Home
Artists
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register
Partychan Telegram Live Sex ThePornDude
Home Artists Posts Import Register

#T3BE 216 - Early Answer for Patrons (Patreon)

Published:
2021-03-02 01:00:03
Imported:
2022-10

Content

It's (D), and the underlying case is Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969).  Thomas is now 112-for-216 (51.9%) and in the midst of a deep, deep funk.

Files

Comments

Anonymous

This answer is infuriating along with the opinion: “Since the classification here touches on the fundamental right of interstate movement, its constitutionality must be judged by the stricter standard of whether it promotes a compelling state interest. Under this standard, the waiting-period requirement clearly violates the Equal Protection Clause.” It’s the Privileges and Immunities Clause that protects interstate travel, not EPC. This is why law students lose their minds. 🤦🏼‍♂️

Anonymous

Damn, I had it right and somebody here who said they just passed the bar in CA proclaimed that it had to be A because it wasn’t an equal protection issue. But I remember it was an equal protection issue when the Supreme Court decided in the 80s and public schools had to admit undocumented children (OK, I googled it) and it seemed crazy that schools that had to admit undocumented children could bar kids who moved from another US state (which would make it impossible for parents to ever move unless they were rich enough to afford private schools). At the same time, I also know that it’s absolutely legal for states to have requirements like this for college students regarding in-state tuition, which I would assume negates the commerce clause/P&I issue.

Anonymous
>>54947608

Didn’t say I passed the bar - said I *sat* for the bar 😂 I’m still upset about this question because it doesn’t make sense under EP, but does make sense under P&I. 🤷🏼‍♂️