Spring 2010 Exam Prep Rant Thread Forum

[98234872348]

Probably the fact that someone can't grow their own wheat for personal consumption because of a conclusory and speculative justification that in the aggregate, this will impact something they should be regulating anyway.

In an exam context, just think about it this way: At least it's easy to apply! Does this affect commerce in the aggregate? Then it's covered under the Commece Clause! The end!

Don't forget the triad of confusion - Lopez, Morrison, and Raich.

See... those cases seem to make sense to me... Lopez and Morrison both basically saying that where the activities are not directly affecting interstate commerce, you can't aggregate. I mean Morrison lists out the 4 factors that were implicit in Lopez, but really it's that allowing you to aggregate anything tangentially related to interstate commerce provides no limiting principle. And certainly, because the const is one of enumerated powers, and it gave power to cong. to regulate commerce among the states, not to regulate commerce, then there must be some point in which Congress can't reach.
Then Raich basically said that it doesn't matter if the market is illegal, it's still a market, and the same enticements are there that existed in Wickard—the mere ability to enter the market, and if you aggregate that, it is going to defeat Congressional regulation the other way. Though I do think that O'Connor dissent was relevant re: this opinion at least facially gives opportunity to end-around Lopez if the restriction were built into a larger comprehensive scheme.

My sense re: Lopez and Morrison was not only that they did not directly affect interstate commerce, but they are not a commercial activity to begin with. In these cases the Court expressed a palpable concern that if congress could regulate non-economic activities that could be argued to have a tenuous affect on commerce that congress would effectively be vested with a national police power, since all crimes can logically have some effect on commerce. This would effectively defeat the federalist principle that states should serve as laboratories of experimentation in order that the various legal theories can be applied and refined thereby.

[engineer]

So I just picked up a take-home exam for a class, and we have a multiple choice section. One of the questions is a fucking opinion question... How the hell can something that literally ASKS FOR YOUR FUCKING OPINION be graded?

[prezidentv8]

So I just picked up a take-home exam for a class, and we have a multiple choice section. One of the questions is a fucking opinion question... How the hell can something that literally ASKS FOR YOUR FUCKING OPINION be graded?

I see that your TLS name is "engineer." Clearly you have not been down this path before.

[mikeytwoshoes]

Probably the fact that someone can't grow their own wheat for personal consumption because of a conclusory and speculative justification that in the aggregate, this will impact something they should be regulating anyway.

In an exam context, just think about it this way: At least it's easy to apply! Does this affect commerce in the aggregate? Then it's covered under the Commece Clause! The end!

Don't forget the triad of confusion - Lopez, Morrison, and Raich.

See... those cases seem to make sense to me... Lopez and Morrison both basically saying that where the activities are not directly affecting interstate commerce, you can't aggregate. I mean Morrison lists out the 4 factors that were implicit in Lopez, but really it's that allowing you to aggregate anything tangentially related to interstate commerce provides no limiting principle. And certainly, because the const is one of enumerated powers, and it gave power to cong. to regulate commerce among the states, not to regulate commerce, then there must be some point in which Congress can't reach.
Then Raich basically said that it doesn't matter if the market is illegal, it's still a market, and the same enticements are there that existed in Wickard—the mere ability to enter the market, and if you aggregate that, it is going to defeat Congressional regulation the other way. Though I do think that O'Connor dissent was relevant re: this opinion at least facially gives opportunity to end-around Lopez if the restriction were built into a larger comprehensive scheme.

So you don't like the over inclusion in Wickard but you do like the over inclusion in Raich?

[prezidentv8]

--ImageRemoved--

[vanwinkle]

No, no, no... I can understand the Raich decision based on Wickard precedent. I have no idea how they came up with Wickard based on prior precedent.

It depends on which precedent you look at. The pre-1937 precedents were a clusterfuck of inconsistency and judicial activism. Wickard makes some sense if you look at Gibbons v. Ogden; it's essentially saying "We're going to throw out all these convoluted tests and go back to the Gibbons attitude toward the Commerce Clause."

[prezidentv8]

--ImageRemoved--

[mikeytwoshoes]

No, no, no... I can understand the Raich decision based on Wickard precedent. I have no idea how they came up with Wickard based on prior precedent.

It depends on which precedent you look at. The pre-1937 precedents were a clusterfuck of inconsistency and judicial activism. Wickard makes some sense if you look at Gibbons v. Ogden; it's essentially saying "We're going to throw out all these convoluted tests and go back to the Gibbons attitude toward the Commerce Clause."

No way Wickard is a logical progression from Gibbons. NO WAY.

--ImageRemoved--

[prezidentv8]

No, no, no... I can understand the Raich decision based on Wickard precedent. I have no idea how they came up with Wickard based on prior precedent.

It depends on which precedent you look at. The pre-1937 precedents were a clusterfuck of inconsistency and judicial activism. Wickard makes some sense if you look at Gibbons v. Ogden; it's essentially saying "We're going to throw out all these convoluted tests and go back to the Gibbons attitude toward the Commerce Clause."

No way Wickard is a logical progression from Gibbons. NO WAY.

--ImageRemoved--

180.

[Big Shrimpin]

I'm loving all the memes (also in the Law Students?!?!?!). I can't think of anything more entertaining than taking a break from outlining and seeing an insanitywolf meme about RAP analysis.

[wiseowl]

My moniker and I have come full circle.

The night before my first spring exam, there is a fucking owl outside my bedroom window, hooting every 30 seconds.

There has never been an owl here in the 10 months I have lived in this house.

[apper123]

It's an omen.

Of what I'm not sure. It may be an omen that you are going to get a 4.0 or it could be an omen that you'll win poster of the year on TLS.

Which would you prefer?

[wiseowl]

It's an omen.

Of what I'm not sure. It may be an omen that you are going to get a 4.0 or it could be an omen that you'll win poster of the year on TLS.

Which would you prefer?

I'll take the 4.0, thx

[prezidentv8]

--ImageRemoved--

[apper123]

It's an omen.

Of what I'm not sure. It may be an omen that you are going to get a 4.0 or it could be an omen that you'll win poster of the year on TLS.

Which would you prefer?

I'll take the 4.0, thx

Hmm. I think you underestimate the power of "Poster of the Year: TLS - 2010" on your resume, but ok. I accept your decision.

[wiseowl]

Thanks. as you posted that the owl stopped.

So it shall be.

[engineer]

--ImageRemoved--
ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD

[Netopalis]

--ImageRemoved--

Oh, and by the way, any help with this question?

A state (Let's say California) has a law which makes it criminal to engage in day labor. Most people engaging in day labor are immigrants, illegal or legal. The state adds a provision saying that it applies to both legal and illegal immigrants. At the same time, there is a federal statute which makes it a crime for illegal immigrants to engage in day labor. Conflict preemption? I said no, my study partners said yes.

My logic: It is possible to comply with both laws. Purchasing a license doesn't give you the right to work, it eliminates an avenue for possible prosecution. Therefore, by not engaging in the federally illegal activity, you're not violating the state illegal activity.

Their logic: It gives a de facto right to work which is in violation of the federal law. One cannot comply with both because if a person buys a license, they have a conflicting right to work and a law against them working.

[Rocky Estoppel]

Moot Court Tryouts a week before finals. Nice.

[mac.empress]

--ImageRemoved--

None of us are quite sure...

[engineer]

--ImageRemoved--

None of us are quite sure...

I just saw this, and totally forgot that the M'Naghten Rule had anything to do with crim law. I'm so dead on Monday's final. I mean, all I really remember were the sex crimes because they reminded me of the Chris Hansen dude

--ImageRemoved--

[let/them/eat/cake]

just realized what W.B. Yeats's "The Second Coming" is really about:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?