Law School Discussion

Con law

wardwilliams

Con law
« on: April 11, 2007, 01:14:11 PM »
Is it normal to not cover the 1st Amendment AT ALL in the whole Con law course? We haven't discussed it all. We have focused almost entirely on the 14th Amendment and Pres. War Powers.

Ronald Hyatt

  • ****
  • 294
  • Hedgehog
    • View Profile
Re: Con law
« Reply #1 on: April 11, 2007, 01:17:48 PM »
Normal. 1st amendment is usually covered in ConLaw II.

wardwilliams

Re: Con law
« Reply #2 on: April 11, 2007, 01:19:07 PM »
interesting. We don't have a Con law II

Re: Con law
« Reply #3 on: April 11, 2007, 01:26:17 PM »
Normal. 1st amendment is usually covered in ConLaw II.

Agreed, same for me.

loki13

  • ****
  • 543
  • Exterminate all rational thought.
    • View Profile
Re: Con law
« Reply #4 on: April 11, 2007, 01:26:28 PM »
Some schools give it a different name (like Federal Courts).

We don't cover the 1st Amendment either, but you shouldn't need to if you do a good job with 14th Am. and SDP. Basic idea for 1st amendment-
It's a civil liberty.
Therefore, strict scrutiny.

Now, it's a little more complicated than that.
First, burden on party seeking redress to show 1st Am. is implicated. Once that is done, it goes to strict scrutiny. For strict scrutiny to pass, the Ct. as devised a special 1st Am. test of the usual (substantial implicated interest) and the more specific (time, place, manner).

Once you go to time place manner, you first look to see if reg. is content-based.
If it is, govt. will almost always lose (but see Hill v. Colorado)
If it isn't, then it's content-neutral. Must also be narrowly tailored and leave ample alternatives (not too ample, see Renton).

But that's too much for basic ConLaw... so if you know the framework (civ.lib = strict scrutiny) you'[ve got a good start.

loki13

  • ****
  • 543
  • Exterminate all rational thought.
    • View Profile
Re: Con law
« Reply #5 on: April 11, 2007, 01:40:44 PM »
I guess the question I would ask of you is why you're so concerned about the 1st? And which part of the 1st? And why didn't you cover Federalism?

Anyway, you didn't cover the 1st? How about the 2d? 4th? 5th? 6th? 8th? See the difficulty with a ConLaw class covering the BofRights in any substantive fashion?

More importantly, what are you going to do when the King wants his soldiers to to have a sleepover at your house? Huh? Where's your Conlaw class then, punk? Does he need a rational basis? Is that strict scrutiny? Can you get all up in his face about it? Do they have to bring s'mores? *These* are the questions every basic ConLaw survey course should answer.

wardwilliams

Re: Con law
« Reply #6 on: April 11, 2007, 02:06:20 PM »
I guess the question I would ask of you is why you're so concerned about the 1st? And which part of the 1st? And why didn't you cover Federalism?

Anyway, you didn't cover the 1st? How about the 2d? 4th? 5th? 6th? 8th? See the difficulty with a ConLaw class covering the BofRights in any substantive fashion?

More importantly, what are you going to do when the King wants his soldiers to to have a sleepover at your house? Huh? Where's your Conlaw class then, punk? Does he need a rational basis? Is that strict scrutiny? Can you get all up in his face about it? Do they have to bring s'mores? *These* are the questions every basic ConLaw survey course should answer.


I did not expect to cover the 4th-6th because that is for the Criminal Con Law course not the basic 1L course. I wasn't concerned about covering the 1st A. I just figured that it would be addressed since it is probably the one that you are most familiar with before going to LS. And contains many more "clauses" (like the 14th) than does the 2nd Am. And it has slightly more relevance to today's world than the 3rd.

loki13

  • ****
  • 543
  • Exterminate all rational thought.
    • View Profile
Re: Con law
« Reply #7 on: April 11, 2007, 03:01:51 PM »
First, I will have you know that I intend, in the future, to hold the John Holmes Chair of Really Cool Constitutional Studies and Stuff at the Prestigious Tom Cooley Law School in the Future (I want my chair to be well-endowed). I intend to do so by blazing an academic trail the like the WORLD has never seen if the exciting frontier of modern Supreme Court 3d Amendment Jurisprudence. In fact, I expect my student note, "Why Is There A Soldier In My Cupboard? A Contemporary Law and Economics Approach to a neo-Marxist Revolution in the Contemporary Application of Intermediate Scrutiny and/or "Rational Basis With Teeth" in 3d Amendment Cases (1983-1984)" to be published shortly in Florida Coastal's Journal of Law and Fishmongering. Clearly, you fail to realize the importance of our most vital of civil liberties- our ability to keep troops from having sleepovers.

Anyway, the depth of the Constitution is such that you could probably spend all three years of law school going over it and still not hit all the nuances, so in a survey course you should probably hit upon IEP, SOP, Federalism, Civil Liberties, Equal Protection, and Incorporation. Everything else is gravy. But one day, when loki13 rules the world and Jenna Bush is exercising her warmongering inherent unitary executive cool-like powers, and you've got a wholw battalion raiding your linen closet.... you'll wish you had listened to loki13.

Nowhere Man

  • ****
  • 164
  • You know who is a Blackstar? Who? Me!
    • View Profile
Re: Con law
« Reply #8 on: April 11, 2007, 05:38:09 PM »
Normal. 1st amendment is usually covered in ConLaw II.

Yup!

Con. Law II. Civil Liberties

Re: Con law
« Reply #9 on: April 11, 2007, 05:44:12 PM »
Like most others here, our Con Law I class does not cover the First Amendment (or much else in the Bill of Rights), that is done in Con Law II. We've basically covered Federalism, Separation of Powers, Commerce Clause (and Dormant Commerce Clause), and substantive due process, which we are doing right now.