Should I take this up with my professor?

[flash9286]

My constitutional law professor gave the class this question on a test Suppose California made a law that required all cars in California to have a seat belt installed and no other state required this, make a argument that the California statue is consituanially valid and that its not.

I got the first part, police power blah blah blah, health and well being of its citizens.

On the second part I used the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th amendment. I basically said the slaughter house cases recognized the right to travel as a national right, which is what the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th amendment protects and that this law violates the right to travel by imposing a obstacle in interstate travel.

My professor said I should have used and burden on interstate commerce. So I asked him why my argument was any weaker than the burden on commerce argument, and he said because the privileges and immunities clause was dead, I tried to tell him that only in relation to incorporation, then he promptly told me to come to his office if I wanted to argue it further.

So do you think I have a sound argument or is it pretty weak and not worth going to his office

[Lawrence of Arabia]

dont bother, the professor couldnt give a crap. hes too busy either a. doing research, or b. hitting up the clubs in tow or c. hitting the bottle.

[Japher]

I agree. First thing I thought of was burden on commerce and I know nothing, so you're just lame

Really;

First thing you need to learn in life is to pick your battles.

He may have a poor argument (with you), but is it one you want to persue?

IMO, your prof's argument (to his own question) is better because no one really cares about privlages or immunities anymore. Money talks, and since commerce would equate to money ppl would be more like to listen.

[Flubber]

I don't know the US constitution but the question you have to ask yourself is not shther your argumnet was a good one but whether in failing to make the one the prof indicated , you missed one that was equally strong or stronger.

As for talking to the prof, its up to you. Consider :

1. beeing "keen" and interested may be good for some consideration at final grade time

2. Do you enjoy such debates? If you do, go for it!!

3. Its possible you could convince your prof of something and maybe improve your grade !! But absent evidence to the contrary, I would assume your con law prof would be extremely well versed in the area and would know if an argument is viable or not-- But you know the prof better

[Kontiki]

I don't think you have much to lose. I took exception to a grade I received on a paper once in undergrad, and the prof bumped up my grade based on my argument. Not saying it's guaranteed to happen, but it's not like he's going to lower your grade or give you a harder exam than anyone else the next time around.

[Japher]

Suppose California made a law that required all cars in California to have a seat belt installed and no other state required this, make a argument that the California statue is consituanially valid and that its not.

and

So I asked him why my argument was any weaker than the burden on commerce argument, and he said because the privileges and immunities clause was dead, I tried to tell him that only in relation to incorporation, then he promptly told me to come to his office if I wanted to argue it further.

So, Lets say that your professor gave you a question to awnser and he ruled you wrong. Make an argument that the decision is academically valid, and an argument that it is not.

Suck it 14th amendment!

[Pekka]

"I don't know the US constitution"

BLASPHEMER! FREEDOM HATER!

[Lawrence of Arabia]

why? bush doesnt know it either.

[Japher]

Bush doesn't believe California exists

[Bill3000]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
why? bush doesnt know it either.

Nah. Bush just follows the constitution like a Unitarian Universalist follows the bible.

[Zkribbler]

Wasn't there a mudflaps requirement for trucks in one state that...in the 50s?..was found to be an unconstitutional burden on commerce. I'll bet that's what your professor is thinking of, and after thinking of it, his brain has shut down and does not want to think of anything else.

BTW: A good lawyer usually advances ever theory (s)he can think of.

[Pekka]

Good lawyer has the 1000 yard stare, so that no one will try to mess with them.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Pekka
"I don't know the US constitution"

BLASPHEMER! FREEDOM HATER!

Nah-- I'm just familiar with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms-- I feel every bit as "free" as my US neighbors without being governed by their particular document.

[Ecthy]

If you have a theory which you're not sure about, just fire away. That's what uni is for. You can still be defensive and extra-sound later in your life.

[Pekka]

Not true. Our constitutions and 'freedoms' are lesser than our American counterparts. Therefore we should regard them as the free people, and ourselves as free but less free than Americans. They have few more sentences about the nature of their true freedoms that we lack, thus we suck and they rule.

I suggest you drop your attitude and get on the winning team, son.