MBE - how'd you feel? Forum

[jaysnooginz]

I'm glad I brought this up b/c this has been funny.

Ideally, someone would be able to post something, like a case or rule that makes it 100% obvious what the right answer is, but I've looked and I don't think it exists. Good, good question.

Ya, it was a question that we totally need to know the answer of so that we can have the minimum competency to practice law.

[somuchbooty]

Idk bout perfection, but the proctor at my site joked that 100% of the people who fill out their scantron correctly pass in Illinois. Funny. Way to make someone feel like an even bigger loser 2 months from now.

[History_Buff]

I'm glad I brought this up b/c this has been funny.

Ideally, someone would be able to post something, like a case or rule that makes it 100% obvious what the right answer is, but I've looked and I don't think it exists. Good, good question.

Ya, it was a question that we totally need to know the answer of so that we can have the minimum competency to practice law.

We've already established that the minimum competency thing is a gigantic flame.

[Elston Gunn]

Helpful?

Along with the power to appoint comes the power to remove. Except where statutorily limited, the President may remove any executive branch officer. Congress cannot prevent removal entirely, but may limit removal by requiring a showing of good cause, provided the office from which the person is being fired is one where some measure of independence from the President is desirable. For example, the power of the President to remove Members of the Cabinet cannot be limited by Congress, because independence from the President is not desirable for those posts.

http://nationalparalegal.edu/conLawCrim ... Powers.asp

[N.P.H.]

I'm so mad I want to pull a chair out front under someone and commit, what I hope, is a battery.

Lol, I would say that's a battery

It is. There's a case on it that some schools teach during 1L.

[hoping it's IIED too, though ]

Embarrassment =/= emotional distress

You're assuming the bar exam writers were never picked on in grade school.

That's bold.

[mr.hands]

I'm glad I brought this up b/c this has been funny.

Ideally, someone would be able to post something, like a case or rule that makes it 100% obvious what the right answer is, but I've looked and I don't think it exists. Good, good question.

Ya, it was a question that we totally need to know the answer of so that we can have the minimum competency to practice law.

We've already established that the minimum competency thing is a gigantic flame.

Maybe this is just wishful thinking but it's possible that everyone was confused or clueless on the exam, whether it's in an essay or the MBE, and at the end of the day, we won't get hammered for it . 75%+ will pass regardless. Struggling in the exam doesn't equate to failure

I really hope that's the case

[victortsoi]

Helpful?

Along with the power to appoint comes the power to remove. Except where statutorily limited, the President may remove any executive branch officer. Congress cannot prevent removal entirely, but may limit removal by requiring a showing of good cause, provided the office from which the person is being fired is one where some measure of independence from the President is desirable. For example, the power of the President to remove Members of the Cabinet cannot be limited by Congress, because independence from the President is not desirable for those posts.

http://nationalparalegal.edu/conLawCrim ... Powers.asp

still think the major distinction in the question would act as an exception to this rule, in that one very narrow case in particular.

[somuchbooty]

Helpful?

Along with the power to appoint comes the power to remove. Except where statutorily limited, the President may remove any executive branch officer. Congress cannot prevent removal entirely, but may limit removal by requiring a showing of good cause, provided the office from which the person is being fired is one where some measure of independence from the President is desirable. For example, the power of the President to remove Members of the Cabinet cannot be limited by Congress, because independence from the President is not desirable for those posts.

http://nationalparalegal.edu/conLawCrim ... Powers.asp

Damn, I may have gotten it right then. Still not 100% sure, but that helps.

[nyny]

That's a good thing folks were getting a bunch of D's!! I had like 6 straight Ds followed by a random other letter, then like 4 straight D's then another letter then like another 3 straight at one point during the Am. I was getting nervous because during the AM, in the first 50 questions I had maybe 4-5 A's and 4-5 B's... Then the next 50 questions, the letters starting to even out.

I agree that the bar prep companies need to revamp their curriculum, because I think the bar examiners have caught up to them... Barbri has a set of questions that are always wrong, and I don't think any showed up. Also the obvious big civ pro topics that we all learned as 1l's (personal jurisdiction, subject jurisdiction, etc.) were few and far. There were a ton of collateral estopple, res judicata, and standard of appeal questions. The obvious big questions in general were few and far... There were a ton of questions that called for answers either increasing chance of recover or guilty verdict, where technically all the chooses were right, but some more right than others.

I agree with one of the posters that the pm was less difficult than the AM. I actually hit a groove on the first 30 questions in the pm... All and all both the AM and PM mbe were more difficult than I expected, even though I finished both sections with about 25 minutes to spare... Its truly out of our hands now

[LAW813FL]

Helpful?

Along with the power to appoint comes the power to remove. Except where statutorily limited, the President may remove any executive branch officer. Congress cannot prevent removal entirely, but may limit removal by requiring a showing of good cause, provided the office from which the person is being fired is one where some measure of independence from the President is desirable. For example, the power of the President to remove Members of the Cabinet cannot be limited by Congress, because independence from the President is not desirable for those posts.

http://nationalparalegal.edu/conLawCrim ... Powers.asp

still think the major distinction in the question would act as an exception to this rule, in that one very narrow case in particular.

Can someone translate that quote to something drunk me can understand?

[sd5289]

same regarding lotsa Bs and Ds - i was like ok four or five Ds in a row thats weird - should I change my answer. Dafaq was that exam.

FUCK YES!!! I HAD A LOT OF Bs AND Ds!!!!

I got worried too and said...forget it just gonna leave it

I definitely remember having a lot of D's, but now that I've read you mentioning B's, yeah that happened too (just not quite like the ridiculous line of D's I had that were occasionally broken up by a different answer).

I was practicing pretty consistently in the mid-70s range (themis questions). Didn't feel like I was completely walloped by the MBE, but thought they were...different. I had a lot more where I'd narrowed it down to two and had a more difficult time figuring out the correct one than when I was practicing.

[jaysnooginz]

Helpful?

Along with the power to appoint comes the power to remove. Except where statutorily limited, the President may remove any executive branch officer. Congress cannot prevent removal entirely, but may limit removal by requiring a showing of good cause, provided the office from which the person is being fired is one where some measure of independence from the President is desirable. For example, the power of the President to remove Members of the Cabinet cannot be limited by Congress, because independence from the President is not desirable for those posts.

http://nationalparalegal.edu/conLawCrim ... Powers.asp

still think the major distinction in the question would act as an exception to this rule, in that one very narrow case in particular.

Can someone translate that quote to something drunk me can understand?

That quote is mostly about independent prosecutors and the like. Since independent prosecutors can and do investigate wrongdoing by the president, you would want them to be harder to fire than normal cabinet members. This stems from the Nixon era.

[lameslice57]

I thought the President/Navy question was confusing.

agreed

So does presidential power trump property interest?

I didn't get this question so it must have been experimental.

[LAW813FL]

I thought the President/Navy question was confusing.

agreed

So does presidential power trump property interest?

I didn't get this question so it must have been experimental.

Really? Woohoooo!!

[cdelgado]

I thought the President/Navy question was confusing.

agreed

So does presidential power trump property interest?

I didn't get this question so it must have been experimental.

Yeah, some choices that have been explained here sound different from what I was given.

But I'm pissed about battery/IIED. How could I be so stupid. This thread is depressing.

[odoylerulez]

I thought the President/Navy question was confusing.

agreed

So does presidential power trump property interest?

I didn't get this question so it must have been experimental.

Yeah, some choices that have been explained here sound different from what I was given.

But I'm pissed about battery/IIED. How could I be so stupid. This thread is depressing.

It was battery, right? I thought it was a slight variation of the Dailey case.

[nucky thompson]

"There remains the issue whether plaintiff [an officer in the navy] was deprived of property and was therefore entitled to a due process hearing. Generally an officer can be discharged only under regulations approved by the Secretary. Assuming what is by no means clear (see 32 CFR 714) — that even an officer with less than three years of active duty can be discharged only for "cause" set out in regulations—there is a property interest in that employment. Thus so long as the matter of cause is in dispute the requirement of due process is triggered and the expectation of continued employment must be recognized as a protected property right."


http://www.leagle.com/decision/19775124 ... _1502.xml/Berg%20v.%20CLAYTOR


The only difference between this case and the question would be the presidents direct action (as in the question) vs the indirect action of the president via delegated authority through the chain of command (as in the case)

[NYKfanAIesq]

It seems like we all can only remember the very short questions or the very difficult ones.

[victortsoi]

"There remains the issue whether plaintiff [an officer in the navy] was deprived of property and was therefore entitled to a due process hearing. Generally an officer can be discharged only under regulations approved by the Secretary. Assuming what is by no means clear (see 32 CFR 714) — that even an officer with less than three years of active duty can be discharged only for "cause" set out in regulations—there is a property interest in that employment. Thus so long as the matter of cause is in dispute the requirement of due process is triggered and the expectation of continued employment must be recognized as a protected property right."


http://www.leagle.com/decision/19775124 ... %20CLAYTOR


The only difference between this case and the question would be the presidents direct action (as in the question) vs the indirect action of the president via delegated authority through the chain of command (as in the case)

. Well hopefully it was experimental.

[nucky thompson]

Hopefully it was real

[moreheesh]

negotiable notes and mortgages anyone? Must they be assigned together? I had 2 questions like that.

[UVAIce]

The guy had continued employment - he kept his job - he just didn't have his position anymore.

[odoylerulez]

The guy had continued employment - he kept his job - he just didn't have his position anymore.

Oh really? I didn't realize that.

If that's true, the President almost definitely has the power to do that. CIC wins there. I've seen another question like that somewhere. Maybe I missed that when I was doing the question yesterday.

[History_Buff]

The guy had continued employment - he kept his job - he just didn't have his position anymore.

This is how I understood it.

[kyle010723]

negotiable notes and mortgages anyone? Must they be assigned together? I had 2 questions like that.

Yes, if they were assign separately, the mortgage is invalid (some state follows the note). Did not know that until I read the CMR afterward.