I need ConLaw practice hypos and sample answers
| jet garrison gaping | 01/13/17 | | 180 chrome dysfunction national security agency | 01/13/17 | | jet garrison gaping | 01/13/17 | | 180 chrome dysfunction national security agency | 01/13/17 | | jet garrison gaping | 01/13/17 | | jet garrison gaping | 01/18/17 | | Wonderful Alcoholic Lay Trump Supporter | 01/13/17 | | jet garrison gaping | 01/13/17 | | jet garrison gaping | 01/17/17 | | embarrassed to the bone umber sandwich queen of the night | 01/19/17 | | honey-headed cocky rehab twinkling uncleanness | 01/19/17 | | jet garrison gaping | 01/19/17 | | honey-headed cocky rehab twinkling uncleanness | 01/19/17 | | jet garrison gaping | 01/19/17 | | apoplectic yarmulke menage | 01/17/17 | | jet garrison gaping | 01/18/17 | | honey-headed cocky rehab twinkling uncleanness | 01/18/17 | | honey-headed cocky rehab twinkling uncleanness | 01/18/17 | | jet garrison gaping | 01/18/17 | | jet garrison gaping | 01/18/17 | | honey-headed cocky rehab twinkling uncleanness | 01/19/17 | | Marvelous Crackhouse Codepig | 01/19/17 | | jet garrison gaping | 01/19/17 | | honey-headed cocky rehab twinkling uncleanness | 01/19/17 | | jet garrison gaping | 01/19/17 | | honey-headed cocky rehab twinkling uncleanness | 01/19/17 | | rose trip piazza | 01/18/17 | | embarrassed to the bone umber sandwich queen of the night | 01/19/17 | | jet garrison gaping | 01/19/17 | | ebony disturbing dopamine | 01/24/17 | | jet garrison gaping | 01/24/17 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: January 13th, 2017 7:17 PM Author: Wonderful Alcoholic Lay Trump Supporter
Virus breaks out such that anyone can catch it, but only people with French DNA can spread it. State passes law quarantining anyone of French descent (assume they are justly compensated for any loss they suffer to property); An in-state NGO sues to challenge the law in District Court of X.
1) Does NGO have standing?
2) Assume it does, what level of scrutiny applies.
3) Assume 98% of people within the state who have French DNA live in one tiny town, same result?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3490832&forum_id=2#32369445) |
|
Date: January 17th, 2017 12:40 PM Author: jet garrison gaping
Please grade this.
In order for a plaintiff to have standing, plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact. There has to be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of. Must be likely that a favorable court will redress the injury. For third party standing, there must be an injury in fact of the litigant, a close relationship between the litigant and 3rd party, and some obstacle that hinders the third party from asserting his/her own rights.
There is an imminent injury because their right to travel has been infringed, and the threat is sufficient that it is going to be enforced. The law is a but-for cause in fact of their being quarantined, so there is a causal connection. As far as the injury in fact to the litigant, French people can no longer seek and use their services, so they have an economic injury. There is also a close relationship here because the litigant has a vested interest in French people. However, there is no obstacle preventing the non-third party from asserting their own rights, so the NGO does not have standing.
Laws that discriminate based on national origin fall into the inherently suspect class. The inherently suspect class subjects the law to strict scrutiny. For a law to pass strict scrutiny, there has to be a compelling state interest, and the classification must be narrowly tailored to achieve that specific goal.
Here, the state has a compelling interest in protecting the health of its people. It is unclear whether the classification is narrowly tailored. The law could be tailored further to apply only to infected French people. In Koramatsu v. US, compulsory exclusion of a suspect class was constitutional in a circumstance of emergency and peril. Given that this illness constitutes an emergency situation, the court would probably hold that the law is narrowly tailored.
If 98% of the people were in one city, the analysis would be the same, except the law probably would not pass strict scrutiny because it could be much more narrowly tailored to apply to one tiny town.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3490832&forum_id=2#32392443)
|
Date: January 18th, 2017 9:51 AM Author: honey-headed cocky rehab twinkling uncleanness
The City of Chicago enacted an ordinance that prohibits the possession of: (1) large-capacity firearm magazine, and (2) assault rifles.
A "large-capacity magazine" is defined as any firearm magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds. An "assault rifle" is defined as any semi-automatic gun that can accept a large-capacity magazine and has one of five other features: (1) a pistol grip without a stock, and for semi-automatic pistols, the capacity to accept a magazine outside the pistol grip); (2) a folding, telescoping, or thumbhole stock; (3) a grip for the non-trigger hand; (4) a barrel shroud; or (5) a muzzle brake or compensator. Some weapons, such as AR-5s and AK-47s, are prohibited by name.
John Smith, who lives in the City of Chicago, owned a banned rifle and several large-capacity magazines before the ordinance took effect, and he wants to own these items again.
Mr. Smith has filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois seeking to enjoin enforcement of the ordinance. You are the judge assigned to the case. How do you rule? Why?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3490832&forum_id=2#32398117) |
|
Date: January 19th, 2017 1:41 PM Author: honey-headed cocky rehab twinkling uncleanness
Intermediate Scrutiny
Intermediate scrutiny is a test used in some contexts to determine a law's constitutionality. To pass intermediate scrutiny, the challenged law must: (1) further an important government interest (2) by means that are substantially related to that interest. As the name implies, intermediate scrutiny is less rigorous than strict scrutiny, but more rigorous than rational basis review. Intermediate scrutiny is used in equal protection challenges to gender classifications, as well as in some First Amendment cases.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/intermediate_scrutiny
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_v._Boren
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Virginia
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3490832&forum_id=2#32407283) |
Date: January 18th, 2017 10:26 AM Author: rose trip piazza
Congress passes a law requiring that President of the United States release his tax returns for the 10 years previous to any year in which he is elected. President Trump vetoes the law. Congress overrides the veto with a 2/3 majority vote. President Trump takes the bill and, at a press conference, stuffs it in his mouth and washes it down with Trump Brand Cola, saying "I've got a beautiful executive order right here" while chomping away. "And when I shit it out, it'll get better ratings than failing CNN."
Is this a lawful executive order?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3490832&forum_id=2#32398342) |
|
|