Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2016 Forum

[blach0987]

Did anyone catch the difference between the privileges and immunities clause of article IV section 2 versus the dormant commerce clause? It keeps coming up and I am not sure if I understand the difference fully...

thanks in advance!

[Easy-E]

Do we not have FROs for the MEE only subjects? Or am I finally going crazy?

[unidentifiable]

Do we not have FROs for the MEE only subjects? Or am I finally going crazy?

Themis sent them in a message a while back. PDFs

[Fivedham]

Did anyone catch the difference between the privileges and immunities clause of article IV section 2 versus the dormant commerce clause? It keeps coming up and I am not sure if I understand the difference fully...

thanks in advance!

Dormant commerce clause is usually implicated when a state passes a law whose purpose is to impermissible protect native industry.

Privileges and immunities is implicated when a state is treating residents and non-residents differently, especially in the realm of private employment.

I think that's the gist of it, but anyone can correct me if I'm off.

[ndp1234]

Damn how did I get wrecked on Crim law so hard. I went 6/15 on the simulated MBE

Same here. I think the crim law questions were harder as a whole because there were less questions.

[ndp1234]

Did anyone catch the difference between the privileges and immunities clause of article IV section 2 versus the dormant commerce clause? It keeps coming up and I am not sure if I understand the difference fully...

thanks in advance!

Dormant commerce clause is usually implicated when a state passes a law whose purpose is to impermissible protect native industry.

Privileges and immunities is implicated when a state is treating residents and non-residents differently, especially in the realm of private employment.

I think that's the gist of it, but anyone can correct me if I'm off.

This, but just adding that P&I is implicated when a state is trying to limit a fundamental right (like to travel, be employed, etc.) whereas Dormant Clause is the state trying to protect its industries/native businesses. For P&I the emphasis is on the individual right to partake in the activity (since Corps aren't covered by P&I) whereas DCC, the tip off will usually be some sort of commercial or economic preference for instate businesses.

[ChocolateTruffle]

Do we not have FROs for the MEE only subjects? Or am I finally going crazy?

Themis sent them in a message a while back. PDFs

What are FROs??

[lawstudent35]

Did anyone catch the difference between the privileges and immunities clause of article IV section 2 versus the dormant commerce clause? It keeps coming up and I am not sure if I understand the difference fully...

thanks in advance!

Dormant commerce clause is usually implicated when a state passes a law whose purpose is to impermissible protect native industry.

Privileges and immunities is implicated when a state is treating residents and non-residents differently, especially in the realm of private employment.

I think that's the gist of it, but anyone can correct me if I'm off.

This, but just adding that P&I is implicated when a state is trying to limit a fundamental right (like to travel, be employed, etc.) whereas Dormant Clause is the state trying to protect its industries/native businesses. For P&I the emphasis is on the individual right to partake in the activity (since Corps aren't covered by P&I) whereas DCC, the tip off will usually be some sort of commercial or economic preference for instate businesses.

P & I does not apply to corporations. Dormant Commerce Clause does.

[Chardee_MacDennis]

Do we not have FROs for the MEE only subjects? Or am I finally going crazy?

Themis sent them in a message a while back. PDFs

What are FROs??

Final review outlines

[Chardee_MacDennis]

So the consensus is that there is really no value in watching these MBE Analysis videos?

I'd still recommend it, if only for a forced review of the ones you answered incorrectly.

I skipped them. I'll get just as much out of reviewing them myself as I would listen to some other dude do it for me. I think it's dependent on how an individual learns

Yeah, you just gotta do you at this point

[ChocolateTruffle]

Do we not have FROs for the MEE only subjects? Or am I finally going crazy?

Themis sent them in a message a while back. PDFs

What are FROs??

Final review outlines

I just went through all the Themis messages on the website and I can't find any FROs for the MEE! I see eReader outlines, but they are the full length outlines. Can someone tell me on what date the MEE FROs were sent out, please??? Thanks!

[Chardee_MacDennis]

Do we not have FROs for the MEE only subjects? Or am I finally going crazy?

Themis sent them in a message a while back. PDFs

What are FROs??

Final review outlines

I just went through all the Themis messages on the website and I can't find any FROs for the MEE! I see eReader outlines, but they are the full length outlines. Can someone tell me on what date the MEE FROs were sent out, please??? Thanks!

I got the email on 5/31, subject: TIP - How to review

[hirkaismyname]

Do we not have FROs for the MEE only subjects? Or am I finally going crazy?

Themis sent them in a message a while back. PDFs

What are FROs??

Final review outlines

I just went through all the Themis messages on the website and I can't find any FROs for the MEE! I see eReader outlines, but they are the full length outlines. Can someone tell me on what date the MEE FROs were sent out, please??? Thanks!

May 30th
Subject: Re: "Memorization Tool"
Attached: UBE Final Review MEE

[ChocolateTruffle]

Do we not have FROs for the MEE only subjects? Or am I finally going crazy?

Themis sent them in a message a while back. PDFs

What are FROs??

Final review outlines

I just went through all the Themis messages on the website and I can't find any FROs for the MEE! I see eReader outlines, but they are the full length outlines. Can someone tell me on what date the MEE FROs were sent out, please??? Thanks!

May 30th
Subject: Re: "Memorization Tool"
Attached: UBE Final Review MEE

Found it! Thank you!!!

[livinlaw]

I love Pushaw's explanation for every answer: "If you memorized the rule/law, then you would have got the answer easily."

I'll be sure to do that when I review.

haha, right. Also, "it might help you to know I've been teaching con law for 20 (?) years and I find some of these to be difficult." -- lol, why would that help me?

[Nebby]

Okay, question

[+] Spoiler

Question Text:
Based on an advertisement in a local newspaper, a state resident bought a cross-country roundtrip ticket on a national airline for $450. The ad did not mention that the airline charged $75 for any changes to a ticket. Because of illness, the state resident had to change her return flight, and the airline charged her $75. The state resident refused to pay, citing a state law that required any ad for the sale of tickets for any event or trip to clearly disclose any monetary penalties for changing tickets. The airline sued the state resident in federal court for the unpaid fee, arguing that the state law is invalid, citing a federal statute prohibiting states from enforcing any law “relating to the rates, routes, or services” of any airline. Will the airline prevail?

Answer Choices:
Yes, because, under the Freedom of Press Clause of the First Amendment, the content of commercial speech may not be regulated.
Yes, because Congress has occupied the field of airline rates, routes, and service and hence has preempted the state law.
No, because the court will apply the presumption against preemption.
No, because the state law does not conflict with the federal statute.

Learner Selected Answer:
No, because the state law does not conflict with the federal statute.

Correct Answer:
Yes, because Congress has occupied the field of airline rates, routes, and service and hence has preempted the state law.

Rationale:
Answer choice B is correct. The language of the federal statute indicates a specific intent by Congress to preempt the field of airline regulations with regard to rates, routes, and services. Under the Supremacy Clause, federal law preempts state law when Congress has enacted legislation that explicitly prohibits state regulation in the same area. Answer choice A is incorrect because commercial speech is subject to content regulation. The Freedom of Press Clause does not grant the press greater free speech rights than the public at large enjoys. Answer choice C is incorrect because, although there is a judicially recognized presumption against preemption with respect to a conflict between state and federal law, this presumption is rebuttable if Congress has manifested its intent to preempt state law, as is the case here. Answer choice D is incorrect because, although the state law does not purport to deal specifically with interstate commerce in general or airline travel specifically, there is clear conflict between the federal statute and the state law with respect to the fee charged by the airline.

I thought the state law was primarily a state law dealing with advertising, not rates. Therefore the law is not in conflict. I thought perhaps the consumer's defense may not be applicable, but not due to preemption, but due to the fact that the state law primarily regulates advertising and that in and of itself does not also create a defense to a breach of contract claim. I guess a law dealing with the advertisement of rates is the same thing as a dealing with rates generally? (Obviously it is, because I got it wrong, but it doesn't quite make sense because I thought there was a case where a state was permissibly allowed to regulate the advertisement of cigarettes without being preempted by the federal tobacco law that regulates smokes--or am I just simply misremembering the case?)

[Chardee_MacDennis]

Okay, question

[+] Spoiler

Question Text:
Based on an advertisement in a local newspaper, a state resident bought a cross-country roundtrip ticket on a national airline for $450. The ad did not mention that the airline charged $75 for any changes to a ticket. Because of illness, the state resident had to change her return flight, and the airline charged her $75. The state resident refused to pay, citing a state law that required any ad for the sale of tickets for any event or trip to clearly disclose any monetary penalties for changing tickets. The airline sued the state resident in federal court for the unpaid fee, arguing that the state law is invalid, citing a federal statute prohibiting states from enforcing any law “relating to the rates, routes, or services” of any airline. Will the airline prevail?

Answer Choices:
Yes, because, under the Freedom of Press Clause of the First Amendment, the content of commercial speech may not be regulated.
Yes, because Congress has occupied the field of airline rates, routes, and service and hence has preempted the state law.
No, because the court will apply the presumption against preemption.
No, because the state law does not conflict with the federal statute.

Learner Selected Answer:
No, because the state law does not conflict with the federal statute.

Correct Answer:
Yes, because Congress has occupied the field of airline rates, routes, and service and hence has preempted the state law.

Rationale:
Answer choice B is correct. The language of the federal statute indicates a specific intent by Congress to preempt the field of airline regulations with regard to rates, routes, and services. Under the Supremacy Clause, federal law preempts state law when Congress has enacted legislation that explicitly prohibits state regulation in the same area. Answer choice A is incorrect because commercial speech is subject to content regulation. The Freedom of Press Clause does not grant the press greater free speech rights than the public at large enjoys. Answer choice C is incorrect because, although there is a judicially recognized presumption against preemption with respect to a conflict between state and federal law, this presumption is rebuttable if Congress has manifested its intent to preempt state law, as is the case here. Answer choice D is incorrect because, although the state law does not purport to deal specifically with interstate commerce in general or airline travel specifically, there is clear conflict between the federal statute and the state law with respect to the fee charged by the airline.

I thought the state law was primarily a state law dealing with advertising, not rates. Therefore the law is not in conflict. I thought perhaps the consumer's defense may not be applicable, but not due to preemption, but due to the fact that the state law primarily regulates advertising and that in and of itself does not also create a defense to a breach of contract claim. I guess a law dealing with the advertisement of rates is the same thing as a dealing with rates generally? (Obviously it is, because I got it wrong, but it doesn't quite make sense because I thought there was a case where a state was permissibly allowed to regulate the advertisement of cigarettes without being preempted by the federal tobacco law that regulates smokes--or am I just simply misremembering the case?)

My thought process was similar-no conflict b/c it was possible to comply with both laws. I guess we were supposed to recognize express preemption. I chalked this one up to Themis gonna Them.

[BigZuck]

Definitely a case of Themis Theming

Try not to be too smart for this test. If they're pointing you in the direction of something don't law student it and think of some funky exception. Yes, you're smarter than Themis, good for you. But don't let them have the last laugh by getting a question wrong when they hand it to you on a platter.

[rambleon65]

Okay, question

[+] Spoiler

Question Text:
Based on an advertisement in a local newspaper, a state resident bought a cross-country roundtrip ticket on a national airline for $450. The ad did not mention that the airline charged $75 for any changes to a ticket. Because of illness, the state resident had to change her return flight, and the airline charged her $75. The state resident refused to pay, citing a state law that required any ad for the sale of tickets for any event or trip to clearly disclose any monetary penalties for changing tickets. The airline sued the state resident in federal court for the unpaid fee, arguing that the state law is invalid, citing a federal statute prohibiting states from enforcing any law “relating to the rates, routes, or services” of any airline. Will the airline prevail?

Answer Choices:
Yes, because, under the Freedom of Press Clause of the First Amendment, the content of commercial speech may not be regulated.
Yes, because Congress has occupied the field of airline rates, routes, and service and hence has preempted the state law.
No, because the court will apply the presumption against preemption.
No, because the state law does not conflict with the federal statute.

Learner Selected Answer:
No, because the state law does not conflict with the federal statute.

Correct Answer:
Yes, because Congress has occupied the field of airline rates, routes, and service and hence has preempted the state law.

Rationale:
Answer choice B is correct. The language of the federal statute indicates a specific intent by Congress to preempt the field of airline regulations with regard to rates, routes, and services. Under the Supremacy Clause, federal law preempts state law when Congress has enacted legislation that explicitly prohibits state regulation in the same area. Answer choice A is incorrect because commercial speech is subject to content regulation. The Freedom of Press Clause does not grant the press greater free speech rights than the public at large enjoys. Answer choice C is incorrect because, although there is a judicially recognized presumption against preemption with respect to a conflict between state and federal law, this presumption is rebuttable if Congress has manifested its intent to preempt state law, as is the case here. Answer choice D is incorrect because, although the state law does not purport to deal specifically with interstate commerce in general or airline travel specifically, there is clear conflict between the federal statute and the state law with respect to the fee charged by the airline.

I thought the state law was primarily a state law dealing with advertising, not rates. Therefore the law is not in conflict. I thought perhaps the consumer's defense may not be applicable, but not due to preemption, but due to the fact that the state law primarily regulates advertising and that in and of itself does not also create a defense to a breach of contract claim. I guess a law dealing with the advertisement of rates is the same thing as a dealing with rates generally? (Obviously it is, because I got it wrong, but it doesn't quite make sense because I thought there was a case where a state was permissibly allowed to regulate the advertisement of cigarettes without being preempted by the federal tobacco law that regulates smokes--or am I just simply misremembering the case?)

My thought process was similar-no conflict b/c it was possible to comply with both laws. I guess we were supposed to recognize express preemption. I chalked this one up to Themis gonna Them.

There are more grounds than simple conflict for preemption to kick in. The outline does a good job. It's a separate ground from preemption.

[Nebby]

Okay, question

[+] Spoiler

Question Text:
Based on an advertisement in a local newspaper, a state resident bought a cross-country roundtrip ticket on a national airline for $450. The ad did not mention that the airline charged $75 for any changes to a ticket. Because of illness, the state resident had to change her return flight, and the airline charged her $75. The state resident refused to pay, citing a state law that required any ad for the sale of tickets for any event or trip to clearly disclose any monetary penalties for changing tickets. The airline sued the state resident in federal court for the unpaid fee, arguing that the state law is invalid, citing a federal statute prohibiting states from enforcing any law “relating to the rates, routes, or services” of any airline. Will the airline prevail?

Answer Choices:
Yes, because, under the Freedom of Press Clause of the First Amendment, the content of commercial speech may not be regulated.
Yes, because Congress has occupied the field of airline rates, routes, and service and hence has preempted the state law.
No, because the court will apply the presumption against preemption.
No, because the state law does not conflict with the federal statute.

Learner Selected Answer:
No, because the state law does not conflict with the federal statute.

Correct Answer:
Yes, because Congress has occupied the field of airline rates, routes, and service and hence has preempted the state law.

Rationale:
Answer choice B is correct. The language of the federal statute indicates a specific intent by Congress to preempt the field of airline regulations with regard to rates, routes, and services. Under the Supremacy Clause, federal law preempts state law when Congress has enacted legislation that explicitly prohibits state regulation in the same area. Answer choice A is incorrect because commercial speech is subject to content regulation. The Freedom of Press Clause does not grant the press greater free speech rights than the public at large enjoys. Answer choice C is incorrect because, although there is a judicially recognized presumption against preemption with respect to a conflict between state and federal law, this presumption is rebuttable if Congress has manifested its intent to preempt state law, as is the case here. Answer choice D is incorrect because, although the state law does not purport to deal specifically with interstate commerce in general or airline travel specifically, there is clear conflict between the federal statute and the state law with respect to the fee charged by the airline.

I thought the state law was primarily a state law dealing with advertising, not rates. Therefore the law is not in conflict. I thought perhaps the consumer's defense may not be applicable, but not due to preemption, but due to the fact that the state law primarily regulates advertising and that in and of itself does not also create a defense to a breach of contract claim. I guess a law dealing with the advertisement of rates is the same thing as a dealing with rates generally? (Obviously it is, because I got it wrong, but it doesn't quite make sense because I thought there was a case where a state was permissibly allowed to regulate the advertisement of cigarettes without being preempted by the federal tobacco law that regulates smokes--or am I just simply misremembering the case?)

My thought process was similar-no conflict b/c it was possible to comply with both laws. I guess we were supposed to recognize express preemption. I chalked this one up to Themis gonna Them.

There are more grounds than simple conflict for preemption to kick in. The outline does a good job. It's a separate ground from preemption.

I don't know if this was directed at me, but I know very well the concepts of conflict and field preemption. My post was that I didn't think a state law that primarily concerned advertisement of airline rates was included in the field preempted by the law, but I now know that I am wrong. I think field preemption questions should be a little more clear, since it's very possible that many things that have an indirect effect on rates (such as advertising of rates) may be found to not be field preempted. Fingers crossed there are clearer preemption questions on the barzam

[BigZuck]

Okay, question

[+] Spoiler

Question Text:
Based on an advertisement in a local newspaper, a state resident bought a cross-country roundtrip ticket on a national airline for $450. The ad did not mention that the airline charged $75 for any changes to a ticket. Because of illness, the state resident had to change her return flight, and the airline charged her $75. The state resident refused to pay, citing a state law that required any ad for the sale of tickets for any event or trip to clearly disclose any monetary penalties for changing tickets. The airline sued the state resident in federal court for the unpaid fee, arguing that the state law is invalid, citing a federal statute prohibiting states from enforcing any law “relating to the rates, routes, or services” of any airline. Will the airline prevail?

Answer Choices:
Yes, because, under the Freedom of Press Clause of the First Amendment, the content of commercial speech may not be regulated.
Yes, because Congress has occupied the field of airline rates, routes, and service and hence has preempted the state law.
No, because the court will apply the presumption against preemption.
No, because the state law does not conflict with the federal statute.

Learner Selected Answer:
No, because the state law does not conflict with the federal statute.

Correct Answer:
Yes, because Congress has occupied the field of airline rates, routes, and service and hence has preempted the state law.

Rationale:
Answer choice B is correct. The language of the federal statute indicates a specific intent by Congress to preempt the field of airline regulations with regard to rates, routes, and services. Under the Supremacy Clause, federal law preempts state law when Congress has enacted legislation that explicitly prohibits state regulation in the same area. Answer choice A is incorrect because commercial speech is subject to content regulation. The Freedom of Press Clause does not grant the press greater free speech rights than the public at large enjoys. Answer choice C is incorrect because, although there is a judicially recognized presumption against preemption with respect to a conflict between state and federal law, this presumption is rebuttable if Congress has manifested its intent to preempt state law, as is the case here. Answer choice D is incorrect because, although the state law does not purport to deal specifically with interstate commerce in general or airline travel specifically, there is clear conflict between the federal statute and the state law with respect to the fee charged by the airline.

I thought the state law was primarily a state law dealing with advertising, not rates. Therefore the law is not in conflict. I thought perhaps the consumer's defense may not be applicable, but not due to preemption, but due to the fact that the state law primarily regulates advertising and that in and of itself does not also create a defense to a breach of contract claim. I guess a law dealing with the advertisement of rates is the same thing as a dealing with rates generally? (Obviously it is, because I got it wrong, but it doesn't quite make sense because I thought there was a case where a state was permissibly allowed to regulate the advertisement of cigarettes without being preempted by the federal tobacco law that regulates smokes--or am I just simply misremembering the case?)

My thought process was similar-no conflict b/c it was possible to comply with both laws. I guess we were supposed to recognize express preemption. I chalked this one up to Themis gonna Them.

There are more grounds than simple conflict for preemption to kick in. The outline does a good job. It's a separate ground from preemption.

I don't know if this was directed at me, but I know very well the concepts of conflict and field preemption. My post was that I didn't think a state law that primarily concerned advertisement of airline rates was included in the field preempted by the law, but I now know that I am wrong. I think field preemption questions should be a little more clear, since it's very possible that many things that have an indirect effect on rates (such as advertising of rates) may be found to not be field preempted. Fingers crossed there are clearer preemption questions on the barzam

"I thought there was a case" was where you got Themed right in your Themer. You were fated to miss the question when you allowed yourself to even think that. You can't do that. Don't know stuff. Just know bar exam. It was an easy question but you fought the Them and the Them won. Don't fight the Them. Beat the Them via good bar examining. That's the only way you can win.

You got this.

Keep grinding.

[TLSModBot]

BigZuck's narrative of Themis being this malicious trickster spirit really resonates with me the farther I get in these stupid practice sets

[ndp1234]

BigZuck's narrative of Themis being this malicious trickster spirit really resonates with me the farther I get in these stupid practice sets

This exact sentiment with Mixed set 10. Between me trying to figure out what the question was even asking, let alone the rule to apply, it gave me such a migraine.

[blach0987]

How are people studying on a daily basis moving forward (now that lectures are mostly done or finished for some and its just review)?

[Kragoth180]

BigZuck's narrative of Themis being this malicious trickster spirit really resonates with me the farther I get in these stupid practice sets

This exact sentiment with Mixed set 10. Between me trying to figure out what the question was even asking, let alone the rule to apply, it gave me such a migraine.

Two man enter; one Themis leaves.