T3BE Week 2!
Added 2024-02-22 09:23:39 +0000 UTCThomas Takes the Bar Exam!
It's time for the answers to last week's questions, plus two more! For patrons only, I've attached the question images.
Comments
Happy to hear I was wrong!
Austin Flake
2024-02-28 20:19:23 +0000 UTCThe Nude Dancing Night Club Question The Answer is B. In the Barnes V Glen Theater case the Supreme Court ruled that the state has the constitutional authority to ban public nudity. But the organization fails the 4th part of the Brien test from United States vs O'Brien with their over broad total ban , In the Barnes V Glen Theater case , Glen's Theater was arguing that the requirement that dancers have Pasties and a G-string was a constitutional violation . But the Supreme court ruled that this requirement did not violate their constitutional rights. If the organization was only trying to regulate the type of nudity that was allowed It would be constitutional. But since they are attempting a total ban anywhere at any place they fail the 4 part O'Brien test. So the answer is B. Someone should test this theory with Male strippers. Have a pasty that only coverts the tip of the frank and wrap the beans like a mummy. I bet you that wouldn't fly.
Dreadsen
2024-02-26 05:14:08 +0000 UTCI always download the free and the patreon version, does this help or do we actually have to play the free version(for ad money etc..)
KaryllTheWarlock
2024-02-24 08:41:25 +0000 UTCFor the nightclub question, the answer is C. I immediately eliminate D because nude dancing is not obscene and A because it’s irrelevant if nude dancing is symbolic speech. B is tempting, because time, place, manner restrictions could be relevant here, but ultimately there is no case or controversy here yet. The organization has not done anything yet, and the court doesn’t rule on hypotheticals. So the correct answer is C because there is no case or controversy here.
Kathryn Dittamore
2024-02-24 07:43:51 +0000 UTCFor the bomb question, it’s D. It’s not murder (in either degree) because she did not actually do anything to commit the act. It’s still not manslaughter either. She did not do something with reckless indifference; in fact, she did nothing at all to lead to the deaths.
Kathryn Dittamore
2024-02-24 07:38:26 +0000 UTCThe bomb question. Its not B . she would had to plan to plant the bomb herself. Its not C because again she did not directly plant the bomb. Its not a gross negligence as in she engaged in a direct and deliberate action which led to the bomb being accidentally placed there. Its not in the heat of passion because again she did not directly plant the bomb. But it could be reckless indifference to consequence but her action still did not result in the bomb being placed. If it is A that means anytime someone sees someone who they think is about to commit a crime and they don't report it, they can then be charged with a crime so that's not right. Maybe if instead of "believed " to be a bomb she " knew" it was a bomb. Like if she saw and recognized it was grandma dynamite from the Flintstones . this is someone who is known to use explosives. In that case she would have known for a fact what the consequences were going to be and didn't say anything. Or if she knew the unibomber personally and positively identified him as the person planting the bomb and didn't say anything. So I'm going with D . no crime.
Dreadsen
2024-02-23 17:50:08 +0000 UTCNude dancing question: This is a conspiracy by the bar to get people to fail by making them think of nude dancers instead of the law 😛 C not ripe, because the city could deny the permit for some other reason and the whole injunction would be moot.
Cheers to The Onion, the greatest media outlet in the history of humankind
2024-02-23 03:17:34 +0000 UTCBomb question: D no crime. "See something, say something" is just snitching propaganda, not a mandate.
Cheers to The Onion, the greatest media outlet in the history of humankind
2024-02-23 03:14:32 +0000 UTCNo, I'M an idiot! Sorry will fix!
Opening Arguments
2024-02-22 22:07:16 +0000 UTCOk, here's a thought. If you want to keep something private, do not put it in the trash? Putting it in the trash is, in effect, releasing one's ownership and control of whatever is in the trash, and what one is releasing ownership and control of cannot be something one reasonably expects a preservation of privacy about.
The Beautiful Thumb
2024-02-22 19:21:35 +0000 UTCRequesting the state for licensure is not an illegal act. Initially, I thought C. It is premature. Lobbying is not the problem, although I think it is a dumb use. States are allowed to be dumb, and even bad (to an extent). As much as I would agree with 1st and 14th amendment violations, the opening setting of Footloose is legally feasible in some places of business licensure. It has to be D because we live in an unfair world where some places have to keep their man-slaw to themselves.
Austin Flake
2024-02-22 18:44:27 +0000 UTCMy question about the bomb thing: Why did anyone know that the wife had suspicions? Did her son or her husband ratted her out ???
Udo אודו
2024-02-22 18:36:48 +0000 UTCThe info missing is the key to this test. The info actually shared could be suggested as evidence to prosecute the Senator, who was sitting on the committee, and what reasonable responsibility he may have by informing the Chairperson. Sticking to the question, I ultimately believe D. she fulfilled a nominal duty (if any needed) by informing her husband of a bomb. After that, who knows what happens prosecutorially to the Senator. *correction - I missed the auditorium part, and thought it was a committee meeting. The Senator would probably get off Scott free as well.
Austin Flake
2024-02-22 18:24:40 +0000 UTCAm I an idiot or are the images not attached?
Kait from Seattle
2024-02-22 18:12:38 +0000 UTCyou are literally the best. Seriously
Opening Arguments
2024-02-22 17:57:44 +0000 UTClolllllll
Opening Arguments
2024-02-22 17:57:33 +0000 UTCYeah, same.
Austin Flake
2024-02-22 17:48:20 +0000 UTCAnyone else listen on here, then let it run on spotify/download it? I'm rooting for you Thomas. So happy to see you back in the seat!
Terry Mickail
2024-02-22 16:11:16 +0000 UTCI’m going to pretend I’m the austin who won. Your welcome fellas
Austin Enverba
2024-02-22 15:20:53 +0000 UTCThe bar is being tricky by couching an actus reus question as a mens rea question. There is no actus reus unless the omission is in the face of a duty to act, and there is no duty here, although the legislature could make one. It hasn't, so the answer is D.
Dr. Clerk
2024-02-22 14:32:59 +0000 UTCsoooo good
McKay Clawson
2024-02-22 11:26:22 +0000 UTC
