1. Identify Basis for Challenge (D.P./E.P)

QUESTION ONE (50 POINTS) 1. Identify Basis for Challenge (d.p./e.p)

2. Standing issue

own right vs. patient’s

personal stake/injury in fact/effective relief

ripeness (no prosecution-yet chill)

3. Due Process

explain due process concept/limits on arbitration, Government interference

fund rights analysis (Doc’s patients? Characterize and describe)

apply factors effectively (ordered liberty/deeply rooted)

develop arguments, case analogies

privacy/Casey/bodily integrity

place of history etc (Bowers/Cruzan)

role of judiciary vs. Legislature

identify and apply appropriate level of scrutiny

use facts, analyze state’s interests

4. Tentative E. pro arguments, explain concept

(classification) fund rights/terminally ill – passive vs. active

basis for divergent treatment, similarly situated?

Identify and apply appropriate scrutiny, develop argument

5. Eq. Pro re: increased punishment for MD

Identify classification, apply criteria, apply appropriate scrutiny/state justifications

Question Two (45 Points)

1. Identify Issue of Executive vs. Congressional Power/Role of cts.

2. Status & Effect of Executive Agreement vs. Art II Treaty

Contrast origins/creation/authority

3. Validity of Executive Agreement (terms of treaty/troops & Assault & recognition)

Jackson Analysis applied (understanding)

Identify lowest ebb & why (role of treaty/veto) policy angles for president

Compare Executive (foreign affairs, C in C, recog.)

w/ Congressional (declare war, legislature, $, for affairs?)

4. Political Question Analysis (Basis in Sep. of P, role of cts) > explain concept

Apply Baker factors/identify critical facts on justicibility questions

Esp. embarrass, inconsist, commitment, standards/parallel to Goldwater

5. Ripeness/standing

Question Three (30 points)

1. Identify Commerce clause issue > explain dormant cc concepts

2. Dormant CC > no preemption -- discrim vs. non-discrim. Arguments

Identify sources, types of discrim., use facts

Identify legal consequences> apply appropriate level of scrutiny (least restrictive alternative test and balancing test)

Make Arguments about means & ends using facts

3. Best counter arguments (esp. noxious materials angle but commerce!)

4. Econ regulation/Eq. Pro angle

Question Four (30 points)

1. Identify challenge (Eq. Pro/Reverse Discrim./Affirm. Action/Gender)

2. State Action (reason for it/basis) > test/factors/analogies

Funding promotes challenged actions/furthers injury > facts

3. Eq. Pro

Classification issues > gender or race (vs. fund rt- but educ.is not…)

Apply appropriate level of scrutiny (note reverse discrim argument fails)

Evaluation of ends & means

Impermissible Quota (Bakke) vs. gender as factor

Question Five (20 points)

1. Identify basis for challenge (Eq. Pro. )

2. Classification (Gender) identify > Eq. Pro Analysis w focus on intent/purpose

Facially neutral/disparate impact

use of facts & tie into intent issue

Identify & apply appropriate scrutiny

3. Distinguish Lucy from Paloma > identify state, evaluate means

Height, weight, test

Question Six (10 Points)-CC analysis/hording (discrim) / market particip.? / P & I? / Proc. d.P.?

Question Seven (10 Points)

P & I / CC Claims > Protected interest / tests / end & means / peculiar source

intra state (vs. I.C.) > discrim – scrutiny

Question Eight (10 Points)-- Fed. CC power, intrastate activity, substantial effect, (Educ or safety?) Weak eq pro / d.P. angles

Question Nine (10 Points) basis for rt (d.P. / Privacy rationale), Casey vs. Roe > scrutiny / test?

strict scrutiny / undue burden – sub obstacle / purpose or effect

life of mother issue / viability