Weigh the various available arguments, choose 1-3 understand where your are drawing the line
this could be tested by a hypothetical question
ensure that you consider the relative merits of a balancing test v. a bright line rule
evaluate whether to ask for a broad or narrow ruling
be able to justify why the court should rely on a particular precedent or test
pay attention to the relevant standard of decision
ex: to overturn a judgment based on an erroneous jury instruction to which there was no objection, an attorney must show it was a plain (or obvious) error
ex: to set aside a federal agency action as contrary to the statute itself, an attorney must show that the agency’s interpretation is not within the bounds of reason
authorities on which you can rely
text of law/Constitution
general rules of interpretation
words are presumed to bear their ordinary meanings
a word or phrase means the same throughout the document
provisions of a document should be interpreted within the context of a harmonious whole
avoid adopting an interpretation that renders the law in question invalid if possible
a federal statute should not be read to void a traditional state law or power unless this intent is clearly expressed
laws defining crimes and punishments will, if ambiguous, favor the accused
intent of law if it is clear
based on historical context
based on legislative history
precedent cases
controlling cases
leading case in this area of law
decided by equal or superior court
persuasive or non-governing precedents
dicta from a governing court (an equal or superior court)
holding of governing court in similar case
holdings of inferior courts or international courts
not binding, occasionally helpful
only helpful if virtually unanimous
freshness
the more recent the better unless it is a famous governing case
common sense
fairness, morality
if there are multiple paths to victory make sure you clarify which you think is the strongest and most defensible
present arguments logically
you may use a syllogism
ex: All S is P > This case is S > This case is P.
ex: Major premise (controlling rule) is true > minor premise (the facts invoking the rule) is true > inevitable conclusion
ex:
Major Premise: Under the Indian Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, states cannot tax Indian tribes for activities on reservations without the express authorization of Congress.
Minor Premise: South Dakota has imposed tis motor-fuel tax on tribes that sell fuel on reservations without the approval of Congress.
Conclusion: South Dakota’s tax is unconstitutional
organize the supporting evidence and precedents for each argument
prepare to address the arguments and concerns raised by your opponents
consider any strategic concessions you might want to make
explain why the facts, precedents, or arguments that do not favor your side should not determine the outcome of the case
clarify what other facts outweigh the damaging once you have admitted
Make sure you understand and can articulate the rule of law you are proposing.

I NEED THIS FOR ROE V. WADE BUT FROM THE WADE PERSPECTIVE!!!
ITS DUE AT 10PM EASTERN TIME, LESS THAN 4 HOURS