Top Law Schools

If you could take 5 KEY thoughts into a con law final with you, what would they be?

1) Fuck you, Thomas
2) Fuck you, Stevens
3) Fuck you, political question
4) Fuck you, Commerce Clause
5) Thanks for being contrary and awesome, Scalia

1) Congressional actions are always bound by 1)the provided power to act and 2)constitutional limits.

2) State legislative actions are bound only by the constraints of the constitution.

3) The varying levels of scrutiny and how to apply each

4) Equal protection deals with classifications, while substantive due process deals with deprivation of a fundamental right

5) A general working knowledge of the balance between enhancing federal power (Ginsburg, Breyer) and ensuring the sanctity of state's rights (Roberts, Scalia/Thomas, Alito).

kalvano wrote:1) Fuck you, Thomas
2) Fuck you, Stevens
3) Fuck you, political question
4) Fuck you, Commerce Clause
5) Thanks for being contrary and awesome, Scalia

Strange definition of awesome you're working with.

what about in relation to multiple choice questions? I've taken dozens but I still can't seem to get a grasp on how to deal with them... these con-law MC questions pwn me

Ty Webb wrote:

kalvano wrote:1) Fuck you, Thomas
2) Fuck you, Stevens
3) Fuck you, political question
4) Fuck you, Commerce Clause
5) Thanks for being contrary and awesome, Scalia

Strange definition of awesome you're working with.

You must be a supporter of the homosexual agenda.

TCScrutinizer wrote:

Ty Webb wrote:

kalvano wrote:1) Fuck you, Thomas
2) Fuck you, Stevens
3) Fuck you, political question
4) Fuck you, Commerce Clause
5) Thanks for being contrary and awesome, Scalia

Strange definition of awesome you're working with.

You must be a supporter of the homosexual agenda.

TCScrutinizer wrote:You must be a supporter of the homosexual agenda.

Amazing.

Ty Webb wrote:1) Congressional actions are always bound by 1)the provided power to act and 2)constitutional limits

Redundancy much?

Army2Law wrote:

Ty Webb wrote:1) Congressional actions are always bound by 1)the provided power to act and 2)constitutional limits

Redundancy much?

Not really, they are two separate concepts.

Army2Law wrote:

Ty Webb wrote:1) Congressional actions are always bound by 1)the provided power to act and 2)constitutional limits

Redundancy much?

Hope you have a little time between now and your exam.

Ty Webb wrote:

Army2Law wrote:

Ty Webb wrote:1) Congressional actions are always bound by 1)the provided power to act and 2)constitutional limits

Redundancy much?

Hope you have a little time between now and your exam.

Enumerated powers are a Constitutional limit. I assume you also meant things like the First Amendment as Constitutional limits outside the scope of Article I, but, you're still redundant, tiger.

Army2Law wrote:

Ty Webb wrote:

Army2Law wrote:

Ty Webb wrote:1) Congressional actions are always bound by 1)the provided power to act and 2)constitutional limits

Redundancy much?

Hope you have a little time between now and your exam.

Enumerated powers are a Constitutional limit. I assume you also meant things like the First Amendment as Constitutional limits outside the scope of Article I, but, you're still redundant, tiger.

Might want to re-check things.

For Congress to act, it must have both the power to act on the matter expressly granted by the Constitution AND it must not be overstepping any boundaries set by the Constitution.

Authorization versus limitation. Two separate things.

Army2Law wrote:

Ty Webb wrote:

Army2Law wrote:

Ty Webb wrote:1) Congressional actions are always bound by 1)the provided power to act and 2)constitutional limits

Redundancy much?

Hope you have a little time between now and your exam.

Enumerated powers are a Constitutional limit. I assume you also meant things like the First Amendment as Constitutional limits outside the scope of Article I, but, you're still redundant, tiger.

Explaining enumerated powers as a "limit" is an interesting way to misconstrue the concept.

As Kalvano said, these are two very distinct concepts. Congress can't act without Constitutional authorization (i.e. its enumerated powers). Once Congress does act, it is only authorized insofar as its action doesn't run over the other lines laid out in the Constitution.

One concept deals with the topics on which Congress is authorized to act. The other concept deals more with the substantive content of the legislation and whether it bumps into other constitutional limits (among them are personal rights limits, state rights limits, etc.).

Think of it this way.

SEAL Team 6 is authorized to go in and get Bin Laden - enumerated powers.

However, they are not allowed to kill civilians or anyone who isn't a direct threat - Constitutional limits.

Congress still has its powers limited by what it is granted by the Constitution. Meaning, Congress doesn't have unlimited power (even though CC + N&P makes it seem that way sometimes) subject only to limits outside Article I. We're saying the same thing in different words.

Army2Law wrote:We're saying the same thing in different words.

You're really, really not.

Enumerated powers are not a constitutional limit on Congress's power, and if you conflate the two on an exam, you will miss median by a lot.

Enumerated power: "power to regulate commerce...among the several states..."
Constitutional limit: "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state"

MrKappus wrote:

Army2Law wrote:We're saying the same thing in different words.

You're really, really not.

Enumerated powers are not a constitutional limit on Congress's power, and if you conflate the two on an exam, you will miss median by a lot.

Enumerated power: "power to regulate commerce...among the several states..."
Constitutional limit: "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state"

Yeah, I'm wrong, Article I isn't in the Constitution. Only having powers enumerated by the Constitution isn't having your power limited by what is granted by the Constitution. Congress is LIMITED by he powers granted to it by the CONSTITUTION That's a Constitutional limit, douchebag.

Army2Law wrote:

MrKappus wrote:

Army2Law wrote:We're saying the same thing in different words.

You're really, really not.

Enumerated powers are not a constitutional limit on Congress's power, and if you conflate the two on an exam, you will miss median by a lot.

Enumerated power: "power to regulate commerce...among the several states..."
Constitutional limit: "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state"

Yeah, I'm wrong, Article I isn't in the Constitution. Only having powers enumerated by the Constitution isn't having your power limited by what is granted by the Constitution. Congress is LIMITED by he powers granted to it by the CONSTITUTION That's a Constitutional limit, douchebag.

Implied powers. McColloch v. Maryland.

The power to tax and overall manage "the purse" implies the power to open a bank.

They can't for instance, pass a bill of attainer.

Or at least, that's my understanding of it.

Army2Law wrote:Only having powers enumerated by the Constitution isn't having your power limited by what is granted by the Constitution. Congress is LIMITED by he powers granted to it by the CONSTITUTION That's a Constitutional limit, douchebag.

This is literally nonsense. I was just trying to help you out, but it's obvious umad.

Army2Law wrote:Yeah, I'm wrong, Article I isn't in the Constitution. Only having powers enumerated by the Constitution isn't having your power limited by what is granted by the Constitution. Congress is LIMITED by he powers granted to it by the CONSTITUTION That's a Constitutional limit, douchebag.

It's not my grade, dude, but when you have several people telling you something that is different from what you are saying, perhaps it might behoove you to listen.

My thoughts on conlaw now that its over.

1. The constitution is treated like a piece of toilet paper the justices use to wipe their asses with as they interpret it to meet their poltical views.

2. To me it's nothing more than supposedly high-minded psudo-philosophy

3. I don't like con law.

4. Im in the minority because there are so many history, political science and philosophy kids in law school so they get off on this kind of "intellectual" masturbation

5. I want to make like Nicholas Cage, go to DC and steal the Constitution. But instead of looking for treasure maps, id like to do exactly what the justices do with it: use it as toilet paper.

Army2Law wrote:Yeah, I'm wrong, Article I isn't in the Constitution. Only having powers enumerated by the Constitution isn't having your power limited by what is granted by the Constitution. Congress is LIMITED by he powers granted to it by the CONSTITUTION That's a Constitutional limit, douchebag.

I would like to note to everyone that not all people who went to law school after time served in the army are quite this... yeah. You get the picture.

Army2Law should think of it in this way.

The enumerated powers are much more a "grant" than they are a limit. Without enumerated powers, Congress can do nothing. A "grant" is not a limit.

I guess the concept of enumerated powers, when taken in the abstract, could be considered a limit. I.E. Congress is limited to only its grants, but that is a *really* round-about way of thinking about it.