Rule Explanation - Help! Forum

[Bruce W. 1991]

Can someone show or explain an A+ worthy example of Rule Explanation?

My professor is being contradictory. In my first memo (B+), the professor comment that I needed to hone my Rule Explanation and make it concise, but today for our final memo, the professor is saying she expects the Rule Explanation to be very detailed.

My draft right now has a lot of of parenthetical cites that explain the Rule Statement. Does anyone have a good explanation or example?

Thanks in advance. I'm meeting with my professor later this week, but the first draft is due on Sunday.

[instride91]

A useful and simple explanation I came up with in LRW was that good rule explanation involves 2 things: (1) explaining the court's reasoning and (2) including in that explanation the particular facts that the court found most significant to its reasoning.

I don't think you need many (if any) parenthetical citations.

Example:

Rule: A subsequent government search exceeds the scope of a private search when it discloses additional information that was not learned during the private search.

Rule Explanation: In US v. Jacobsen, a federal agent did not exceed the scope of a private search when he inspected the contents of a package because he was virtually certain not to learn anything more than employees of a private freight carrier had already learned while opening the package and examining its contents. Moreover, in United States v. Guindi, the FBI did not exceed the scope of a private search when it reviewed files contained on DVDs because, with one or two exceptions, a private litigant had already opened and scrolled through the contents of every file.

Disclaimer: This is what worked for me, and we obviously had different professors. When in doubt, listen to your professor. That being said, I did AmJur LRW.

[A. Nony Mouse]

This isn't meant to be snotty, but I'm not sure your prof is being contradictory. It may be that your specific rule explanation in that given context could have been more concise, even as a rule explanation generally needs to be pretty detailed. By saying "hone" it sounds like you may have had what they considered the wrong details in it.

[Bruce W. 1991]

God. I'm officially confused. Our section of 60 kids or so is broken down into 15 kids for LRW. We all have different professors with different approaches.

They all go off the same materials so I'm looking at a sample that got an A on the first memo from a different class, but its completely different than what my professor wants or at least according to the comments that I got on my first memo.

Your approach seems right and it's what I more or less did on the first memo and it's also what the sample does, but her comments said she wanted a more concise case summary with parenthetical cites explaining holding, facts, or reasoning.

Why is this shit a fucking mystery or is it just me?

[Bruce W. 1991]

This isn't meant to be snotty, but I'm not sure your prof is being contradictory. It may be that your specific rule explanation in that given context could have been more concise, even as a rule explanation generally needs to be pretty detailed. By saying "hone" it sounds like you may have had what they considered the wrong details in it.

I completely understand what you're saying, but I don't think it's that. A lot of people got similar comments in my class.

For our closed memo, I didn't use the wrong facts! She had no issue with what I put into it. She literally took a 3 sentence case summary and put it into a parenthetical cite and said to do this throughout.

[instride91]

This isn't meant to be snotty, but I'm not sure your prof is being contradictory. It may be that your specific rule explanation in that given context could have been more concise, even as a rule explanation generally needs to be pretty detailed. By saying "hone" it sounds like you may have had what they considered the wrong details in it.

I completely understand what you're saying, but I don't think it's that. A lot of people got similar comments in my class.

For our closed memo, I didn't use the wrong facts! She had no issue with what I put into it. She literally took a 3 sentence case summary and put it into a parenthetical cite and said to do this throughout.

Then do that. Each professor has their own idiosyncrasies, but if you want the A, you have to adhere to them.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Oh, okay. Some people are really into that. I think it's purely a stylistic thing and you need to just follow whatever example she gives to the letter. It would be more like this:

Rule: A subsequent government search exceeds the scope of a private search when it discloses additional information that was not learned during the private search. See US v. Jacobsen (federal agent's inspection of package did not exceed scope of private search because he would not learn anything more than private employees had already learned while opening the package and examining its contents); United States v. Guindi (FBI did not exceed scope of private search when it reviewed files on DVDs because, with one or two exceptions, a private litigant had already opened and scrolled through the contents of every file).

(you can probably condense those a little further, I'm too lazy to think how to do so)

[Bruce W. 1991]

Oh, okay. Some people are really into that. I think it's purely a stylistic thing and you need to just follow whatever example she gives to the letter. It would be more like this:

Rule: A subsequent government search exceeds the scope of a private search when it discloses additional information that was not learned during the private search. See US v. Jacobsen (federal agent's inspection of package did not exceed scope of private search because he would not learn anything more than private employees had already learned while opening the package and examining its contents); United States v. Guindi (FBI did not exceed scope of private search when it reviewed files on DVDs because, with one or two exceptions, a private litigant had already opened and scrolled through the contents of every file).

(you can probably condense those a little further, I'm too lazy to think how to do so)

YES! The problem I am having is that all our materials are provided by the LRW program so that everyone has the same examples and handouts. The examples and handouts are completely different than her comments on my first memo.

It's downright confusing (FRUSTRATING) looking at the samples and then reconciling that with her comments and her oral directions. Our book also does it differently...

Sorry if this is coming across as complaining. I just want to do well and what's expected. I just at times feel like they are purposefully being cryptic to lure most of us into the median.

[instride91]

Oh, okay. Some people are really into that. I think it's purely a stylistic thing and you need to just follow whatever example she gives to the letter. It would be more like this:

Rule: A subsequent government search exceeds the scope of a private search when it discloses additional information that was not learned during the private search. See US v. Jacobsen (federal agent's inspection of package did not exceed scope of private search because he would not learn anything more than private employees had already learned while opening the package and examining its contents); United States v. Guindi (FBI did not exceed scope of private search when it reviewed files on DVDs because, with one or two exceptions, a private litigant had already opened and scrolled through the contents of every file).

(you can probably condense those a little further, I'm too lazy to think how to do so)

YES! The problem I am having is that all our materials are provided by the LRW program so that everyone has the same examples and handouts. The examples and handouts are completely different than her comments on my first memo.

It's downright confusing (FRUSTRATING) looking at the samples and then reconciling that with her comments and her oral directions. Our book also does it differently...

Sorry if this is coming across as complaining. I just want to do well and what's expected. I just at times feel like they are purposefully being cryptic to lure most of us into the median.

I'm pretty sure most LRW professors are intentionally vague (although I wouldn't say intentionally deceptive or misleading). They have to grade based on some criteria, and if they tell everyone exactly what they want, that's much more difficult.

Also, go to office hours and bring what you've written. Since LRW is probably the only course you have that isn't 100% blind graded, office hours benefit you by helping you understand what the professor wants and leaving a good impression on him/her.

[Bruce W. 1991]

Oh, okay. Some people are really into that. I think it's purely a stylistic thing and you need to just follow whatever example she gives to the letter. It would be more like this:

Rule: A subsequent government search exceeds the scope of a private search when it discloses additional information that was not learned during the private search. See US v. Jacobsen (federal agent's inspection of package did not exceed scope of private search because he would not learn anything more than private employees had already learned while opening the package and examining its contents); United States v. Guindi (FBI did not exceed scope of private search when it reviewed files on DVDs because, with one or two exceptions, a private litigant had already opened and scrolled through the contents of every file).

(you can probably condense those a little further, I'm too lazy to think how to do so)

YES! The problem I am having is that all our materials are provided by the LRW program so that everyone has the same examples and handouts. The examples and handouts are completely different than her comments on my first memo.

It's downright confusing (FRUSTRATING) looking at the samples and then reconciling that with her comments and her oral directions. Our book also does it differently...

Sorry if this is coming across as complaining. I just want to do well and what's expected. I just at times feel like they are purposefully being cryptic to lure most of us into the median.

I'm pretty sure most LRW are intentionally vague (although I wouldn't say intentionally deceptive or misleading). They have to grade based on some criteria, and if they tell everyone exactly what they want, that's much more difficult.

Also, go to office hours and bring what you've written. Since LRW is probably the only course you have that isn't 100% blind graded, office hours benefit by helping you understand what the professor wants and leaving a good impression on him/her.

Even when I go to office hours, I get the same feeling. It's impossible to get a straight answer and they are being shifty as hell.

I understand it's very difficult to grade this class. But it should be blind out of fairness. I don't know why it's not. Is it ok to ask my professor this? I've been wondering all semester.

It's a small class and the people who have nice personalities I assume will have an edge in grading.

[pancakes3]

I agree with Nony. Sounds like the instruction is pretty consistent. Your RE is too vague/generalized for whatever reason.

I think LRW professors are wary of giving up too much guidance because a) if he/she tells you explicitly what a good RE is, it kind of defeats the point of you learning how to write a good RE because you'll just use their example and not really "get" why, and b) if he/she tells you - and subsequently others the RE, and everyone turns in the same RE, how do you grade that?

that said, maybe you want to share what your draft RE was? It's hard to tell you specifically what you did wrong without something to analyze. and with LRW, the difference between a B+ and an A- might hinge on just a single word.

[instride91]

I agree with Nony. Sounds like the instruction is pretty consistent. Your RE is too vague/generalized for whatever reason.

I think LRW professors are wary of giving up too much guidance because a) if he/she tells you explicitly what a good RE is, it kind of defeats the point of you learning how to write a good RE because you'll just use their example and not really "get" why, and b) if he/she tells you - and subsequently others the RE, and everyone turns in the same RE, how do you grade that?

that said, maybe you want to share what your draft RE was? It's hard to tell you specifically what you did wrong without something to analyze. and with LRW, the difference between a B+ and an A- might hinge on just a single word.

Probably shouldn't share it, since (at least at my school) that's a breach of academic integrity.

[Bruce W. 1991]

Oh, okay. Some people are really into that. I think it's purely a stylistic thing and you need to just follow whatever example she gives to the letter. It would be more like this:

Rule: A subsequent government search exceeds the scope of a private search when it discloses additional information that was not learned during the private search. See US v. Jacobsen (federal agent's inspection of package did not exceed scope of private search because he would not learn anything more than private employees had already learned while opening the package and examining its contents); United States v. Guindi (FBI did not exceed scope of private search when it reviewed files on DVDs because, with one or two exceptions, a private litigant had already opened and scrolled through the contents of every file).

(you can probably condense those a little further, I'm too lazy to think how to do so)

Is this a common way to do rule explanation? I like it compared to doing paragraph 1 on case X and then paragraph 2 on Y. I think this is what my professor wants based on comments from first memo, but none of our samples or materials do it this way. She has stated a few times not to do it like paragraph 1 on case X and then paragraph 2 on Y. But she never explained the way she wanted us to do it. We all got individual comments on our memos.

I'm meeting with my professor tomorrow. But I need to get this done tonight (due Sunday).

[Nebby]

Here's an example of detailed rule explanation drawn directly from my 1L rule development outline for con law.

The Constitution’s Commerce Clause grants Congress the ability to regulate commerce among the states. (Art. I §8). There are three categories of commerce regulation in which Congress is authorized to engage in: (1) Congress can regulate channels of interstate commerce; (2) Congress can regulate the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and persons or things in interstate commerce; and (3) Congress can regulate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. (Perez)

The third category entails that purely intrastate, local activities can be regulated if they substantially affect interstate commerce. (Wickard). To determine whether a local activity substantially affects interstate commerce, the court will look at three factors: (1) Is the activity being regulated economic or not economic? (2) Does the law have a jurisdictional element that ensures a case-by-case inquiry into whether the activity being regulated has a link to interstate commerce? (3) Are there congressional findings that would express a relationship between the regulated activity and interstate commerce? (Lopez; Gonzales). The court’s scope in Commerce Clause issues is limited: The court will invalidate a law under the Commerce Clause if there is “no rational basis” for a congressional finding that the regulated activity affects interstate commerce. (Hodel v. Indiana).

In Lopez, the court held that a statute prohibiting possession of a gun in a school zone is not an economic activity because that regulated activity is not an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity in which the regulatory scheme would be useless without regulating the possession of guns in school zones. In Morrison, the court held that a statue providing a civil remedy for victims of gender-based violence is not an economic activity, following the reasoning of Lopez, and clarifying that thus far cases upholding Commerce Clause regulation of intrastate activity have all been where that activity was economic in nature. In Wickard, the court held that prohibiting the cultivation of wheat in excess of the statutory grant, even when the wheat was purely local—never to be sold or enter the stream of commerce, was an economic activity because the regulatory scheme of controlling agriculture prices would be useless without regulating this “class of activity.” Similarly, in Gonzales, the court held that cultivation of marijuana was an economic activity, because it is a fungible commodity for which there is an established trade.

In Lopez, the court held that the statute failed to establish a jurisdictional element because it did not limit its reach to a discrete set of firearm possessions that additionally have an explicit connection with or effect on interstate commerce. In Morrison, the court again followed Lopez and held that the statute providing a civil remedy for victims of gender-based violence failed to establish a jurisdictional element because it did not limit its reach to victims of gender-based violence that additionally have an explicit connection with or on interstate commerce.

In Lopez, the court held that it could not find a rational basis in the congressional findings that the regulated activity affected interstate commerce because there were no committee reports regarding the effects of gun possession in school zones and interstate commerce. In Morrison, though committee reports existed and showed how gender-based violence affects interstate commerce, the court held that the existence of congressional findings alone is not sufficient, by itself to sustain the constitutionality of Commerce Clause legislation if the activity is not economic and there is no jurisdictional element. In Gonzales, the court held that there was a rational basis between prohibiting homegrown marijuana and regulating the national illicit drug market because, using Wickard as precedent, be it wheat or marijuana cultivation, both have a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for those commodities.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Dude, I think it's pretty clear from the rest of the thread that this wasn't what his prof was looking for.

[Bruce W. 1991]

Dude, I think it's pretty clear from the rest of the thread that this wasn't what his prof was looking for.

It is a good example and I'll reference it.

A. Nony Mouse - Can I send a RE for one of my CREACs? I don't know if I'm doing it or if it's A material.