How are you guys approaching this?
I'm just thinking of memorizing all the landmark substantive due process [Romer/Lawrence/Roe]/equal protection[Feeny/Brown]/commerce clause cases[Morrison/Lopez/Raich]?
I'm not too sure how Lochner plays into the grand scheme of things?
Any tips are appreciated. Thanks!
Con Law Closed Book Exam Forum
-
evilxs
- Posts: 397
- Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 1:21 pm
Re: Con Law Closed Book Exam
If you are not sure how Lochner plays in I think you need to immediately stop everything you are doing and pick up the Chemerinsky hornbook and start reading like crazy. I'm serious. 
-
ctcoffee
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 7:53 pm
Re: Con Law Closed Book Exam
Well isn't it overruled? Even though recent cases are trying to bring it back, economic substantive due process is kind of dead?
-
evilxs
- Posts: 397
- Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 1:21 pm
Re: Con Law Closed Book Exam
I guess this is where your professor plays a huge part in what is expected.
I know Lochner will be on my exam, in depth
So looking forward to it.
I know Lochner will be on my exam, in depth
So looking forward to it.-
laurby
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:34 pm
Re: Con Law Closed Book Exam
ECONOMIC RIGHTS (to contract, to property) ------ today repudiated! read the dissent and know what Holmes said
Lochner v. People of New York (1905) – This is no longer good law, and goes down in history as a poor decision. Supreme Court struck down NY statute limiting number of hours of Bakery employees as infringing on freedom of contract and therefore a violation of substantive due process.
• Court views as liberty interest vs. state police power to promote health, safety, welfare of workers and of bread consumption.
• Lochner argues that they have the right to freely contract and the government argues that they are looking out for the health, welfare, and safety of the workers in NY.
• Court looks to Art. I, §10, cl. 1 to find freedom of contract as Constitutionally guaranteed right – in this case to freely sell one’s labor – and applies what we would today call strict scrutiny, holding there must be more than a small health, safety, welfare concern to override liberty interest.
• The court strikes the statute and rules for the owner of the bakery. When the court interferes with liberty, the court must ask “is this a fair, reasonable, and appropriate exercise of the police power of the state, or is it an unreasonable, unnecessary, and arbitrary interference with the right of the individual to his personal liberty?”.
• The court states that this statute does not directly protect the health, welfare, and it does not outweigh the liberty to freely contract.
Dissent – Holmes –Equated this to other restrictive laws, and the state has to have the ability to regulate and protect the welfare of its persons. This will at times interfere with liberties, but that is perfectly OK. He states that the freedom of contract is more important that the health of people, and this is not a decision that the courts should make. The legislature would be the correct place for this decision.
Lochner v. People of New York (1905) – This is no longer good law, and goes down in history as a poor decision. Supreme Court struck down NY statute limiting number of hours of Bakery employees as infringing on freedom of contract and therefore a violation of substantive due process.
• Court views as liberty interest vs. state police power to promote health, safety, welfare of workers and of bread consumption.
• Lochner argues that they have the right to freely contract and the government argues that they are looking out for the health, welfare, and safety of the workers in NY.
• Court looks to Art. I, §10, cl. 1 to find freedom of contract as Constitutionally guaranteed right – in this case to freely sell one’s labor – and applies what we would today call strict scrutiny, holding there must be more than a small health, safety, welfare concern to override liberty interest.
• The court strikes the statute and rules for the owner of the bakery. When the court interferes with liberty, the court must ask “is this a fair, reasonable, and appropriate exercise of the police power of the state, or is it an unreasonable, unnecessary, and arbitrary interference with the right of the individual to his personal liberty?”.
• The court states that this statute does not directly protect the health, welfare, and it does not outweigh the liberty to freely contract.
Dissent – Holmes –Equated this to other restrictive laws, and the state has to have the ability to regulate and protect the welfare of its persons. This will at times interfere with liberties, but that is perfectly OK. He states that the freedom of contract is more important that the health of people, and this is not a decision that the courts should make. The legislature would be the correct place for this decision.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
Extension_Cord
- Posts: 592
- Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:15 pm
Re: Con Law Closed Book Exam
My con Law exam is also a closed book written exam. My professor pretty much told us he is going to give us a current SCOTUS case and we will tear it apart and will most likely need to apply a EP, DP, and CC analysis.
-
ak362
- Posts: 147
- Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 5:24 pm
Re: Con Law Closed Book Exam
It's been a while since I've had con law, but if you're going to do a substantive due process/equal protection analysis and you're looking at legislation as an issue-spotter, make sure to talk about Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. (City of Boerne v. Flores). If your con law class is super-complex and touches on state sovereign immunity, make sure to talk about Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer (though this is more appropriate for a Fed Cts class). Same with Seminole Tribe and the Commerce Clause, if you talked about SSI.
