OA Bar Prep With Heather! T3BE32
Added 2024-07-17 07:34:19 +0000 UTCThe answer for T3BE31 is coming your way, and we launch our next Bar Prep question with Heather!
Patrons, submit your answers below! But also, feel free to double up and submit on reddit.com/r/openargs!
Comments
I’m pretty sure Matt mentioned it as a possible topic suggestion at some point
Peter H.
2024-07-24 22:18:50 +0000 UTCnot an answer, but I finally watched 'crazy stupid love' and yelped when I heard the T3BE intro quote! 😂
lauren
2024-07-23 17:44:27 +0000 UTCAs an Aussie, even i know you dont put peoples names in bills like that, so its D. That said, given the state of your legal system atm it could be E - in Roberts scotus, if they are my political opponent then off to prison with you...
The Dinosaur Dave, Lego Streamer
2024-07-19 11:27:25 +0000 UTCOh! I didn’t hear they were mentioned specifically. I was cooking while listening. Whoops. Thanks!
Austin Flake
2024-07-19 02:34:40 +0000 UTC🎉 This is actually the *second* time I've gotten picked for T3BE on the same week as my patron name, which isn't readily noticeable if I keep changing my name!!! 😈 And I meant what I said. The WTW placeholder eps are prepaying; you and Lydia are still doing the work. I want you to know there's at least one patron out there who wishes you could have real PTO someday, where you get paid for OA without having to do work, *before* you burn out. ❤️
can I get a CHEE-HOOOOO
2024-07-18 16:52:09 +0000 UTCD! Don’t put people’s names in a statute unless you’re naming it after them. #BillOfAttainder
Tonei Glavinic
2024-07-18 14:50:29 +0000 UTCThis might be a more Boston/Massachusetts centric topic, but I would absolutely love to hear Matt’s take on the Karen Read Murder Trial, especially now since it recently ended in a hung jury. I live in New Hampshire and I have been getting bits and pieces of it, but it it looked like a complete shit show from top to bottom, and I’m sure the listeners would find it a very fascinating topic involving alleged corruption all around.
cavalri
2024-07-17 23:32:56 +0000 UTCI think it's D. The agents can already be removed for any reason, so there's no need for a statute just to fire them. The agents' conduct was already illegal before the statute was passed, so it's not an ex post facto law. A bill of attainder is "a special legislative act prescribing punishment, without a trial, for a specific person or group," and that seems to fit this scenario. The vague usage of "punishment" makes me think it doesn't matter whether it's criminal punishment or otherwise, but I could be wrong about that. Not gonna lie, I searched "ex post facto law" and "bill of attainder" in Black's Law Dictionary (perks of working in a law library!).
Kait from Seattle
2024-07-17 16:46:04 +0000 UTCGoing with D. Not familiar with a bill of Attainder but it seems contextually like the answer I intuitively believe would be the case, that Congress can pass a law saying "Don't steal companies" but not "hey PAT, don't steal the company!"
ToddTheOdd
2024-07-17 16:09:27 +0000 UTCConcerning the DOT employees: A is wrong. The “with or without cause” does not belong to Congress for exercise, save impeachment. B is not the answer because the missing authority of Congress to fire without impeachment, again. C is correct, the statute would be ex post facto (after the fact), Art 1, sec 9. D is not valid, because the ex post facto excludes constitutionality before consideration of improper bills of attainder in the order of operations; I also wouldn’t consider this a bill of attainder, per se. Congress can make law to ban procedures for future use, but that shouldn’t actuate an immediate fire for actions prior to their illegality.
Austin Flake
2024-07-17 15:41:55 +0000 UTCD. This is clearly a bill of attainment. Haven't heard Andrew's answer yet. 🤟
David Clements
2024-07-17 10:53:11 +0000 UTC
