To prevent violence, state legislature passed statute prohibiting all gambling at privately owned casinos in the state. Is this law likely to held constitutional if most casinos in the state were owned by those from out of the state?

A. Yes, because the act was expressly authorized the state legislature.

B. Yes, but only if the local interest in safety outweighs the burden to interstate commerce.

C. No because out of state casions rights under the Privileges and Immunity Clause of Article IV is violated.

D. No, because the statue violates due process rights of the owners of the casinos.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1880585&forum_id=2#20028444)

B is dormant commerce clause shit. non-facially discriminatory state legislation that has an impact on interstate commerce is OK if outweighed by legit local interest, whatever

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1880585&forum_id=2#20029380)

Who gives a shit if they are owened by out of state business people. They are doing business in the state.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1880585&forum_id=2#20590552)

If the school board denies students request for a trial type hearing, which of the following is accurate?

A. The suspension violated the student's due process rights because it violated the entitlement to an education

B. The denial did not violate the students due process rights under the circumstances, because he had no right to a hearing

C. The denial of a trial type hearing violated the student's due process rights because the suspension was arbitrarily imposed prior to a meaningful hearing

D. There was no violation of the student's due process because his conduct was injurious to school discipline and the measure was rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1880585&forum_id=2#20028460)

i'd say C but i thought the prior restraint requirements only applied to actual speech

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1880585&forum_id=2#20029394)

On a challenge to its constitutionality, the court will likely hold:

A. Unconstitutional, because it lacks a rational purpose, and, therefore, is violative of the 14th Amend.

B. Constitutional, because the state could reasonably believe that young females need more protection than males under the circumstances.

C. Unconstitutional, because the law treats males and females differently, and thus violates the equal protection clause of the 14th.

D. Constitutional, because under the 21st Amendment, a state has authority to regulate the use and sale of intoxicating liquors.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1880585&forum_id=2#20028504)

C would be correct except that the constitution doesn't prohibit treating males and females "differently" per se. But the law probably would be unconstitutional on equal protection grounds.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1880585&forum_id=2#20030088)

Just because it discriminates on sex does not therefore invalidate the statute.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1880585&forum_id=2#20030230)

Doctor seeks an order from the state court, permitting the doctor to provide necessary med treatment to infant.

What is the father's strongest con law argument against a potential court order that would mandate treatment:

A. The order violates due process under the 14th

B. The order would be an arbitrary and irrational intrusion into his private rearing of his child.

C. The order violates the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, as incorporated into the 14th.

D. The order violate the privileges and imm of 14th.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1880585&forum_id=2#20028522)

In deciding whether it may issue such an order, which of the following must the state court consider?

A. Whether medical treatment is necessary to save the baby's life

B. Whether the hospital is owned and operated by the state or privately owned.

C. Whether the mother's refusal to authorize medical treatment is justified on the basis of current medical knowledge.

D. Whether the mother is a taxpayer of the state in which the court is located.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1880585&forum_id=2#20028553)

The statute is most likely,

A. Constitutional, as an implied power under the War Powers Resolution Act.

B. Unconstitutional, because it infringes on the President's authority as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.

C. Constitutional, because the President has not been called into actual service as Commander-in-Chief.

D. Unconstitutional, because it infringes upon the President's plenary power over foreign affairs.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1880585&forum_id=2#20028869)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1880585&forum_id=2#20960577)

Who has standing to attack constitutionality of this appropriation of the tax monies to art museum?

A. A state, other than the one in which the museum is located, in which the several other public museums are located that are not subsidized by this law.

B. A purchaser of mary jane cigs who is required to pay the tax

C. A non profit organization of war veterans who claim that it can demonstrate a greater need for the funds than can museum.

D. An association of med doctors that allege legalization of mary jane will result in a health hazard.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1880585&forum_id=2#20029164)

Most accurate statement of Darlene and Drake's criminal liablity is:

A. Darlene and Drake are both guilty of attempted murder.

B. Drake is guilty of attempted murder, and Darlene is guilty of solicitation.

C Darlene is guilty of attempted murder, and Drake is guilty of solicitation.

D. Drake is guilty attempted murder, and Darlene is not guilty of solicitation.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1880585&forum_id=2#20029201)

It is not necessary that the person actually commit the crime, nor is it necessary that the person solicited be willing or able to commit the crime (such as if the "solicitee" were an undercover police officer).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solicitation#United_States

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1880585&forum_id=2#20037249)

dood's pointing gun & pulling trigger = enough to assume that intended to kill the guy. if the facts were as he believed (gun was loaded) he would have been succeeded in the crime. if drew didn't think the gun was loaded the facts would say that. he gets attempt without a question

darlene = solicitation only requires inciting someone to commit a crime with the intent that they do commit it, and it's not a defense that the offense solicited couldn't have been successful. the hitch is that by giving him an unloaded gun you could argue she lacked the intent for the crime to actually be committed. the counter to that would be that she might have thought that he would check the gun first and put bullets in it. since the bar doesn't usually want you to read facts like that in, i would go with she's not guilty of solicitation since she specifically asked the dude to kill the guy knowing that it wasn't possible and thus didn't actually have the requisite intent that he commit a felony.

another argument would be that she was actually soliciting him to do an assault and that this was a success, but again, they would have facts pointing to an assault being completed (dude was scared or w/e)

you know what, nevermind, this Q is flame whether it's an NCBE question or not

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1880585&forum_id=2#20037101)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1880585&forum_id=2#26432450)