OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS) Forum

[SportsFan]

oh con law. why do you hurt me so?

The worst part is that I actually find this stuff interesting, which makes studying take so much longer.

Yeah, same. I found a lot of con law stuff pretty interesting (even if the class itself was boring and terrible). Definitely helped me understand it better IMO.

[JamMasterJ]

Crim question... if you black out and kill someone, is your action voluntary or involuntary? Am I right in thinking its voluntary, and any defense you'd have would be based on lacking mens rea?

If you're talking about automatism (rather than what Yoda's referring to), it depends on jurisdiction. In the UK, it's an insanity defense. In most US jurisdictions, you can choose to pursue insane automatism or insane automatism. The insanity version, of course, has all the traditional elements, but is excused. The sane version I think is lack of actus reus, as is somnambulism.

[SportsFan]

Crim question... if you black out and kill someone, is your action voluntary or involuntary? Am I right in thinking its voluntary, and any defense you'd have would be based on lacking mens rea?

If you're talking about automatism (rather than what Yoda's referring to), it depends on jurisdiction. In the UK, it's an insanity defense. In most US jurisdictions, you can choose to pursue insane automatism or insane automatism. The insanity version, of course, has all the traditional elements, but is excused. The sane version I think is lack of actus reus, as is somnambulism.

My crim professor doesn't believe in automatism haha. "Mental disorders don’t turn you into an automaton!"

[Blumpbeef]

oh con law. why do you hurt me so?

The worst part is that I actually find this stuff interesting, which makes studying take so much longer.

Yeah, same. I found a lot of con law stuff pretty interesting (even if the class itself was boring and terrible). Definitely helped me understand it better IMO.

Ya, well I understand the 10% of the material that I've covered really well, with 36 hours to go before the final.

[Blessedassurance]

Crim question... if you black out and kill someone, is your action voluntary or involuntary? Am I right in thinking its voluntary, and any defense you'd have would be based on lacking mens rea?

It depends on if they knew that there was a possibility that they could black out. There's a case where a driver has an epileptic seizure and causes a car accident, killing another driver. The court finds that his act of choosing to drive, knowing that he had epilepsy and could have a seizure, was voluntary and held him liable. But, if you had a seizure out of the blue and had no history or any idea that it could happen, that would be involuntary.

So if you knew you could black out or you had blacked out before, probably no defense. But if it's the first time and you had no idea it could happen, probably defense.

the seizure case is People v. Decina.

[stillwater]

dudes, felt pretty shaky about conlaw, think I killed it though. one exam down, 3 to go. the mind is an endless well when you put the work in.

[JamMasterJ]

Crim question... if you black out and kill someone, is your action voluntary or involuntary? Am I right in thinking its voluntary, and any defense you'd have would be based on lacking mens rea?

If you're talking about automatism (rather than what Yoda's referring to), it depends on jurisdiction. In the UK, it's an insanity defense. In most US jurisdictions, you can choose to pursue insane automatism or insane automatism. The insanity version, of course, has all the traditional elements, but is excused. The sane version I think is lack of actus reus, as is somnambulism.

My crim professor doesn't believe in automatism haha. "Mental disorders don’t turn you into an automaton!"

what about the other form?

[laxbrah420]

Can someone help me out with vertical privity?

If O has Lot 1 and 2 and conveys Lot 1 to A (no covenant) then Lot 2 to B (with covenant).

If O has Lot 1 and 2 and conveys Lot 1 to A (with covenant) then Lot 2 to B (no covenant).

Is there vertical privity in either of those cases?

I don't think your question makes sense.

[SportsFan]

Crim question... if you black out and kill someone, is your action voluntary or involuntary? Am I right in thinking its voluntary, and any defense you'd have would be based on lacking mens rea?

If you're talking about automatism (rather than what Yoda's referring to), it depends on jurisdiction. In the UK, it's an insanity defense. In most US jurisdictions, you can choose to pursue insane automatism or insane automatism. The insanity version, of course, has all the traditional elements, but is excused. The sane version I think is lack of actus reus, as is somnambulism.

My crim professor doesn't believe in automatism haha. "Mental disorders don’t turn you into an automaton!"

what about the other form?

We spent like 5 minutes in class on automatism and I don't think he's expecting us to really know anything about it (other than his dislike for it), so I really have no idea how it applies to this situation (which I stole from a multiple choice question that I was confused about).

[stillwater]

Can someone help me out with vertical privity?

If O has Lot 1 and 2 and conveys Lot 1 to A (no covenant) then Lot 2 to B (with covenant).

If O has Lot 1 and 2 and conveys Lot 1 to A (with covenant) then Lot 2 to B (no covenant).

Is there vertical privity in either of those cases?

I don't think your question makes sense.

[kyle010723]

I've decided to prepare for Property the right way—Downton Abbey Marathon.

[franklyscarlet]

oh con law. why do you hurt me so?

The worst part is that I actually find this stuff interesting, which makes studying take so much longer.

Yeah, same. I found a lot of con law stuff pretty interesting (even if the class itself was boring and terrible). Definitely helped me understand it better IMO.

Ya, well I understand the 10% of the material that I've covered really well, with 36 hours to go before the final.

I'm at least thankful that once I got down into it, I realized we didn't cover many topics at all.

[Blumpbeef]

It makes it hard to talk about something like federalism though without discussing the topics we didn't do, like preemption, privileges or immunities, and the dormant commerce clause.

[bananapeanutbutter]

Can someone help me out with vertical privity?

If O has Lot 1 and 2 and conveys Lot 1 to A (no covenant) then Lot 2 to B (with covenant).

If O has Lot 1 and 2 and conveys Lot 1 to A (with covenant) then Lot 2 to B (no covenant).

Is there vertical privity in either of those cases?

I don't think your question makes sense.

common scheme?

[stillwater]

It makes it hard to talk about something like federalism though without discussing the topics we didn't do, like preemption, privileges or immunities, and the dormant commerce clause.

get dormant bro

[franklyscarlet]

It makes it hard to talk about something like federalism though without discussing the topics we didn't do, like preemption, privileges or immunities, and the dormant commerce clause.

Someone's been hangin with chemerinsky.



Chemerinsky is my dude.

[Nova]

I'm going to be saying prayers to based curved god every night. Each time someone says something about giving up I (naïvely) think TYCG.

I love this post. +10000

[Blessedassurance]

Can someone help me out with vertical privity?

If O has Lot 1 and 2 and conveys Lot 1 to A (no covenant) then Lot 2 to B (with covenant).

If O has Lot 1 and 2 and conveys Lot 1 to A (with covenant) then Lot 2 to B (no covenant).

Is there vertical privity in either of those cases?

There's no vertical privity.
Vertical privity relates to the relationship between a party to the original covenant and his/her successor(s).

[Bronck]

I fucking suck at commerce clause. Can I get some help?

Whoever intentionally damages or destroys by means of fire any building, including a private residence, involved in interstate commerce or in any activity affecting interstate commerce, shall be imprisoned...

Federal prosecutors alleged that the owner of the home in question had: (1) used the home as collateral to secure a mortgage from a lender outside Kent; (2) obtained an insurance policy for the home from an insurer based outside Kent; and (3) received natural gas to power the home from a natural gas source located outside Kent

I feel like the private residence itself can't be an instrumentality since it isn't actually moving across state lines... But, could I somehow analogize to Heart of ATL Motel for channels? I'm having trouble coming up with a way to...

What about Lopez 3? For example, what would I be trying to analyze as facially economic? The purchase/upkeep of a home? Or the destruction of the home via fire? If I conclude that it (whatever that is) is commercial, would I say that the upkeep of a house is an intrastate activity, but that it's only one step removed from intangible goods moving across state lines (insurance policy + mortgages) and intangible things (natural gas)? Thus, it's distinguishable from Lopez b/c we can find a causal link that destruction of private homes would impact the flow of 'goods' from out of state providers? Moreover, I could point to how the statute qualifies the destruction to only those involved in interstate commerce or any activity affecting interstate commerce.

What else could I say? How could I push against the pro-CC analysis?

Also... how do I evaluate this under the N&P Clause? I have no idea where to start... what would the broader regulatory scheme be?

----

ETA: Can anyone send me model answers for CC analysis questions....?

[Nelson]

I fucking suck at commerce clause. Can I get some help?

Whoever intentionally damages or destroys by means of fire any building, including a private residence, involved in interstate commerce or in any activity affecting interstate commerce, shall be imprisoned...

Federal prosecutors alleged that the owner of the home in question had: (1) used the home as collateral to secure a mortgage from a lender outside Kent; (2) obtained an insurance policy for the home from an insurer based outside Kent; and (3) received natural gas to power the home from a natural gas source located outside Kent

I feel like the private residence itself can't be an instrumentality since it isn't actually moving across state lines... But, could I somehow analogize to Heart of ATL Motel for channels? I'm having trouble coming up with a way to...

What about Lopez 3? For example, what would I be trying to analyze as facially economic? The purchase/upkeep of a home? Or the destruction of the home via fire? If I conclude that it (whatever that is) is commercial, would I say that the upkeep of a house is an intrastate activity, but that it's only one step removed from intangible goods moving across state lines (insurance policy + mortgages) and intangible things (natural gas)? Thus, it's distinguishable from Lopez b/c we can find a causal link that destruction of private homes would impact the flow of 'goods' from out of state providers? Moreover, I could point to how the statute qualifies the destruction to only those involved in interstate commerce or any activity affecting interstate commerce.

What else could I say? How could I push against the pro-CC analysis?

Also... how do I evaluate this under the N&P Clause? I have no idea where to start... what would the broader regulatory scheme be?

----

ETA: Can anyone send me model answers for CC analysis questions....?

Are you trying to argue against the statute? That seems really tough since the jurisdictional hook should be enough. You'd have to argue that in the aggregate that private residences destroyed by fire do not have a substantial effect on IC. Maybe also that criminalizing arson is a traditional area of state police power.

[SportsFan]

I fucking suck at commerce clause. Can I get some help?

Whoever intentionally damages or destroys by means of fire any building, including a private residence, involved in interstate commerce or in any activity affecting interstate commerce, shall be imprisoned...

Federal prosecutors alleged that the owner of the home in question had: (1) used the home as collateral to secure a mortgage from a lender outside Kent; (2) obtained an insurance policy for the home from an insurer based outside Kent; and (3) received natural gas to power the home from a natural gas source located outside Kent

I feel like the private residence itself can't be an instrumentality since it isn't actually moving across state lines... But, could I somehow analogize to Heart of ATL Motel for channels? I'm having trouble coming up with a way to...

What about Lopez 3? For example, what would I be trying to analyze as facially economic? The purchase/upkeep of a home? Or the destruction of the home via fire? If I conclude that it (whatever that is) is commercial, would I say that the upkeep of a house is an intrastate activity, but that it's only one step removed from intangible goods moving across state lines (insurance policy + mortgages) and intangible things (natural gas)? Thus, it's distinguishable from Lopez b/c we can find a causal link that destruction of private homes would impact the flow of 'goods' from out of state providers? Moreover, I could point to how the statute qualifies the destruction to only those involved in interstate commerce or any activity affecting interstate commerce.

What else could I say? How could I push against the pro-CC analysis?

Also... how do I evaluate this under the N&P Clause? I have no idea where to start... what would the broader regulatory scheme be?

----

ETA: Can anyone send me model answers for CC analysis questions....?

Are you trying to argue against the statute? That seems really tough since the jurisdictional hook should be enough. You'd have to argue that in the aggregate that private residences destroyed by fire do not have a substantial effect on IC. Maybe also that criminalizing arson is a traditional area of state police power.

I was about to say that this was a pretty easy pro-CC issue, since its definitely something that in the agreggate has a substantial effect on IC. But now since he's trying to argue against it, I have no idea. Maybe say that its a non-economic thing like Morrison?

[Bronck]

Well, I was initially trying to argue pro-CC, but I figured that I needed to have counterarguments the other way as well. This is all I could think of w/r/t arguments last night... where did I fuck up, and where was I going in the right direction?

- Destruction of homes by arson isn’t commercial… no production, distribution or consumption of commodities by doing so
+ But, what about the purchase of glass bottles + gasoline + cloth?

+ Assuming it’s commercial: destruction of home hampers with the upkeep of a house, which is in turn one step removed from intangible things that move across state lines (here, insurance policy and mortgage) + tangible things (natural gas)
+ Causal link that destruction of a private home in this context impacts the flow of goods from OOS providers
+ Statute qualifies private residences to those “involved” in: [a] interstate commerce or any activity affecting interstate commerce —> increased likelihood of constitutionality

I honestly couldn't think of anything else to write....

Also, how would I argue N&P Clause if the CC failed? If stopping arson of buildings involved in interstate commerce isn't proper, then what could possibly be the larger regulatory framework?

[Nelson]

Well, I was initially trying to argue pro-CC, but I figured that I needed to have counterarguments the other way as well. This is all I could think of w/r/t arguments last night... where did I fuck up, and where was I going in the right direction?

- Destruction of homes by arson isn’t commercial… no production, distribution or consumption of commodities by doing so
+ But, what about the purchase of glass bottles + gasoline + cloth?

+ Assuming it’s commercial: destruction of home hampers with the upkeep of a house, which is in turn one step removed from intangible things that move across state lines (here, insurance policy and mortgage) + tangible things (natural gas)
+ Causal link that destruction of a private home in this context impacts the flow of goods from OOS providers
+ Statute qualifies private residences to those “involved” in: [a] interstate commerce or any activity affecting interstate commerce —> increased likelihood of constitutionality

I honestly couldn't think of anything else to write....

Also, how would I argue N&P Clause if the CC failed? If stopping arson of buildings involved in interstate commerce isn't proper, then what could possibly be the larger regulatory framework?

I would have thought that unless your prof has a Thomas-esque hatred of the commerce clause, I think you're right that this statute is valid as an exercise of the commerce power. If there was no jurisdictional hook, there might be a bigger problem. With the jurisdictional hook and the fact that most houses are insured by out of state insurers, you're plainly in an area with substantial effect on interstate commerce.

But evidently the S. Ct. disagrees with my legal analysis: http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999/1999_99_5739

So I guess the idea is that a private residence can never have a substantial enough effect on interstate commerce to be properly regulated under the commerce power.

[Bronck]

Well, I was initially trying to argue pro-CC, but I figured that I needed to have counterarguments the other way as well. This is all I could think of w/r/t arguments last night... where did I fuck up, and where was I going in the right direction?

- Destruction of homes by arson isn’t commercial… no production, distribution or consumption of commodities by doing so
+ But, what about the purchase of glass bottles + gasoline + cloth?

+ Assuming it’s commercial: destruction of home hampers with the upkeep of a house, which is in turn one step removed from intangible things that move across state lines (here, insurance policy and mortgage) + tangible things (natural gas)
+ Causal link that destruction of a private home in this context impacts the flow of goods from OOS providers
+ Statute qualifies private residences to those “involved” in: [a] interstate commerce or any activity affecting interstate commerce —> increased likelihood of constitutionality

I honestly couldn't think of anything else to write....

Also, how would I argue N&P Clause if the CC failed? If stopping arson of buildings involved in interstate commerce isn't proper, then what could possibly be the larger regulatory framework?

I would have thought that unless your prof has a Thomas-esque hatred of the commerce clause, I think you're right that this statute is valid as an exercise of the commerce power. If there was no jurisdictional hook, there might be a bigger problem. With the jurisdictional hook and the fact that most houses are insured by out of state insurers, you're plainly in an area with substantial effect on interstate commerce.

But evidently the S. Ct. disagrees with my legal analysis: http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999/1999_99_5739

So I guess the idea is that a private residence can never have a substantial enough effect on interstate commerce to be properly regulated under the commerce power.

IIRC, Chem discussed that case and said that the SC read the statute as narrowly as possible to avoid any constitutional doubts. So, it's different than the question the professor posed, because here, it explicitly says private residences.

[Tiago Splitter]

What's the jurisdictional hook? The fact that it says "involved in interstate commerce"?