lawschool

conlaw

civ pro

Legal Studies

Constitutional Law II

Inchoate Crimes

Rape

Theft Crimes

Article three

Incorporation and state action

Marbury v Madison

Political questions

Standing

We get to affirmatively remedy past wrongs
Gonna try to cover the case law in this song
Korematsu set the standard even though they got it wrong
Brown did not use it to bring the nation along

Did say they could go ahead and invoke
Equity power to bring equitable result
Quotas and bussin and other things OK
To move past those discriminatory days

Swann a case where the court threw down
Milliken in Detroit the court threw them out.
No inter-district wrong, no inter-district effect
No constitutional reason to keep them in check

BOE  OKC Public schools Dowell who they V
Question have they moved to unitary
To the best of they ability for desegregation decree
Vestiges eliminated practicably?

Parents  v Seattle School D no.1 
Seems like they got a compelling reason
Kennedy the one racial balance OK
In public schools no quotas no basin on race

But what about laws that benefit minorities
Need official racist history with the authorities
Not in Richmond v. JA Croson Co.
Sub contract mandate thrown out the do(or)’!

Grutter want to go to law school at UM
Why was race included in the application
It’s OK if it’s a factor of the individual
Compelling interest in diversity can be racial

But what about Gratz 
We gonna have a different standard for undergrads?
Yeah cause they race get them an automatic bump
And race alone cannot be what get them over the hump

Easley v. Cromartie easily a racial effect
But did they draw the district with a racial intent?
When coulda easily been a political play
Show they coulda done it better doin it another way

Aight now it’s time to recap
Make sure that we know all the law that is black
Black letter law gonna be strict scrutiny for all
Classifications of race and origin national

Straight up quotas for desegregation
Till it’s done you can use transportation
To remedy gotta have actual violation
Done when discrimitnation been eliminated

And you can still value diversity in school
Racial if we talking higher education
Gotta be evaluated as an individual
Gettin Automatic bump unconstitutional

Quotas to remedy institutional wrongs
Up until disparity is gone
If there was just a societal effect
Then theres nothing that they need to keep in check


Affirmative action

If there is a significant infringement 
on freedom of expression
But the regulation is content neutral
Then a rule of intermediate scrutiny applies

The government regulation will be sustained if
There is an important interest and doesn’t
Burden substantially more than necessary
To further the government interest

Content regulation situation making
Distinctions based on subject matter!
More problematic the more it appears
They engage in viewpoint regulation

Content distinctions usually
Gonna have to apply strict scrutiny
Necessary for compelling interest and
Narrowly drawn to achieve that end

Exception adult entertainment
Renton content neutral claimin
Just after the secondary effects
Not what the activity express

Viewpoint regulation? Strict Scrutiny
Almost always done unconstitutionally
Secondary effects intermediately
Outside erotic speech no majority

If a reasonable person cannot tell
What speech is permitted and what speech is prohibited
The people might not say what they wanna say!
And the law be unconstitutionally vague

Substantial Overbredth important arrow 
Say that for others the law ain’t narrow
Facial challenge showin situations
Regulation makin constitutional violations

Prior restraints gonna get a good fight
Licensing censorship can violate rights
When you need government approval
Might not matter that it is content neutral

The courts also don’t like
 Specified statement sanction ahead of time
Delay caused by need to litigate
Or collateral bar if they choose not to wait

In the pentagon papers case
Heavy presumption against prior restraint
Liscencing shemes must be justified by
An important state interest find

The balance between the interest
And impact on the first amendment
Licensing must have clear standards and
Leave little discretion to the government

adequate procedural safeguards like givin
prompt initial decision
a full and fair hearing if the license is denied
and prompt judicial review to assert your rights

collateral bar you cant fight
constitutionality if they got it right

Political speech basically
Well, It gets the most protection
Whatever standard regulation getting see
Politics slightly higher scrutiny 

Government can speak and express a view
Setting up programs that’s what they do
they can also spend on communication
expect program objectives conformation

If the program really a subsidy
Definitely need viewpoint neutrality
Need to give up rights for government benefit 
ITS unconstitutional condition

Without a significant burden or infringement
No freedom of expression violation
Yes for prohibiting compensation
ID disclosure, compelled speech makin

Not really sure what the standard be
But it’s gonna be exacting scrutiny
Corporations are people can’t fight it
They get to spend to speak in Citizens United

O’Brien expression intended to convey
A message likely understood then a
regulation affectin it must a)
further an important or substantial interest

b) unrelated to free expression and c)
no greater than essential
basically intermediate scrutiny
don’t need to tailor it perfectly

What about regulation location based
Traditional public forum time manner place
justified outside content of speech?
Otherwise satisfy strict scrutiny

Does it serve a significant interest 
narrow tailorin by the government
Leave open alternative channels of communication
Not the least restrictive or intrusive regulation

Not substantially broader than necessary
Not all the way to strict scrutiny
Traditional public forum existin
In parks, plazas, sidewalks, tradition!

Limited nonpublic what to do?
Reasonable for intended government use
Not to suppress the expression of a point of view
Deference given to the airport and school

Need to restrict speech to carry out a program
Eliminate possible distraction
Do it for the health and safety of the public
Private property probly not the government

So they can totally forbid any speech.


Free speech toolkit

What level of scrutiny to apply
Strict not necessarily killin it
Narrowly tailored with the least restrictive means
A little over/under inclusive maybe

Still gotta be necessary
But what’s the compelling 
government interest 
Why use race, national origin
Alienage to discriminate

Intermediate scrutiny that’s a thing too
Government got the burden to prove
It was important to single out men or women
Gender or non-marital children

The law gotta be substantially related to the 
Important Government purpose sought
The law gotta be substantially related to the 
Important Government purpose sought

Rational basis rationally related
To a legitimate government interest
Health safety welfare morals of community
Deference in applying scrutiny

Naw they don’t say it but they can add teeth
Invidious Unreasonable Arbitrary 
Grossly over under inclusive
Has that smell of prejudice to it

What level of scrutiny how do you say?
Immutable something they can’t change 
Ability to play the political game and
History of discrimination

The Court gotta take note
Law was passed by people put in by the vote
The Court gotta take note
Law was passed by people put in by the vote

Romer v Evans though 
Amendment 2 in Colorado
No protection for homo-
Sexual,  lesbian or bi orientation

It fails even rational review
Cant draw lines to burden a group
Thomas ‘n’ Rhenquist with Scalia dissent
That’s not what the constitution said

Railway express agency inc
Safety, third party ad no link
Defer to what new york city think
Underinclusive aint over the brink

NYCTA v. Beazer oh
Not getting the job ya on methodone
Even though you’re qualified
no drug rule not against ya rights

USDA Moreno no free food
For dirty hippies in the communes
I mean to help avoid fraud
Ya already got ways to cover that dog

City of Cleburne v CLC
Mental retardation rationally
But requiring the permit for their home?
Other multi residential and care units in the zone

Always gonna be strict with
Race origin or alienage
Dredd Scott v. Stanford
Court: Property not a citizen

Korematsu probably not right
Narrowly tailored is the standard applied
You could hold a hearing to ask ‘em
Also no charges and he is a citizen!

Loving v. Virginia equal as applied
Same effect on black and white
Naw the Court they ain’t buying that
They see racism give it the axe

Custody in Palmore v. Sidoti
court tell mama that she bein naughty
and that the girl gon’ be stigmatized
but private biases can’t determine rights

By the way Plessy came out the other way
They don’t make social equalitay
But really we know who’s being kept out
Separate but equal till they kick it out in brown 

Brown v. Board of Eduaction
No more public school segregation
Wait, because of what a scientist said?
Man it’s just wrong and it should have been dead

In Johnson they find 
no segregating prisoners
when they come in every time
less restrictive ways to keep em safe
like maybe take a look in your database

what if the law is neutral on the face
Nothin bout classes nothing bout race
Let’s take a look at Washington Davis
Claim that the test to be a cop is racist

Yeah that’s test 21
Verbal skills and comprehension
Maybe it had a discriminatory effect
But was that the purpose? that’s the test

McClesky fighting for his life on death row
Killed a cop in a robbery though
And even though the stats showed he had a worse chance
Georgia get to make a meal they make him  his last

City of Mobile voting at large
Keep minorities away from being in charge
But it doesn’t mean that is the reason that they passed the law
Bolden holdin different than Rogers v. Lodge.

Palmer Thomson closing the pools
Feeney  open to any veteran too
Even if they knew it would advantage men
Doesn’t make proof of discrimination

Village of Arlington heights
Stickin with a single family zone within their rights
Even if it endin up affectin the minorities
Doin what they would have done is within their authority









Affirmative action

Law School Outline Songs