1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread Forum

[ilovesf]

first final in 1.5 hours ahhhh.

KICK SOME ASS

Thanks <3

[crossarmant]

Done with Ks, onwards to con law on Monday! It seems like a lot of us have con law next. So I have a question maybe you guys can help me. In Morrison v US the court doesn't apply a rational basis test, something which Breyer really takes issue with in the dissent. In Raich they do apply it. Is the reason they chose not to apply it in Morrison just because it was a non economic activity so they didn't use the same test, or am I missing something?

My understanding was that it was the regulation of a non-economic activity in Morrison and Congress cannot regulate non-economic activity by finding that when looked at cumulatively it has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. As for Raich, intrastate production of a commodity sold in interstate commerce is considered economic activity and thus subject to the rational basis test.

[Lasers]

I failed my contracts exam ... really depressed.

[ilovesf]

Done with Ks, onwards to con law on Monday! It seems like a lot of us have con law next. So I have a question maybe you guys can help me. In Morrison v US the court doesn't apply a rational basis test, something which Breyer really takes issue with in the dissent. In Raich they do apply it. Is the reason they chose not to apply it in Morrison just because it was a non economic activity so they didn't use the same test, or am I missing something?

My understanding was that it was the regulation of a non-economic activity in Morrison and Congress cannot regulate non-economic activity by finding that when looked at cumulatively it has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. As for Raich, intrastate production of a commodity sold in interstate commerce is considered economic activity and thus subject to the rational basis test.

I understand the holdings in the cases, I guess I just don't understand when/how they choose to apply the rational basis test. What test was Morrison subject to then?

[angrybird]

Done with Ks, onwards to con law on Monday! It seems like a lot of us have con law next. So I have a question maybe you guys can help me. In Morrison v US the court doesn't apply a rational basis test, something which Breyer really takes issue with in the dissent. In Raich they do apply it. Is the reason they chose not to apply it in Morrison just because it was a non economic activity so they didn't use the same test, or am I missing something?

My understanding was that it was the regulation of a non-economic activity in Morrison and Congress cannot regulate non-economic activity by finding that when looked at cumulatively it has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. As for Raich, intrastate production of a commodity sold in interstate commerce is considered economic activity and thus subject to the rational basis test.

I understand the holdings in the cases, I guess I just don't understand when/how they choose to apply the rational basis test. What test was Morrison subject to then?

the Raich court doesn't really give a good reason, but it has to be the economic/non-economic distinction.

Morrison can't be rational basis, because the court said the Congressional findings on economic effects were not determinative.

[queenlizzie13]

Just finished Civ Pro. Not sure how to feel about it....

at least civ pro is finally done forever. just contracts & property left next week.

[TTRansfer]

Done with Ks, onwards to con law on Monday! It seems like a lot of us have con law next. So I have a question maybe you guys can help me. In Morrison v US the court doesn't apply a rational basis test, something which Breyer really takes issue with in the dissent. In Raich they do apply it. Is the reason they chose not to apply it in Morrison just because it was a non economic activity so they didn't use the same test, or am I missing something?

My understanding was that it was the regulation of a non-economic activity in Morrison and Congress cannot regulate non-economic activity by finding that when looked at cumulatively it has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. As for Raich, intrastate production of a commodity sold in interstate commerce is considered economic activity and thus subject to the rational basis test.

I understand the holdings in the cases, I guess I just don't understand when/how they choose to apply the rational basis test. What test was Morrison subject to then?

the Raich court doesn't really give a good reason, but it has to be the economic/non-economic distinction.

TCR.

[crossarmant]

Done with Ks, onwards to con law on Monday! It seems like a lot of us have con law next. So I have a question maybe you guys can help me. In Morrison v US the court doesn't apply a rational basis test, something which Breyer really takes issue with in the dissent. In Raich they do apply it. Is the reason they chose not to apply it in Morrison just because it was a non economic activity so they didn't use the same test, or am I missing something?

My understanding was that it was the regulation of a non-economic activity in Morrison and Congress cannot regulate non-economic activity by finding that when looked at cumulatively it has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. As for Raich, intrastate production of a commodity sold in interstate commerce is considered economic activity and thus subject to the rational basis test.

I understand the holdings in the cases, I guess I just don't understand when/how they choose to apply the rational basis test. What test was Morrison subject to then?

the Raich court doesn't really give a good reason, but it has to be the economic/non-economic distinction.

Morrison can't be rational basis, because the court said the Congressional findings on economic effects were not determinative.

I read it as a more ambiguous standard with Morrison than before, like it's something more than rational basis for a non-economic activity. I think that Raich is used as a way to simply say that the standard is now a bit higher, but not completely back to pre-1937 high (That and the Supreme Court didn't want to give up federal right to fight the "war on drugs" to the states).

[leefair123]

con law and contracts done leg-reg and crime to go.... any advice on leg reg?

[Guchster]

I failed my contracts exam ... really depressed.

GURL SNAP OUT OF IT AND MOVE ON.

[angrybird]

I read it as a more ambiguous standard with Morrison than before, like it's something more than rational basis for a non-economic activity. I think that Raich is used as a way to simply say that the standard is now a bit higher, but not completely back to pre-1937 high (That and the Supreme Court didn't want to give up federal right to fight the "war on drugs" to the states).

i think the argument in Raich is that since Congress is allowed to regulate interstate markets, they should be able to regulate purely intrastate activity if failure to regulate would undercut their ability to regulate the interstate market. that's how Raich reads Wickard, and it arguably narrows Wickard to concern only "regulation of markets" or innately economic activity, but it's basically open season for Congress as long as what they're regulating is arguably commercial activity.

[jjlaw]

I read it as a more ambiguous standard with Morrison than before, like it's something more than rational basis for a non-economic activity. I think that Raich is used as a way to simply say that the standard is now a bit higher, but not completely back to pre-1937 high (That and the Supreme Court didn't want to give up federal right to fight the "war on drugs" to the states).

i think the argument in Raich is that since Congress is allowed to regulate interstate markets, they should be able to regulate purely intrastate activity if failure to regulate would undercut their ability to regulate the interstate market. that's how Raich reads Wickard, and it arguably narrows Wickard to concern only "regulation of markets" or innately economic activity, but it's basically open season for Congress as long as what they're regulating is arguably commercial activity.

On that note, would that sort rational basis review (congress regulating economic activity) be derived from Williamson v. Lee Optical? Because in that case, the court was talking about the state legislature, but can we assume that this is the same approach for Congress?

[MrPapagiorgio]

I read it as a more ambiguous standard with Morrison than before, like it's something more than rational basis for a non-economic activity. I think that Raich is used as a way to simply say that the standard is now a bit higher, but not completely back to pre-1937 high (That and the Supreme Court didn't want to give up federal right to fight the "war on drugs" to the states).

i think the argument in Raich is that since Congress is allowed to regulate interstate markets, they should be able to regulate purely intrastate activity if failure to regulate would undercut their ability to regulate the interstate market. that's how Raich reads Wickard, and it arguably narrows Wickard to concern only "regulation of markets" or innately economic activity, but it's basically open season for Congress as long as what they're regulating is arguably commercial activity.

On that note, would that sort rational basis review (congress regulating economic activity) be derived from Williamson v. Lee Optical? Because in that case, the court was talking about the state legislature, but can we assume that this is the same approach for Congress?

No. Lee Optical was about regulating socioeconomic rights under the 14th amendment, not the commerce clause.

[crossarmant]

God... fuck Constitutional Law.

[Guchster]

I read it as a more ambiguous standard with Morrison than before, like it's something more than rational basis for a non-economic activity. I think that Raich is used as a way to simply say that the standard is now a bit higher, but not completely back to pre-1937 high (That and the Supreme Court didn't want to give up federal right to fight the "war on drugs" to the states).

i think the argument in Raich is that since Congress is allowed to regulate interstate markets, they should be able to regulate purely intrastate activity if failure to regulate would undercut their ability to regulate the interstate market. that's how Raich reads Wickard, and it arguably narrows Wickard to concern only "regulation of markets" or innately economic activity, but it's basically open season for Congress as long as what they're regulating is arguably commercial activity.

Both of yours answers seem correct. While Lopez/Morrison basically stop short of holding that noneconomic activity can NEVER be reached, they point out that "in those cases where we have sustained federal regulation of interstate activity based upon the substantial effects on interstate commerce, the activity in question has been some sort of economic endeavor."

Because Raich involved the cultivating and purchasing of weed (an activity that involves commerce)--versus simply possessing some rando gun in a school zone or being a woman--it was subject to interstate commerce regulation (even if solely an intrastate activity, if its effect would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce)

Scalia in Raich is pretty hardcore. He argued that congress could regulate even noneconomic local activity that did not substantially affect interstate commerce if that regulation is a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce. Since Congress could conclude that objective of barring MJ from the interstate market might be undercut if local growing for medical purposes was allowed, a ban on that local activity was necessary to the success of the overall regulatory scheme.

ilovesf, where are you pulling a rational basis standard from these cases? Instead of viewing the test as a rational nexus between the activity and interstate commerce, the third prong of lopez suggests its abouta "substantial affect" if it's not interstate commerce (prong 1) or an instrumentality of it (prong 2)

[MrPapagiorgio]

Please please consult either your professor or Chemerinsky. This page is loaded with both correct and incorrect information. It's going to lead to paranoia and confusion. Please enough with the commerce clause discussion.

[ilovesf]

I opened a can of worms and I don't regret it! It's SO hard to take an exam one morning and switch to a different topic in the afternoon. ugh.

[Guchster]

I read it as a more ambiguous standard with Morrison than before, like it's something more than rational basis for a non-economic activity. I think that Raich is used as a way to simply say that the standard is now a bit higher, but not completely back to pre-1937 high (That and the Supreme Court didn't want to give up federal right to fight the "war on drugs" to the states).

i think the argument in Raich is that since Congress is allowed to regulate interstate markets, they should be able to regulate purely intrastate activity if failure to regulate would undercut their ability to regulate the interstate market. that's how Raich reads Wickard, and it arguably narrows Wickard to concern only "regulation of markets" or innately economic activity, but it's basically open season for Congress as long as what they're regulating is arguably commercial activity.

On that note, would that sort rational basis review (congress regulating economic activity) be derived from Williamson v. Lee Optical? Because in that case, the court was talking about the state legislature, but can we assume that this is the same approach for Congress?

Lee optical is about substantive economic due process rights. You might be able to pull a rational basis test from Kennedy's concurrence in Comstock, where he writes that the necessary and proper clause should be subject to a more exacting standard of a "rational basis test" than you'd find in lee optical. he argues that the test should be something more "substantial" like the one you'd find for commerce in Lopez/Morrison/Raich

[Guchster]

Please please consult either your professor or Chemerinsky. This page is loaded with both correct and incorrect information. It's going to lead to paranoia and confusion. Please enough with the commerce clause discussion.

I completely disagree with this. This thread can also be used for us to work through these issues and cases together.

We can dig each other back out of the holes we dig with our confusion. Either the shit gets thrown on here (and figured out), or we throw it on the exam.

If you see something incorrect, help us sort it out so we can get it right on the exam. TYIA

[ilovesf]

ilovesf, where are you pulling a rational basis standard from these cases? Instead of viewing the test as a rational nexus between the activity and interstate commerce, the third prong of lopez suggests its abouta "substantial affect" if it's not interstate commerce (prong 1) or an instrumentality of it (prong 2)

I'm just looking over my notes and I wrote it there. I have in my notes that Breyer in the dissent of Morrison talks about how they didn't apply a rational basis test, and they should have, in which case they would have upheld that the law. I guess it's because they should have followed Congress' findings on the subject, and thus applied the test. Whereas in Raich they did apply this test, because they followed Congress' findings. I really have no idea. No one should put any credence into the words I am typing. I am just going to e-mail my prof. He isn't at school anymore so he has no office hours, UGH.

[crossarmant]

Please please consult either your professor or Chemerinsky. This page is loaded with both correct and incorrect information. It's going to lead to paranoia and confusion. Please enough with the commerce clause discussion.

I completely disagree with this. This thread can also be used for us to work through these issues and cases together.

We can dig each other back out of the holes we dig with our confusion. Either the shit gets thrown on here (and figured out), or we throw it on the exam.

If you see something incorrect, help us sort it out so we can get it right on the exam. TYIA

+1 This thread has been a huge help all year in figuring things out and I thank give it a good amount of credit for why I did well last semester.

Off to do exercise bike + reading ConLaw notes, double productivity here I come.

[Guchster]

ilovesf, where are you pulling a rational basis standard from these cases? Instead of viewing the test as a rational nexus between the activity and interstate commerce, the third prong of lopez suggests its abouta "substantial affect" if it's not interstate commerce (prong 1) or an instrumentality of it (prong 2)

I'm just looking over my notes and I wrote it there. I have in my notes that Breyer in the dissent of Morrison talks about how they didn't apply a rational basis test, and they should have, in which case they would have upheld that the law. I guess it's because they should have followed Congress' findings on the subject, and thus applied the test. Whereas in Raich they did apply this test, because they followed Congress' findings. I really have no idea. No one should put any credence into the words I am typing. I am just going to e-mail my prof. He isn't at school anymore so he has no office hours, UGH.

Ahhhh.....


Steven says in Raich that "Congress had a rational basis for concluding that leaving home-consumed marijuana outside federal control would similarly affect price and market conditions." Congress, in passing the act, rationally believed that if cultivation of home-grown weed were permitted, it would have an interstate market effect."

Since the Court has recognized that prohibiting the intrastate manufacture or possession of an article of commerce was a rational means of regulating interstate commerce in that product, the intrastate regulation fell within Congress' commerce powers. The Court in Morrison/Lopez, didn't find a rational link between the means afforded by the statute and interstate commerce.

I think ignoring the congressional finding was super sketchy of Rehnquist, and I'm not sure why he didn't bring it up. I think if he took them into account, and it would've been shown that there was a rational means for regulating the intrastate activities because of their effect on interstate commerce. Bryer and souters call him out on it though, and argue that ther should be no reason for attaching such important to the commercial/noncommercial distinction if an activity will have a large effect on interstate commerce. In other words, he finds Congress could rationally believe they were regulating interstate commerce.

[merc280]

Planning on doing a Contracts exam tonight, and more torts-property work to be done. Probably going to test my knowledge of recording systems, easements, covenants by doing E&E Property questions.

[ilovesf]

Awesome, thanks I under the principle, now the issue is just learning how to apply that when I get a fact pattern about the CC. I just e-mailed my professor though to double check. I hope he doesn't open it and is like "wtf is this question."

[ilovesf]

Since we talked about it earlier, here is the question I e-mailed my professor and his response.

Q: I have a question regarding the application of the rational basis test in the modern commerce clause cases. I have in my notes that in Morrison the court did not apply the test, presumably because the it was a non-economic activity and the court did not follow Congress' findings on the subject. Justice Breyer in his dissent takes issue with this and argues the test should have been applied there. However, in Raich, the court does use the rational basis test and upholds the law. I am a little confused about when to apply the rational basis test in these cases and fact patterns. Was it not used in Morrison because the court found the activity was not economic, so did not even need to apply this test?

A: The Court does not help us out of our confusion here. But here are some suggestions: 1) The law at issue in Morrison was quite specific -- provision of a civil damages remedy for sex-based violence -- while the law at issue in Raich was very broad -- all controlled substances. The narrower the law, the easier it may be to find that the activity regulated is neither economic nor have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. In Morrison the Court thought that, despite congressional findings, the activity regulated -- sex-based violence -- was not economic. 2) The law in Raich regulated activities that were either in interstate commerce or (in the aggregate) have a substantial impact on interstate commerce. The claim that a subset of those activities was beyond regulation would have required a modification of the Wickard principle, and there was no workable standard by which to limit Wickard, at least in the case where the overlying law is plainly valid.