book, and had a fair word limit to keep people from going crazy and transcribing everything they have on the subject into the answer. On the other hand I'm finding most of the stress for these timed issue spotters isn't about spotting the issues, nor is it about giving an intelligent discussion of them, it's about who can type at 90wpm and fit in as MUCH discussion about the issues as possible. Sure some professors are more discriminating in their grading, but others seem to grade on "checks" and if the another student can bring up more "stuff" then he's going to be ahead of you on the curve.
I still don't think I've heard a satisfying answer as to what a 3-4 hour exam does that an 8 hour take-home cannot, besides making studying 4x stressful/tedious/depressing.
My Civpro exam is in roughly 40 hours. I spent the last 27 hours (yes, 27 hours straight) going back through the E&E and the Glannon, through the entire Friedenthal hornbook for the first time, and then used all that to update my outline, refine my outline, and build flowcharts. Hell, yeah.BarbellDreams wrote:36 hours till Civ Pro Exam, I am slowly going through everything with BOTH the E & E and the Glannon Guide but it seems like this is just too time consuming so I am thinking of just doing the Glannon Guide and only do the practice problems from the E & E without actually reading the substantive materials. Good idea? Bad idea? Great idea?
Those are all part of the "substantially affects" interstate commerce prong; it's articulated in Morrison.snowpeach06 wrote:A sample exam I'm reading said that the Morrison thing is:Sogui wrote:1) the channels of interstate commerce,snowpeach06 wrote:Can someone explain to me the Lopez factors for determining if something has a substantial relationship to interstate commerce?
edit: Are there only 4 factors in Morrison?
and for 10th amendment - can states pass laws that commandeer so long as the fed gov enforces those rules themselves? Now I'm all confuzzled.
2) the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce,and
3) activities that substantially affect or substantially relate to interstate commerce
Pretty self-explanatory right?
Morrison added a sub-point to #3) That the regulated activity must be an economic activity in order for a "substantial aggregate affect" to make the activity fall under commerce clause authority.
Your 10th amendment question is confusing. The whole points of commandeering is that the Federal Gov ISN'T enforcing the rules themselves under their Constitutional authority, they are using threats (not just withholding benefits) as a means to control a state's actions or they are delegating state officials to the enforcement of federal laws. Is there a specific case you read that said otherwise?
1. Is regulated thing economic
2. Is there a jurisdictional element
3. Leg. history
4. Connection is attenuated
This seemed like the test in Lopez - minus some factors, but I don't remember a test from morrison so I got confused. Is there even a 7 factor test from Lopez?
It also said that the federal government must enforce its own regulations and not make states do that. But, I thought the federal government simply couldn't make regulations for states at all.
Want to continue reading?
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
Look at New York v. United States. Its the best example I can think of because congress set out 3 things that regulated toxic waste, but only the last (take care provision requiring states to take title to the stuff) was unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment.rad law wrote:What is the difference between regulation and commandeering? If there is a difference, I don't see it. Maybe because I am an idiot.
Cases are right. Essentially: U.S. Congress can't tell State legislatures/executives what to do, though they can "encourage" - there is a difference between coercion and encouraging, though.Mroberts3 wrote:Look at New York v. United States. Its the best example I can think of because congress set out 3 things that regulated toxic waste, but only the last (take care provision requiring states to take title to the stuff) was unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment.rad law wrote:What is the difference between regulation and commandeering? If there is a difference, I don't see it. Maybe because I am an idiot.
I can see where the confusion comes from, but as long as Congress isn't explicitly telling the state legislature (or state officials) to do something under a federal guideline, it is probably ok.
For example: Compare Printz v. United States where Congress told the chief law enforcement officer of each county to run background checks for gun purchases (and SC struck it down) to a hypothetical ban on interstate gun sales that don't have certain documentation. I think the 2nd one would be ok even if local cops often enforced the law because congress isn't mandating it.
Someone make sure I'm not making crap up?
That actually makes sense, and I think I'm beginning to get this now. Thanks.Mroberts3 wrote:Look at New York v. United States. Its the best example I can think of because congress set out 3 things that regulated toxic waste, but only the last (take care provision requiring states to take title to the stuff) was unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment.rad law wrote:What is the difference between regulation and commandeering? If there is a difference, I don't see it. Maybe because I am an idiot.
I can see where the confusion comes from, but as long as Congress isn't explicitly telling the state legislature (or state officials) to do something under a federal guideline, it is probably ok.
For example: Compare Printz v. United States where Congress told the chief law enforcement officer of each county to run background checks for gun purchases (and SC struck it down) to a hypothetical ban on interstate gun sales that don't have certain documentation. I think the 2nd one would be ok even if local cops often enforced the law because congress isn't mandating it.
Someone make sure I'm not making crap up?
EDIT: In any event, a commandeer question will almost certainly be an "argue both sides" kind of thing. Fact that show explicit direction from congress = bad for law. Facts that show incentives or voluntary enforcement by state officials = good for law.
jbarl1 wrote:HELP: I am taking a take-home property exam and using the Gilbert's Law Summary Supplement and one of the pages has been torn out (I bought it used). I believe what is on the page is what I need to answer part of one of my fact patterns. If someone has the 17th edition of the Gilbert's Law Summary on Property could you possibly PM me so I can send you my email address and you can email me a copy of the page I need? If it page 243/244. PLEASE!
Register now!
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
Study MOARsnowpeach06 wrote:Just read an article on people losing scholarships. Holy fuck.... I can't be one of those people. I didn't do well on my last two, I ned at least an a- in con law and I don't really know where to even start studying or trying to learn things. What do I do???
I think the best thing to do for con law is to come up with analytical frameworks for answering different question types, and then throw in cases to make analogies because you never actually know what SCOTUS is going to do. Then, as long as you just follow the framework, use the facts, and include a few case analogies, you should be fine. It seems weird, but con law exams can be very formulaic.snowpeach06 wrote:Just read an article on people losing scholarships. Holy fuck.... I can't be one of those people. I didn't do well on my last two, I ned at least an a- in con law and I don't really know where to even start studying or trying to learn things. What do I do???
Fucking Atheism!rad law wrote:Study MOARsnowpeach06 wrote:Just read an article on people losing scholarships. Holy fuck.... I can't be one of those people. I didn't do well on my last two, I ned at least an a- in con law and I don't really know where to even start studying or trying to learn things. What do I do???
And pray to your deity of choice.
Uhm, good plan. I need to focus on learning cases. I remember holdings, but, I remember very few facts, or random holdings that aren't the main ones. Should I like... make flash cards or something?forty-two wrote:I think the best thing to do for con law is to come up with analytical frameworks for answering different question types, and then throw in cases to make analogies because you never actually know what SCOTUS is going to do. Then, as long as you just follow the framework, use the facts, and include a few case analogies, you should be fine. It seems weird, but con law exams can be very formulaic.snowpeach06 wrote:Just read an article on people losing scholarships. Holy fuck.... I can't be one of those people. I didn't do well on my last two, I ned at least an a- in con law and I don't really know where to even start studying or trying to learn things. What do I do???
Is your final closed book or do you get to use an outline?snowpeach06 wrote:Uhm, good plan. I need to focus on learning cases. I remember holdings, but, I remember very few facts, or random holdings that aren't the main ones. Should I like... make flash cards or something?forty-two wrote: I think the best thing to do for con law is to come up with analytical frameworks for answering different question types, and then throw in cases to make analogies because you never actually know what SCOTUS is going to do. Then, as long as you just follow the framework, use the facts, and include a few case analogies, you should be fine. It seems weird, but con law exams can be very formulaic.
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
Fucking closed book. Our teacher says he doesn't care if you use cases, but every single model answer has them. And you can't just say a name, you need to say why you are using the case.forty-two wrote:Is your final closed book or do you get to use an outline?snowpeach06 wrote:Uhm, good plan. I need to focus on learning cases. I remember holdings, but, I remember very few facts, or random holdings that aren't the main ones. Should I like... make flash cards or something?forty-two wrote: I think the best thing to do for con law is to come up with analytical frameworks for answering different question types, and then throw in cases to make analogies because you never actually know what SCOTUS is going to do. Then, as long as you just follow the framework, use the facts, and include a few case analogies, you should be fine. It seems weird, but con law exams can be very formulaic.
Make sure you know the case that is the current "good law." For commerce you only need to know Lopez and Raich for example. All the law before that is pretty much irrelevant. So don't waste your time learning old cases that you can't even use to make a point.snowpeach06 wrote:Fucking closed book. Our teacher says he doesn't care if you use cases, but every single model answer has them. And you can't just say a name, you need to say why you are using the case.forty-two wrote:Is your final closed book or do you get to use an outline?snowpeach06 wrote:Uhm, good plan. I need to focus on learning cases. I remember holdings, but, I remember very few facts, or random holdings that aren't the main ones. Should I like... make flash cards or something?forty-two wrote: I think the best thing to do for con law is to come up with analytical frameworks for answering different question types, and then throw in cases to make analogies because you never actually know what SCOTUS is going to do. Then, as long as you just follow the framework, use the facts, and include a few case analogies, you should be fine. It seems weird, but con law exams can be very formulaic.
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Already a member? Login
What school does she attend? If it's anything in the first (second too?) tier then hell no it won't. If it's in the top 25 then HELL, and I mean HELL no it won't.Desert Fox wrote:
Make sure you know the case that is the current "good law." For commerce you only need to know Lopez and Raich for example. All the law before that is pretty much irrelevant. So don't waste your time learning old cases that you can't even use to make a point.
Did you read getting to maybe? I'm pretty sure just knowing how to take the exam puts you past a huge chunk of your class.
That's true for the two issue spotters, but my prof. does a big "thematic" question. He was a poli. sci professor so hes' basically looking for you to spill out the history of everything.Desert Fox wrote:
Make sure you know the case that is the current "good law." For commerce you only need to know Lopez and Raich for example. All the law before that is pretty much irrelevant. So don't waste your time learning old cases that you can't even use to make a point.
Did you read getting to maybe? I'm pretty sure just knowing how to take the exam puts you past a huge chunk of your class.
Everyone tries to hide their schools on here, but, I go to Case, which will - hopefully - hit the T1 by the time I graduate or soon thereafter. First semester some people couldn't take an exam, this semester, most people probably can. Few people make the same mistake twice.BruceWayne wrote:What school does she attend? If it's anything in the first (second too?) tier then hell no it won't. If it's in the top 25 then HELL, and I mean HELL no it won't.Desert Fox wrote:
Make sure you know the case that is the current "good law." For commerce you only need to know Lopez and Raich for example. All the law before that is pretty much irrelevant. So don't waste your time learning old cases that you can't even use to make a point.
Did you read getting to maybe? I'm pretty sure just knowing how to take the exam puts you past a huge chunk of your class.
Huge +1. A friend of mine was studying Gibbons v. Ogdon the other day. LOLDesert Fox wrote:Make sure you know the case that is the current "good law." For commerce you only need to know Lopez and Raich for example. All the law before that is pretty much irrelevant. So don't waste your time learning old cases that you can't even use to make a point.
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
