How confident do you feel? Forum

[cnk1220]

.

[PersistentAttorney]

Are vocal prayer and Bible reading in the classroom permitted?
Vocal denominational or nondenominational prayer, and ceremonial reading from the Bible, are unconstitutional practices in the public school classroom. 8 It is legally irrelevant if the prayer or Bible reading is voluntary, or if students may be excused from the activity or classroom during the prayer. Student volunteers may not offer prayers for recitation. 9 Similarly, student volunteers are prohibited from broadcasting prayers over a school intercom system into the class-room.

http://archive.adl.org/religion_ps_2004/prayer.html

Agreed Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)

Lemon Test (1971):

1) Have a secular purpose;
2) Must neither advance nor inhibit religion; and
3) Must not result in an excessive entanglement between government and religion.

The only answer that was properly stating the test was that one. Also remember the cardinal rule to avoid answers worded in absolute way using "never", "always" etc.

Finally, as the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly said, "t might well be said that one's education is not complete without a study of COMPARATIVE religion, or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization."

This is why I chose this answer and although I'm not Bruce Almighty of law and could be wrong, I would still go for the same one.

[Chevron Deference]

Are vocal prayer and Bible reading in the classroom permitted?
Vocal denominational or nondenominational prayer, and ceremonial reading from the Bible, are unconstitutional practices in the public school classroom. 8 It is legally irrelevant if the prayer or Bible reading is voluntary, or if students may be excused from the activity or classroom during the prayer. Student volunteers may not offer prayers for recitation. 9 Similarly, student volunteers are prohibited from broadcasting prayers over a school intercom system into the class-room.

http://archive.adl.org/religion_ps_2004/prayer.html

Agreed Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)

Lemon Test (1971):

1) Have a secular purpose;
2) Must neither advance nor inhibit religion; and
3) Must not result in an excessive entanglement between government and religion.

The only answer that was properly stating the test was that one. Also remember the cardinal rule to avoid answers worded in absolute way using "never", "always" etc.

Finally, as the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly said, "t might well be said that one's education is not complete without a study of COMPARATIVE religion, or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization."

This is why I chose this answer and although I'm not Bruce Almighty of law and could be wrong, I would still go for the same one.

Engel was decided before Lemon v. Kurtzman, so I believe it would control as precedent.

[PersistentAttorney]

Are vocal prayer and Bible reading in the classroom permitted?
Vocal denominational or nondenominational prayer, and ceremonial reading from the Bible, are unconstitutional practices in the public school classroom. 8 It is legally irrelevant if the prayer or Bible reading is voluntary, or if students may be excused from the activity or classroom during the prayer. Student volunteers may not offer prayers for recitation. 9 Similarly, student volunteers are prohibited from broadcasting prayers over a school intercom system into the class-room.

http://archive.adl.org/religion_ps_2004/prayer.html

Agreed Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)

Lemon Test (1971):

1) Have a secular purpose;
2) Must neither advance nor inhibit religion; and
3) Must not result in an excessive entanglement between government and religion.

The only answer that was properly stating the test was that one. Also remember the cardinal rule to avoid answers worded in absolute way using "never", "always" etc.

Finally, as the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly said, "t might well be said that one's education is not complete without a study of COMPARATIVE religion, or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization."

This is why I chose this answer and although I'm not Bruce Almighty of law and could be wrong, I would still go for the same one.

Engel was decided before Lemon v. Kurtzman, so I believe it would control as precedent.

I believe that it is universally accepted that the more recent the judgment the more likely to control as precedent over older judgments of the same court level. Otherwise controlling precedents would never change.

[cal_pushed]

Alright, how about this one: goal of promoting religious tolerance. Morning prayer in public school of different religions. Right to not participate.

Allowed because secular purpose?
Not allowed because primary effect is to promote religion?
Don't remember the other two choices.

Secular - universally applicable.

Like teaching multiple religions for educational purposes.

Test is primary effect AND purpose to promote religion. Here purpose is to promote tolerance to other dogmas.

I'm fairly certain this is not correct. I had a question in my review course and looked up the case and it held that prayer in school, regardless of its application, or whether students can opt out, is not allowed.

It is exactly the same with posting the Ten Commandments on the wall. You can't when alone, you can when with or next to other monuments. Remember the Lemon test requires both purpose and effect. You are right about voluntariness as school kids ain't adults BUT it does not promote religion per se. It promotes tolerance surrounding religion and you have NO religious purpose. The example you remember is the moment of silence in schools as disguised prayer but there the purpose was to promote religion in a disguised manner. Here it was clear that promotion of religion was not the purpose.

Purpose is to advance religion via advancing tolerance thereof. Just because one religion is not identified does not change the over all fact that under lemon it's not two part test, but three and you've forgotten to mention the third: neither advance nor inhibit. Tolorence seems pretty close to advancing. Had it been a historical review of the origins of prayer of different religion, I think different outcome.

[cnk1220]

.

[Chevron Deference]

Are vocal prayer and Bible reading in the classroom permitted?
Vocal denominational or nondenominational prayer, and ceremonial reading from the Bible, are unconstitutional practices in the public school classroom. 8 It is legally irrelevant if the prayer or Bible reading is voluntary, or if students may be excused from the activity or classroom during the prayer. Student volunteers may not offer prayers for recitation. 9 Similarly, student volunteers are prohibited from broadcasting prayers over a school intercom system into the class-room.

http://archive.adl.org/religion_ps_2004/prayer.html

Agreed Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)

Lemon Test (1971):

1) Have a secular purpose;
2) Must neither advance nor inhibit religion; and
3) Must not result in an excessive entanglement between government and religion.

The only answer that was properly stating the test was that one. Also remember the cardinal rule to avoid answers worded in absolute way using "never", "always" etc.

Finally, as the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly said, "t might well be said that one's education is not complete without a study of COMPARATIVE religion, or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization."

This is why I chose this answer and although I'm not Bruce Almighty of law and could be wrong, I would still go for the same one.

Engel was decided before Lemon v. Kurtzman, so I believe it would control as precedent.

I believe that it is universally accepted that the more recent the judgment the more likely to control as precedent over older judgments of the same court level. Otherwise controlling precedents would never change.

Lemon never overturned Engel.

However, if you wanted to apply the Lemon Test, the endorsement test or the coercion test that the court has set out in many Establishment Clause cases the school would still fail.

1. Secular literally translates to not concerning religion. So if the the school decided to teach about different traditional cultures over the course of history and the primary concern was about cultural expression (e.g., foods, prayer, societal structures) then yes that would pass however, the question did not bring in those facts.
2. all religions are being advanced.
3. public schools are government funded so there would be an entanglement.

All prongs of the lemon test would not be satisfied based off the fact pattern. Moreover, voluntarily being able to leave is a red-herring.

If you need to look at other cases that deal with school prayer there are some at graduation ceremonies, and after school functions all which have failed the lemon test.

Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992)
Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000)

Either way this is one question so it will not matter in the scheme of things.

[PersistentAttorney]

for me, i think more experimentals or "distractors" appeared in the PM session. there were a couple that either had two right answers or no right answer at all. btw, as a hypothetical

jack wants to act bad ass and tries to scare off some high school jocks, approaches a group of them one day on the football field, takes out a glock from his backpack and shoots one in the sky. a cheerleader nearby hears it, gets scared and pissed off but does not suffer any physical harm from it. between assault and IIED, what's the best way the cheerleader can get back at jack for being a jack ass?

a few people have said assault so they are probably right. but hypothetically, was the cheerleader ever actually in apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact? was she ever actually in fear? she was startled, but by the time she was aware of it, the bullet and threat was gone. is that enough apprehension to qualify as assault?

I think this completely hypothetical scenario our friend above put forward suggests an IIED since the guy intended to scare someone by shooting and his intent was transferred to someone else. No?

Still both sound equally right to me...

[cal_pushed]

for me, i think more experimentals or "distractors" appeared in the PM session. there were a couple that either had two right answers or no right answer at all. btw, as a hypothetical

jack wants to act bad ass and tries to scare off some high school jocks, approaches a group of them one day on the football field, takes out a glock from his backpack and shoots one in the sky. a cheerleader nearby hears it, gets scared and pissed off but does not suffer any physical harm from it. between assault and IIED, what's the best way the cheerleader can get back at jack for being a jack ass?

a few people have said assault so they are probably right. but hypothetically, was the cheerleader ever actually in apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact? was she ever actually in fear? she was startled, but by the time she was aware of it, the bullet and threat was gone. is that enough apprehension to qualify as assault?

I think this completely hypothetical scenario our friend above put forward suggests an IIED since the guy intended to scare someone by shooting and his intent was transferred to someone else. No?

Still both sound equally right to me...

Do parents have an affirmative duty to warn babysitters of bad ass kids?? Lol

[PersistentAttorney]

Are vocal prayer and Bible reading in the classroom permitted?
Vocal denominational or nondenominational prayer, and ceremonial reading from the Bible, are unconstitutional practices in the public school classroom. 8 It is legally irrelevant if the prayer or Bible reading is voluntary, or if students may be excused from the activity or classroom during the prayer. Student volunteers may not offer prayers for recitation. 9 Similarly, student volunteers are prohibited from broadcasting prayers over a school intercom system into the class-room.

http://archive.adl.org/religion_ps_2004/prayer.html

Agreed Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)

Lemon Test (1971):

1) Have a secular purpose;
2) Must neither advance nor inhibit religion; and
3) Must not result in an excessive entanglement between government and religion.

The only answer that was properly stating the test was that one. Also remember the cardinal rule to avoid answers worded in absolute way using "never", "always" etc.

Finally, as the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly said, "t might well be said that one's education is not complete without a study of COMPARATIVE religion, or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization."

This is why I chose this answer and although I'm not Bruce Almighty of law and could be wrong, I would still go for the same one.

Engel was decided before Lemon v. Kurtzman, so I believe it would control as precedent.

I believe that it is universally accepted that the more recent the judgment the more likely to control as precedent over older judgments of the same court level. Otherwise controlling precedents would never change.

Lemon never overturned Engel.

However, if you wanted to apply the Lemon Test, the endorsement test or the coercion test that the court has set out in many Establishment Clause cases the school would still fail.

1. Secular literally translates to not concerning religion. So if the the school decided to teach about different traditional cultures over the course of history and the primary concern was about cultural expression (e.g., foods, prayer, societal structures) then yes that would pass however, the question did not bring in those facts.
2. all religions are being advanced.
3. public schools are government funded so there would be an entanglement.

All prongs of the lemon test would not be satisfied based off the fact pattern. Moreover, voluntarily being able to leave is a red-herring.

If you need to look at other cases that deal with school prayer there are some at graduation ceremonies, and after school functions all which have failed the lemon test.

Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992)
Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000)

Either way this is one question so it will not matter in the scheme of things.

The discussion is purely theoretical as the impact of one question is minimal indeed.

But again all these cases (prayer in graduation, "moments of silence" before a football matches etc.) are events where teachers tried to bypass the prohibition of school prayers and their true purpose was to have a Christian prayer in public funded schools. Here the purpose was tolerance in religious diversity and it was an honest purpose. That's the only thing that bugs me. Voluntariness I agree that it is a red herring because students are not adults. But again, purpose AND effect was secular. All other examples of cases mentioned had a hidden religious purpose, promoting ONE religion -> Christianity.
Anyway.
As I said I could be wrong. I went to school in a country where there was an optional module on the different religions of the world.
US Supreme Court allows such teachings in schools as long as there isn't one religion promoted over others. In practice, to study one religion's dogma you have to study its main prayers so I cannot see how you can have one without having the other.

I wish everyone the best in your results in April!

[PersistentAttorney]

for me, i think more experimentals or "distractors" appeared in the PM session. there were a couple that either had two right answers or no right answer at all. btw, as a hypothetical

jack wants to act bad ass and tries to scare off some high school jocks, approaches a group of them one day on the football field, takes out a glock from his backpack and shoots one in the sky. a cheerleader nearby hears it, gets scared and pissed off but does not suffer any physical harm from it. between assault and IIED, what's the best way the cheerleader can get back at jack for being a jack ass?

a few people have said assault so they are probably right. but hypothetically, was the cheerleader ever actually in apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact? was she ever actually in fear? she was startled, but by the time she was aware of it, the bullet and threat was gone. is that enough apprehension to qualify as assault?

I think this completely hypothetical scenario our friend above put forward suggests an IIED since the guy intended to scare someone by shooting and his intent was transferred to someone else. No?

Still both sound equally right to me...

Do parents have an affirmative duty to warn babysitters of bad ass kids?? Lol

If the child has dangerous propensities-> absolutely yes. Otherwise parents generally not liable for their kids' intentional torts.

[cal_pushed]

Are vocal prayer and Bible reading in the classroom permitted?
Vocal denominational or nondenominational prayer, and ceremonial reading from the Bible, are unconstitutional practices in the public school classroom. 8 It is legally irrelevant if the prayer or Bible reading is voluntary, or if students may be excused from the activity or classroom during the prayer. Student volunteers may not offer prayers for recitation. 9 Similarly, student volunteers are prohibited from broadcasting prayers over a school intercom system into the class-room.

http://archive.adl.org/religion_ps_2004/prayer.html

Agreed Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)

Lemon Test (1971):

1) Have a secular purpose;
2) Must neither advance nor inhibit religion; and
3) Must not result in an excessive entanglement between government and religion.

The only answer that was properly stating the test was that one. Also remember the cardinal rule to avoid answers worded in absolute way using "never", "always" etc.

Finally, as the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly said, "t might well be said that one's education is not complete without a study of COMPARATIVE religion, or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization."

This is why I chose this answer and although I'm not Bruce Almighty of law and could be wrong, I would still go for the same one.

Engel was decided before Lemon v. Kurtzman, so I believe it would control as precedent.

I believe that it is universally accepted that the more recent the judgment the more likely to control as precedent over older judgments of the same court level. Otherwise controlling precedents would never change.

Lemon never overturned Engel.

However, if you wanted to apply the Lemon Test, the endorsement test or the coercion test that the court has set out in many Establishment Clause cases the school would still fail.

1. Secular literally translates to not concerning religion. So if the the school decided to teach about different traditional cultures over the course of history and the primary concern was about cultural expression (e.g., foods, prayer, societal structures) then yes that would pass however, the question did not bring in those facts.
2. all religions are being advanced.
3. public schools are government funded so there would be an entanglement.

All prongs of the lemon test would not be satisfied based off the fact pattern. Moreover, voluntarily being able to leave is a red-herring.

If you need to look at other cases that deal with school prayer there are some at graduation ceremonies, and after school functions all which have failed the lemon test.

Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992)
Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000)

Either way this is one question so it will not matter in the scheme of things.

The discussion is purely theoretical as the impact of one question is minimal indeed.

But again all these cases (prayer in graduation, "moments of silence" before a football matches etc.) are events where teachers tried to bypass the prohibition of school prayers and their true purpose was to have a Christian prayer in public funded schools. Here the purpose was tolerance in religious diversity and it was an honest purpose. That's the only thing that bugs me. Voluntariness I agree that it is a red herring because students are not adults. But again, purpose AND effect was secular. All other examples of cases mentioned had a hidden religious purpose, promoting ONE religion -> Christianity.
Anyway.
As I said I could be wrong. I went to school in a country where there was an optional module on the different religions of the world.
US Supreme Court allows such teachings in schools as long as there isn't one religion promoted over others. In practice, to study one religion's dogma you have to study its main prayers so I cannot see how you can have one without having the other.

I wish everyone the best in your results in April!

Fair points.

[Impishee]

Does no one like civ pro? lol

What is the difference between when a Plaintiff is supposed to bring a Motion for New Trial or a Motion to Alter/Amend Judgment? (ie when is each appropriate?)

I don't remember the facts of what this is referencing, but maybe these will be helpful?:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_59

http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/ ... tions.html

It is important to keep in mind that Rule 60(b) motions typically are considered exceptional relief, and unlike other post-trial motions pursuant to Rules 50 and 59, they do not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal (30 days after final judgment in federal court) except in the case of a Rule 60(b) motion filed in federal court within 28 days of the entry of the judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(vi).

[yankeeman86]

Are vocal prayer and Bible reading in the classroom permitted?
Vocal denominational or nondenominational prayer, and ceremonial reading from the Bible, are unconstitutional practices in the public school classroom. 8 It is legally irrelevant if the prayer or Bible reading is voluntary, or if students may be excused from the activity or classroom during the prayer. Student volunteers may not offer prayers for recitation. 9 Similarly, student volunteers are prohibited from broadcasting prayers over a school intercom system into the class-room.

http://archive.adl.org/religion_ps_2004/prayer.html

Agreed Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)

Lemon Test (1971):

1) Have a secular purpose;
2) Must neither advance nor inhibit religion; and
3) Must not result in an excessive entanglement between government and religion.

The only answer that was properly stating the test was that one. Also remember the cardinal rule to avoid answers worded in absolute way using "never", "always" etc.

Finally, as the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly said, "t might well be said that one's education is not complete without a study of COMPARATIVE religion, or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization."

This is why I chose this answer and although I'm not Bruce Almighty of law and could be wrong, I would still go for the same one.

Engel was decided before Lemon v. Kurtzman, so I believe it would control as precedent.

I believe that it is universally accepted that the more recent the judgment the more likely to control as precedent over older judgments of the same court level. Otherwise controlling precedents would never change.

Lemon never overturned Engel.

However, if you wanted to apply the Lemon Test, the endorsement test or the coercion test that the court has set out in many Establishment Clause cases the school would still fail.

1. Secular literally translates to not concerning religion. So if the the school decided to teach about different traditional cultures over the course of history and the primary concern was about cultural expression (e.g., foods, prayer, societal structures) then yes that would pass however, the question did not bring in those facts.
2. all religions are being advanced.
3. public schools are government funded so there would be an entanglement.

All prongs of the lemon test would not be satisfied based off the fact pattern. Moreover, voluntarily being able to leave is a red-herring.

If you need to look at other cases that deal with school prayer there are some at graduation ceremonies, and after school functions all which have failed the lemon test.

Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992)
Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000)

Either way this is one question so it will not matter in the scheme of things.

The discussion is purely theoretical as the impact of one question is minimal indeed.

But again all these cases (prayer in graduation, "moments of silence" before a football matches etc.) are events where teachers tried to bypass the prohibition of school prayers and their true purpose was to have a Christian prayer in public funded schools. Here the purpose was tolerance in religious diversity and it was an honest purpose. That's the only thing that bugs me. Voluntariness I agree that it is a red herring because students are not adults. But again, purpose AND effect was secular. All other examples of cases mentioned had a hidden religious purpose, promoting ONE religion -> Christianity.
Anyway.
As I said I could be wrong. I went to school in a country where there was an optional module on the different religions of the world.
US Supreme Court allows such teachings in schools as long as there isn't one religion promoted over others. In practice, to study one religion's dogma you have to study its main prayers so I cannot see how you can have one without having the other.

I wish everyone the best in your results in April!

There was an old licensed question that tested whether rotating different religious prayers were constitutional. The purpose was to be religiously tolerant. I believe the reason was because it advances Religion.

[umichman]

based on this discussion, pretty sure i failed.

[seeyouatthenextexam]

based on this discussion, pretty sure i failed.

Same.

I went in to the MBE a bit cocky because I scored very decent on the Barbri full day and refresher exams... Big mistake. I deserve what I get for not researching that I should've used actual past MBE questions and not relied on Barbri (didn't research enough to know they were available until the day before the exam).

I felt violated when I left that exam.

[yankeeman86]

Does no one like civ pro? lol

What is the difference between when a Plaintiff is supposed to bring a Motion for New Trial or a Motion to Alter/Amend Judgment? (ie when is each appropriate?)

i don't like civ pro but i'll take a shot at this. i think one of the main diff is that Motions to Alter/Amend judgments are used when SJ is involved. If it's a trial/jury, new trial. The last time I did a question that tested this, the answer was new trial.


http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/ ... tions.html

Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment—Rule 59(e)
A Rule 59(e) motion is a useful tool to challenge a judgment rendered in a non-jury case. These motions often are used in cases where judgment is rendered pursuant to summary judgment, and they may permit a movant to inject additional evidence or issues not previously considered. Rule 59(e) motions also are used where a judgment is rendered due to procedural default. Through a Rule 59(e) motion, the trial court is given an opportunity to review its decision, thus rendering the order (once reviewed) appealable.

[yankeeman86]

based on this discussion, pretty sure i failed.

Same.

I went in to the MBE a bit cocky because I scored very decent on the Barbri full day and refresher exams... Big mistake. I deserve what I get for not researching that I should've used actual past MBE questions and not relied on Barbri (didn't research enough to know they were available until the day before the exam).

I felt violated when I left that exam.

Barbri is the worst. Do 1/3 Kap, 1/3 Themis, 1/3 Adaptibar. at least 1,500 total.

[seeyouatthenextexam]

based on this discussion, pretty sure i failed.

Same.

I went in to the MBE a bit cocky because I scored very decent on the Barbri full day and refresher exams... Big mistake. I deserve what I get for not researching that I should've used actual past MBE questions and not relied on Barbri (didn't research enough to know they were available until the day before the exam).

I felt violated when I left that exam.

Barbri is the worst. Do 1/3 Kap, 1/3 Themis, 1/3 Adaptibar. at least 1,500 total.

Definitely start on that now. Thank you!

[mycoxsafloppin]

Any prayer that is directed or sanctioned by the school will be struck down as unconstitutional. It's black letter law.

At the end of the day, they were advancing religion spiritually via prayer, rather than via a secular historical perspective.

[cnk1220]

.

[yankeeman86]

based on this discussion, pretty sure i failed.

Same.

I went in to the MBE a bit cocky because I scored very decent on the Barbri full day and refresher exams... Big mistake. I deserve what I get for not researching that I should've used actual past MBE questions and not relied on Barbri (didn't research enough to know they were available until the day before the exam).

I felt violated when I left that exam.

don't be so certain. who knows what the answer is.

[yankeeman86]

What about classrooms being used for religious activities? Like after school religious clubs-- is this an entanglement based on Lemon?

that sounds like the first two elements. not a secular purpose. the effect advances religion.

[iOwnBlackacre]

Barbri once said not to worry much about time constraints, most people don't have issues with time.

This seems true, as about half the test takers left the room (very noisily) before the end of the exam.

I bubbled randomly for the last three q's because I had 30 seconds left

[yankeeman86]

barely finished on time