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

[Bronck]

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

Right. That virtually always ends up rendering it OK. If you limit it to cases involving interstate commerce, then the statute never applies to cases NOT involving interstate commerce...

[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.

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.

Well fuck me. Con law is the worst.

I think I would do what you did and just argue that: 1) private residences are never substantially involved in interstate commerce, 2) differentiate from the 60s cases because private residences are not public accommodations and therefore have less effect on IC, and 3) analogize to Lopez because this is a federal intrusion on a traditional area of state control that is already heavily regulated at the state level (costs of crime is not a sufficient effect on IC). I don't really get how changing the law to explicitly cover residences makes this any different from a case where the law just says buildings, but clearly I'm not a con law scholar.

[Tiago Splitter]

Yeah I guess I'd go with Nelson's argument that the court will be most skeptical of these laws where they tread on areas traditionally handled by the states. On the other side I'd use the broad definition of "economic" the court used in Raich to say this fits under Lopez category 3.

And since our professor is a pretty staunch lefty I'm going to go out of my way to say any law under the commerce clause is constitutional.

[llachans]

Hey guys, I have a Contract question.

What exactly is the difference between a material condition and a technical condition? If you could provide one, I feel like an example would help clarify it for me. Is there any sort of "test" that can conclude which category it falls into?

[Bronck]

Yeah I guess I'd go with Nelson's argument that the court will be most skeptical of these laws where they tread on areas traditionally handled by the states. On the other side I'd use the broad definition of "economic" the court used in Raich to say this fits under Lopez category 3.

And since our professor is a pretty staunch lefty I'm going to go out of my way to say any law under the commerce clause is constitutional.

Tread on areas traditionally handled by States? Did we even cover that in Morrison's class? Is there a modern case that argues that?

Also, as I was thinking above... is the key inquiry of commercial v. noncommercial whether private residences are commercial, or whether the act of arson is commercial?

[Tiago Splitter]

Tread on areas traditionally handled by States? Did we even cover that in Morrison's class? Is there a modern case that argues that?

Yeah I have the concern about areas traditionally handled in my notes under the Morrison case (Violence Against Women Act)--if upheld Congress could use its power to nationalized criminal law, an area traditionally handled by the states. That's Morrison on Morrison.

Actually I also have it in my notes on Lopez:

" - Opinion suggests that where Congress makes a law that falls under category three of the Lopez categories, and that area is usually reserved by the states, SCOTUS will be most suspicious whether that law is constitutional"

[SportsFan]

With inchoate crimes, can you be punished for both conspiracy AND attempt?

[Danger Zone]

With inchoate crimes, can you be punished for both conspiracy AND attempt?

Depends on if the jurisdiction you're in requires merger, like the MPC does.

[SportsFan]

With inchoate crimes, can you be punished for both conspiracy AND attempt?

Depends on if the jurisdiction you're in requires merger, like the MPC does.

Should have mentioned I was under the MPC, sorry. So under the MPC, you wouldn't get punished for both?

[Doorkeeper]

There are so many different types of covenants, estates in land, and other random shit in property. I have no idea how to keep them all straight in my head.

[Danger Zone]

Right. So first you solicit help. Then when they agree and one of you takes an overt act, it merges into conspiracy. Then when you attempt the target offense, it merges into attempt. If you or your partner successfully complete the target offense, you will both be charged with that target offense either directly or under accomplice liability.

[laxbrah420]

There are so many different types of covenants, estates in land, and other random shit in property. I have no idea how to keep them all straight in my head.

for land controls there's real covenants (damages, need privity), equitable servitudes (injunction/no privity), easements, nuisance laws, zoning... and then restraints on estates. What else is there?

[Danger Zone]

Actually, that being said, you can be CHARGED with the whole gambit (prosecutorial discretion), but you can only be convicted of one of those offenses if merger is applicable.

[SportsFan]

Right. So first you solicit help. Then when they agree and one of you takes an overt act, it merges into conspiracy. Then when you attempt the target offense, it merges into attempt. If you or your partner successfully complete the target offense, you will both be charged with that target offense either directly or under accomplice liability.

Thanks! That definitely helps. Could you explain the difference between Pinkerton and Luparello liability? I don't get how they both fit together, since it seems like Pinkerton expands conspiracy liability to make people accomplices for their co-conspirators crimes, while Luparello makes you liable for more of your accomplices actions. I guess its just that Luparello seems redundant. Is it basically that Pinkerton has a broader scope, so some places reject that and only use Luparello? Or am I way off?

Actually, that being said, you can be CHARGED with the whole gambit, but you can only be convicted of one of those thing if merger is applicable.

Yeah, I got that you can always be charged with everything, it was just the conviction thing I was unsure of.

[stillwater]

there's been a lot of mistaken use of gambit instead of ambit on TLS lately.

[Danger Zone]

I actually didn't learn Luparello, but I know that Pinkerton says that if you're involved in a conspiracy, you can be convicted of anything a co-conspirator does as long as it is reasonably within the scope or in furtherance of the target offense, which gives prosecutors a ton of leverage. Under MPC 2.06(3), you can only be convicted of offenses "fairly envisaged in the purposes of the association. But when a different crime has been committed, thus involving conduct not within the conscious objectives of the accomplice, then he is not liable for it."

[Danger Zone]

there's been a lot of mistaken use of gambit instead of ambit on TLS lately.

I was obviously just testing you.

[SportsFan]

I actually didn't learn Luparello, but I know that Pinkerton says that if you're involved in a conspiracy, you can be convicted of anything a co-conspirator does as long as it is reasonably within the scope or in furtherance of the target offense, which gives prosecutors a ton of leverage. Under MPC 2.06(3), you can only be convicted of offenses "fairly envisaged in the purposes of the association. But when a different crime has been committed, thus involving conduct not within the conscious objectives of the accomplice, then he is not liable for it."

Fair enough. I think I might just be overthinking Luparello, since it seems like its more of an example of normal accomplice liability than an important doctrinal change. Slowly but surely I'm beginning to understand crim... haha.

[Blumpbeef]

there's been a lot of mistaken use of gambit instead of ambit on TLS lately.

I think he was going for gamut.

[stillwater]

there's been a lot of mistaken use of gambit instead of ambit on TLS lately.

I think he was going for gamut.

or maybe he was thinking of both because they mean similar things and he arrived at a compromise which meant none of those things or maybe like he said he was TESTING us, making sure our RC was still tight

[mephistopheles]

there's been a lot of mistaken use of gambit instead of ambit on TLS lately.

I think he was going for gamut.

or maybe he was thinking of both because they mean similar things and he arrived at a compromise which meant none of those things or maybe like he said he was TESTING us, making sure our RC was still tight

[Danger Zone]

there's been a lot of mistaken use of gambit instead of ambit on TLS lately.

I think he was going for gamut.

or maybe he was thinking of both because they mean similar things and he arrived at a compromise which meant none of those things or maybe like he said he was TESTING us, making sure our RC was still tight

Just gonna come out and admit I'm an idiot

[Doorkeeper]

There are so many different types of covenants, estates in land, and other random shit in property. I have no idea how to keep them all straight in my head.

for land controls there's real covenants (damages, need privity), equitable servitudes (injunction/no privity), easements, nuisance laws, zoning... and then restraints on estates. What else is there?

We did 7-8 different types of easements and 5-6 different restraints on estates/lands. That's a lot to keep in one's head.

[SportsFan]

There are so many different types of covenants, estates in land, and other random shit in property. I have no idea how to keep them all straight in my head.

for land controls there's real covenants (damages, need privity), equitable servitudes (injunction/no privity), easements, nuisance laws, zoning... and then restraints on estates. What else is there?

We did 7-8 different types of easements and 5-6 different restraints on estates/lands. That's a lot to keep in one's head.

So glad my property class didn't even get to easements. Just watching you guys talk about them makes scares me.

[mephistopheles]

So glad my property class didn't even get to easements.