\
  The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
BackRefresh Options Favorite

I need ConLaw practice hypos and sample answers

Help me out, fellow poasters
Mind-boggling Rambunctious Coffee Pot
  01/13/17
did you download the barbri shit on the pirate bay. it's got...
Blathering learning disabled trailer park
  01/13/17
I will look into that
Mind-boggling Rambunctious Coffee Pot
  01/13/17
it's the whole course with videos and everything. it used to...
Blathering learning disabled trailer park
  01/13/17
I'm really just looking for hypos to practice with and sampl...
Mind-boggling Rambunctious Coffee Pot
  01/13/17
Nice I found them.
Mind-boggling Rambunctious Coffee Pot
  01/18/17
Virus breaks out such that anyone can catch it, but only peo...
Navy soul-stirring mad-dog skullcap menage
  01/13/17
1. In order for a plaintiff to have standing, plaintiff must...
Mind-boggling Rambunctious Coffee Pot
  01/13/17
Please grade this. In order for a plaintiff to have stand...
Mind-boggling Rambunctious Coffee Pot
  01/17/17
Don't rely on korematsu, you fucking maniac
Boyish costumed regret garrison
  01/19/17
Seriously wtf
Godawful tantric church building jap
  01/19/17
Why not?
Mind-boggling Rambunctious Coffee Pot
  01/19/17
Is this thread flame
Godawful tantric church building jap
  01/19/17
Nah I just never developed good study skills. I'm hangin on ...
Mind-boggling Rambunctious Coffee Pot
  01/19/17
Who did you have for conlaw What is this
Hairraiser bbw
  01/17/17
...
Mind-boggling Rambunctious Coffee Pot
  01/18/17
The City of Chicago enacted an ordinance that prohibits the ...
Godawful tantric church building jap
  01/18/17
...
Godawful tantric church building jap
  01/18/17
Thanks. Will get to work on this.
Mind-boggling Rambunctious Coffee Pot
  01/18/17
Here's what I have so far. Not sure if I got all the rules o...
Mind-boggling Rambunctious Coffee Pot
  01/18/17
I'm not sure why you're applying some version of quasi stric...
Godawful tantric church building jap
  01/19/17
...
sexy candlestick maker
  01/19/17
I don't think we touched on intermediate strict scrutiny. My...
Mind-boggling Rambunctious Coffee Pot
  01/19/17
Intermediate scrutiny should've been covered under 14th Amen...
Godawful tantric church building jap
  01/19/17
Is that the same thing as a quasi-suspect class?
Mind-boggling Rambunctious Coffee Pot
  01/19/17
Intermediate Scrutiny Intermediate scrutiny is a test used...
Godawful tantric church building jap
  01/19/17
Congress passes a law requiring that President of the United...
Vivacious jade foreskin space
  01/18/17
...
Boyish costumed regret garrison
  01/19/17
We didn't really cover executive power, but I guess he could...
Mind-boggling Rambunctious Coffee Pot
  01/19/17
...
Razzle Location Shitlib
  01/24/17
help
Mind-boggling Rambunctious Coffee Pot
  01/24/17


Poast new message in this thread



Reply Favorite

Date: January 13th, 2017 6:39 PM
Author: Mind-boggling Rambunctious Coffee Pot

Help me out, fellow poasters

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3490832&forum_id=2#32369280)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 13th, 2017 7:03 PM
Author: Blathering learning disabled trailer park

did you download the barbri shit on the pirate bay. it's got some

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3490832&forum_id=2#32369368)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 13th, 2017 7:08 PM
Author: Mind-boggling Rambunctious Coffee Pot

I will look into that

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3490832&forum_id=2#32369400)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 13th, 2017 7:12 PM
Author: Blathering learning disabled trailer park

it's the whole course with videos and everything. it used to be stickied like the archive sticky not flame

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3490832&forum_id=2#32369419)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 13th, 2017 7:15 PM
Author: Mind-boggling Rambunctious Coffee Pot

I'm really just looking for hypos to practice with and sample answers to compare my answers

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3490832&forum_id=2#32369432)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 18th, 2017 11:37 AM
Author: Mind-boggling Rambunctious Coffee Pot

Nice I found them.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3490832&forum_id=2#32398887)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 13th, 2017 7:17 PM
Author: Navy soul-stirring mad-dog skullcap menage

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)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 13th, 2017 8:06 PM
Author: Mind-boggling Rambunctious Coffee Pot

1. In order for a plaintiff to have standing, plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact, i.e. an invasion of a legally-protected interest which is both (a) concrete and particularized & (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. Injury must be more than an injury to a cognizable interest - it requires that the party seeking review be among the injured.

Fuck this is exhausting.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3490832&forum_id=2#32369676)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 17th, 2017 12:40 PM
Author: Mind-boggling Rambunctious Coffee Pot

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)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 19th, 2017 1:29 PM
Author: Boyish costumed regret garrison

Don't rely on korematsu, you fucking maniac

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3490832&forum_id=2#32407188)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 19th, 2017 1:31 PM
Author: Godawful tantric church building jap

Seriously wtf

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3490832&forum_id=2#32407210)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 19th, 2017 1:32 PM
Author: Mind-boggling Rambunctious Coffee Pot

Why not?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3490832&forum_id=2#32407224)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 19th, 2017 1:41 PM
Author: Godawful tantric church building jap

Is this thread flame

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3490832&forum_id=2#32407284)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 19th, 2017 1:44 PM
Author: Mind-boggling Rambunctious Coffee Pot

Nah I just never developed good study skills. I'm hangin on by a thread.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3490832&forum_id=2#32407319)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 17th, 2017 12:43 PM
Author: Hairraiser bbw

Who did you have for conlaw

What is this

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3490832&forum_id=2#32392472)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 18th, 2017 9:42 AM
Author: Mind-boggling Rambunctious Coffee Pot



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3490832&forum_id=2#32398058)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 18th, 2017 9:51 AM
Author: Godawful tantric church building jap

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)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 18th, 2017 10:10 AM
Author: Godawful tantric church building jap



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3490832&forum_id=2#32398233)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 18th, 2017 10:26 AM
Author: Mind-boggling Rambunctious Coffee Pot

Thanks. Will get to work on this.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3490832&forum_id=2#32398337)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 18th, 2017 11:13 AM
Author: Mind-boggling Rambunctious Coffee Pot

Here's what I have so far. Not sure if I got all the rules out, and I don't know how to handle the analysis.

Under the 2nd amendment, citizens have the right to bear arms. The 2nd amendment is applicable to the states through the due process clause of the 14th amendment as recognized in McDonald v. Chicago. The right to bear arms is not absolute; it is subject to reasonable regulation. Still, the right to bear arms is deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and traditions, and therefore the 14th amendment forbids the government from infringing on this right unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve compelling government interests.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3490832&forum_id=2#32398669)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 19th, 2017 12:48 PM
Author: Godawful tantric church building jap

I'm not sure why you're applying some version of quasi strict scrutiny.

SCOTUS hasn't said what standard applies to laws that burden the 2nd Amendment, but two or three circuit panels that have confronted the question have applied some version of intermediate scrutiny.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3490832&forum_id=2#32406904)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 19th, 2017 12:49 PM
Author: sexy candlestick maker



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3490832&forum_id=2#32406916)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 19th, 2017 1:22 PM
Author: Mind-boggling Rambunctious Coffee Pot

I don't think we touched on intermediate strict scrutiny. My gut tells me that it's a fundamental right, but idk that much about this, and there isn't much in my outline. Also I think there are already places with restrictions like this in place.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3490832&forum_id=2#32407142)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 19th, 2017 1:31 PM
Author: Godawful tantric church building jap

Intermediate scrutiny should've been covered under 14th Amendment Equal Protection: Gender/Sex Discrimination

I have a hard time believing your class didn't do sex discrimination

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3490832&forum_id=2#32407203)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 19th, 2017 1:34 PM
Author: Mind-boggling Rambunctious Coffee Pot

Is that the same thing as a quasi-suspect class?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3490832&forum_id=2#32407236)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 19th, 2017 1:41 PM
Author: Godawful tantric church building jap

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)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 18th, 2017 10:26 AM
Author: Vivacious jade foreskin space

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)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 19th, 2017 1:30 PM
Author: Boyish costumed regret garrison



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3490832&forum_id=2#32407196)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 19th, 2017 5:20 PM
Author: Mind-boggling Rambunctious Coffee Pot

We didn't really cover executive power, but I guess he could be overridden with a 2/3 majority vote in Congress.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3490832&forum_id=2#32409139)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 24th, 2017 4:36 PM
Author: Razzle Location Shitlib



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3490832&forum_id=2#32449502)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 24th, 2017 4:24 PM
Author: Mind-boggling Rambunctious Coffee Pot

help

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3490832&forum_id=2#32449389)