skip to main |
skip to sidebar
- Character/Impeachment. I mean, the witnesses are testifying under oath. Why have all these messy rules regarding when Opinion/Reputation/Specific Acts are admissible and what they are admissible for?
- Hearsay. Again, the testimony is under oath, shouldn't that be enough to show it's reliable? No? Criminals lie? Shhhh.
- First Amendment Protections. Namely the Freedoms of Religion and Speech. I know it might have some negative effects on democracy, but I'm getting really sick of trying to remember time/place/manner restrictions and the Lemon test so I say get rid of all of it.
- Recording Acts. Seriously, enough said.
- The entire U.C.C., my life would be blissful right now were it not for sale of goods, secured transactions and commercial paper.
- The Statute of Frauds. I don't really have a problem with this one per se, but it is so closely tied in my mind to #7 that is was included.
- The Parol Evidence Rule. 4 Corners? What? Modification?
- Fraud in the Inducement v. Fraud in the Factum. Can't we just agree that consent obtained through lying is bad regardless of whether it created a wrongful belief about the nature of the act or the reason for the act.
- Criminal Negligence Involuntary Manslaughter v. Depraved Heart Murder. Honestly I know in theory it shouldn't be so bad to tell the 2 apart (shooting a gun off in an open field v. shooting a gun off in a crowded theatre is the common example), but the questions are so much more of a fine line distinction than that that I almost always get them wrong.
- One of the Privileges and Immunities Clauses. I don't care which one, just so long as I only have to remember one I am good with it.
1 comment:
I am with you, I miss every first amendment defamation question, every establishment clause question, and I hate recording statutes and don't care who they protect--because they are CLEARLY NOT protecting me!!!
Post a Comment