The flashcards below were created by user
hayleyrayscott
on FreezingBlue Flashcards.
-
The text of the Religion Clause(s) of the First
Amendment forbids _________ from prohibiting the free exercise of religion
A) Congress
B) Government, both state and local
C) Legislatures, both state and federal
D) The federal government
A) Congress (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
In Marbury v. Madison, the SC held that
A) Marbury was entitled to his commission but the Court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief
B) Marbury was entitled to his commission
C) Marbury was not entitled to his commission because as the Secretary of State, Madison had the discretion whether to deliver the commission
D) Marbury was not entitled to his commission because the SC lacked jurisdiction to grant him relief.
A) Marbury was entitled to his commission but the Court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
In Marbury v. Madison, the SC found the
authority to review – and to hold unconstitutional-acts of Congress in
A) The Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the Constitution
B) The express powers of judicial powers granted in Article III of the Constitution
C) The nature of the judicial power and the nature of the Constitution as a type of law coupled with the oath taken
D) The oath taken by the members of the SC when being sworn in as justices
C) The nature of the judicial power and the nature of the Constitution as a type of law coupled with the oath taken (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
In Buck v. Bell, the court held that
A) Neither the 14th Amendment's due process clause nor the 14th Amendment's EP clause prohibited the state from sterilizing Carrie Buck
B) Sterilizing Carrie Buck violated the 14th Amendment's EP clause
C) Carrie Buck must be sterilized
D) Sterilizing Carrie Buck violated the 14th Amendment's due process clause
A) Neither the 14th Amendment's due process clause nor the 14th Amendment's EP clause prohibited the state from sterilizing Carrie Buck (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
Pursuant to doctrines of constitutional construction, the Supreme Court
A) If reasonable, interprets statutes to create constitutional questions that cab then be solved by the Court
B) If reasonable, interprets statutes to save the statute from constitutional infirmity
C) If reasonable, interprets statutes to create constitutional questions as a means for challenging and checking Congress' authority
D) Selects the most plausible interpretation of a statute
B) If reasonable, interprets statutes to save the statute from constitutional infirmity (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
The Anti-Feds opposed the Constitution in part because
A) The SC will understand itself to be bound by the struck letter of the law and will not interpret the Constitution according to the spirit with which it was adopted
B) The Constitution follows the British model of judicial authority, a model that is inappropriate for a new nation asserting its independence from Britain
C) The Constitution fails to provide adequate controls on the judiciary, especially the SC
D) The Constitution fails to give the federal courts, including the SC, adequate authority to strike down laws and executive actions that contravene the Constitution
C) The Constitution fails to provide adequate controls on the judiciary, especially the SC (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
The Federalist responded to the Anti-Federalist
arguments concerning the judiciary by arguing
A) The case for the British model of judicial authority
B) That the judiciary, including the SC, lacked the political tools to impose its will on the nations
C) That a strong judiciary was necessary to prevent tyranny by the majority
D) That a strong judiciary was necessary to adapt the Constitution to the times
B) That the judiciary, including the SC, lacked the political tools to impose its will on the nations (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
Which of the following most
closely resembles the test used by Chief Justice Marshall and the Supreme Court
in McCulloch v. Maryland:
A) Given the "necessary and proper" clause, congressional powers are so broad that the SC will only strike down an act of Congress that violates an express constitutional provision
B) An act of Congress is constitutional only if the means chosen by congress are rationally related to an important end of Congress
C) An act of Congress is constitutional only if the means chosen by Congress are rationally related to a legitimate end of Congress
D) An act of Congress is constitutional only if the means chosen by Congress are substantially related to an important end of Congress
C) An act of Congress is constitutional only if the means chosen by Congress are rationally related to a legitimate end of Congress (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
According to _____, Congress would have some choice of means even if the “necessary and proper” clause had not been added to the
Constitution.
A) Chief Justice Marshall
B) Both Marshall and Madison
C) Neither Marshall nor Madison
D) Congressman James Madison
B) Both Marshall and Madison (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the
power to?
A) Create neither a corporation nor a bank
B) Create a bank
C) Create both corporations and banks, including incorporating a bank
D) Create a corporation
A) Create neither a corporation nor a bank (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
Which of the following is an argumentthat C.J. Marshall did not make in McCulloch v. Maryland?
A) The lack of the word “expressly” in the 10th Amendment adds to the argument that Congress has broad means to carry out its assigned ends.
B) Judicial precedent counsels the Court to defer to congressional judgment concerning the constitutionality of the bank
C) The “necessary and proper” clause should be read broadly because it is in a section of the Constitution that grants Congress power.
D) Congressional precedent counsels the Court to defer to congressional judgment concerningthe constitutionality of the bank.
B)
There was no judicial precedent regarding Congress creating corporations or banks. Although not discussed by Marshall, in the judicial precedent that we have studied (Marbury), the Court didn’t seem to give much deference to Congress. Marshall did argue a., c., and d. (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
In McCulloch, the SC held that
A) Maryland lacked the power to tax the Bank of the US
B) Maryland lacked the power to tax banks
C) Maryland could tax the Bank of the US so long as Congress had not prohibited the tax
D) Maryland could tax the Bank of the US so long as the Bank was physically located within Maryland's sovereign territory
A)
Maryland lacking the power to tax banks is incorrect – Maryland retained the power to tax Maryland incorporated banks. c and d are incorrect because Marshall argued that the power to tax was the power to destroy, and Maryland had no right to destroy the constitutionally created Bank of the United States because of the Supremacy Clause. (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
Which facts are relevant to the SC's holding in Dred Scott?
a) That Dred Scott was taken into the free State of Illinois
b) That Dred Scott was taken into the free Wisconsin territory
c) That Dred Scott resided in Illinois and Wisconsin
d) None of the above
d)
-
Which issue was dispositive in Dred Scott?
A) Can Dred Scott sue in federal court?
B) Can Dred Scott be set free merely by being taken into a free state?
C) Can the Declaration of Independence be interpreted to deny blacks rights?
D) Can Congress legislate freedom for slaves?
A)
Although the Court did say that Congress could not constitutionally create free territories, this was dicta since the Court had already concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case so b. is dicta and not dispositive of the case. The Court didn’t really make definitive statements with respect to c, but if it had, c would still be the wrong answer for the reasons that b is the wrong answer. The Court’s interpretation of the Declaration of Independence guided the Court’s conclusion that Dred Scott could not sue in federal court, it wasn’t dispositive but was one argument among many on the status of blacks at the founding of the country. (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
According to CJ Taney, in Dred Scott, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment:
A) Requires allowing slave owners the ability to import slaves into the territories in order to protect the liberty interests of the slave owners
B) Requires the abolition of slavery in order to protect the liberty interests of slaves
C) Requires that Congress pass a law before it can regulate slavery in the territories
D) Requires only procedural protection prior to the government's taking of liberty or property
A)
Congress did pass a law regulating slavery in the territories and the Dred Scott court said this law violated the 5th Amendment’s due process clause. b is incorrect. The Court never considered the slave’s liberty interest. d is incorrect. At least with respect to slave (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
The Court in Gibbons v. Ogden said
A) That the powers of Congress ought to be narrowly construed to protect the rights and liberties of individuals
B) That the powers of Congress ought to be broadly construed because the US government is superior to state governments
C) That the powers of Congress ought to be broadly construed because the US had a vast obligation as a sovereign state
D) That the powers of Congress ought to be narrowly construed because the US government is one of limited and enumerated powers
C) (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
According to the Court in Gibbons v. Ogden, the power to lay duties and imports is part of the
A) The Commerce Power
B) War power
C) The power to punish
D) The Taxing Power
D) (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
In crafting out governmental structure, the framers were most concerned about
A) Controlling factions
B) Controlling minority tyranny
C) Controlling majority tyranny
D) Controlling state legislatures
A) (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
According to the framers, factions are controlled by
a) Separation of Powers
b) Checks and balances
c) Federalism
d) All of the above
d)
-
According the Scap, the framers operated from an anthropology rooted in
A) The Enlightenment
B) Christianity
C) Mixture of Enlightenment and Christianity
D) Zoroastianism
C) (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
In US v. Morrison, the Court concluded
A) Congress lacks the power to punish noneconomic violent crime based solely on the conduct's aggregate effect on interstate commerce
B) Congress lacks the power to punish crime
C) Congress lacks the power to punish noneconomic violent crime unless the conduct substantially affects interstate commerce in the aggregate
D) Congress lacks the power to punish violent crime
A)
Even if violent crime (gender based or otherwise substantially affects interestate commerce), Congress cannot regulate it without some tie to "economic activity." (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
According to the Court in E.C. Knight (sugar refining case)
a) Congress lacks the power to regulate but not suppress monopolies
b) Congress lacks the power to suppress but not regulate monopolies
c) Congress lacks the power to both suppress and regulate monopolies
d) None of the above
d)
Congress can regulate, including suppressing, monopolies, but only if the monopoly is engaged in an activity (i.e., interstate commerce) that comes within Congress enumerated powers.
-
The Court in Champion v. Ames (lottery case) held that the power to regulate commerce
A) includes the power to prohibit IC, at least where the goods being shipped are immoral or noxious
B) includes the power to prohibit sales of lottery tickets
C) includes the power to regulate all interstate activity
D) includes the power to prohibit IC, but only if there is a congressional finding that the article of commerce is immoral or noxious
A)
The case did not deal with a prohibition of the sale of lottery tickets but of the interstate transportation of the tickets. The case also suggested that Congress couldn't control all interstate activity but only those that involved some commerce unlike an invitation to dine. The Court left open the breadth of Congress' ability to prohibit interstate commerce, holding that Congress had the ability to prohibit at least the interstate shipment of immoral or noxious goods. (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
In Wickard v. Filburn, the Court concluded that Congress' power to regulate IC
A) extends to local activity of a commercial nature whether or not it exerts a substantial effect on IC
B) extends to local activity even if that activity is not regarded as commerce if it exerts a substantial effect on IC
C) extends to local activity but only if that activity is commercial in nature
D) extends to local activity but only if that activity has a direct affect on IC
B)
The answer is found in the first full paragraph of page 4 of the opinion - "But even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial effect on interstate commerce" whether or not it be defined as direct or indirect. (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
In US v. Lopez, the Court held that possession of a gun near a school
A) Is not, without more, an economic or commercial activity, and therefore, is beyond Congress' commerce power even if it substantially affects IC
B) Does not, even when aggregated with all other guns near schools, substantially affect IC
C) Does not, in an individual instance, substantially affect IC
D) Is in every instance a purely local crime, which can only be prosecuted by state authorities
A)
Whether or not guns near schools, invidually or in the aggregate, substantially effect interestate commerce, Congress lacks the power under the Commerce clause to regulated mere possession near schools. The Court didn't totally foreclose Congress's opportunity to regulate guns near schools, but will require some showing that the activity regulated is economic or commercial in nature. (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
In NFIB v. Sebelius, CJ Roberts concluded that the individual mandate was
A) NOT a tax
B) A capitation tax
C) A tax
D) Both a tax and not a tax
D)
Roberts concluded that it was not a tax for statutory purposes (Anti-Injunction Act) and a tax for constitutional purposes. (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
Can Congress constitutionally nationalize health care with a single payer system?
A) Yes, under the power to tax and spend for the general welfare
B) No, only state can enact single payer health care systems
C) No, because our Constitution comtemplates free market capitalism
A)
There is no federal police power. There is nothing in the Constitution that would limit Congress’ taxing and spending authority in this way in such a way that only states can enact single payer health systems. Our Constitution is silent with regard to economic systems. (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
In NY v. US the Court held that Congress can
A) Authorize states to restrict IC
B) Offer monetary incentives to states to encourage the states to adopt certain policies and authorize states to restrict IC
C) Offer monetary incentives to encourage the states to adopt certain policies
D) Require states to adopt certain policies
B)
Under its Commerce power, Congress can regulate the interstate market by allowing/authorizing states to restrict interstate commerce. Under is Spending power, Congress can incentivize states to adopt certain policies (i.e., 21 year old drinking law). Congress cannot, however, require states to adopt certain policies. (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
In Gonzales v. Raich (medical marijuana), the Court used
A) The strict scrutiny test
B) The intermediate scrutiny test
C) The rational basis test
d) None of the above
C)
In upholding the application of the law to home-grown medicinal marijuana, the Court deferred to Congress, deciding that Congress had a rational basis for concluding that it needed to control the noncommercial home grown for medicinal use marijuana as part of it comprehensive regulation of the commercial market in marijuana. (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
In Gonzales v. Raich, the Court held that local noncommercial activity could be regulated by Congress
A) As long as regulating the activity had a direct and substantial effect on the interstate market
B) As long as regulating the activity is vital to our national interests
C) As long as the regulated activity is part of a comprehensive regulatory scheme, which would be undermined if the local noncommercial activity was not regulated
D) As long as the regulated activity had a substantial effect on the interstate market
C)
Raich did not change the basic rulings in Lopez and Morrison, which held that local noncommercial activity could not be regulated under the Commerce Clause without more – the tie to a comprehensive regulatory scheme. There is nothing in the case law to suggest that Congress can regulate local noncommercial activity even if it is in the national interest without more – again, the tie to a comprehensive regulatory scheme. (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
In Kassel v. Consolidated Freight, the Court concluded that
A) Iowa was discriminating against interstate state commerce
B) Iowa's safety concerns with limiting truck length outweighed the burden on IC imposed by the limit
C) Iowa was discriminating against out of state interests
D) The burden imposed on IC by Iowa's truck length limit outweighed Iowa's safety concerns
D)
Although the Court might have suspected Iowa of discrimination a and b are wrong. The Court did not apply the per se rule of invalidity, which it applies to cases of discrimination against interstate commerce. Instead, it applied the Pike balancing test, which it applies when the challenger proves a burden on interstate commerce but not out right discrimination. c. is wrong because the Court sided with Consolidated in concluding the burden on interstate commerce outweighed Iowa’s safety concerns. (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
New Jersey's ban on out of state trash was
A) A constitutional use of the state's police powers despite the incidental burden on commerce
B) A constitutional use of the state's police power because trash, like other noxious materials, are not subject to the dormant commerce clause
C) An unconstitutional burden on IC
D) An unconstitutional discrimination against IC
D)
The Court held that this was discrimination not merely a burden and applied the per se rule of invalidity. Therefore, b and c are wrong. In striking down the ban, the Court also distinguished between trash and other noxious articles, therefore d. is wrong. (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
In Youngstown Sheet & Tube, the Court concluded that
A) The federal government can only seize US industry to prevent work stoppage due to a labor dispute if Congress expressly sanctions the seizure
B) The federal government may not seize US industry to prevent work stoppage due to a labor dispute unless such seizure is essential to aid in congressionally declared war
C) The federal government may not seize US industry to prevent work stoppage due to a labor dispute if Congress has expressly or impliedly denied the President that authority
D) The federal government has no power to seize US industry to prevent work stoppage due to a labor dispute
C)
The majority and Jackson characterize this case as one in which Congress has denied the President the seizure authority. The majority suggests, but doesn’t decide that the federal government does have authority to seize U.S. industry in the proper case and not just in the case of a declared war so a and d are wrong. The Court never says that Congress must expressly sanction the seizure for the President to be authorized to seize. (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
The Court, in Morrison v. Olson, concluded that the Independent Counsel was
A) An Inferior Officer because appointed by the Attorney General
B) An Officer because she could be removed by members of the judiciary
C) An inferior officer because could be removed by the Attorney General
D) An Officer because of her broad role and discretion
C)
The Court concludes that Independent Counsel is an “inferior Officer” so c and d are wrong. The Special Court appoints the Independent Counsel making a wrong. The Court states that the Independent Counsel is under the AG’s control to some extent because of the AG’s ability to remove, albeit for cause. (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
The Court, in Morrison v. Olson, assumed that the Independent Counsel was engaged in
A) Exec/QE activity & Leg/QL activity, but not Jud/QJ activity
B) Exec/QE & Jud/QJ, but not Leg/QL
C) Exec/QE activity only
D) E, L, & J
C)
Scalia chastised the Court because the Court conceded that the Independent Counsel only did executive type functions yet could be untethered from serving the President/AG at will. (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
In INS v. Chadha, the Court concluded that one house legislative vetoes
A) Violate the Constitution's requirements of bicameralism and presentment
B) Are constitutional so long as the authorization for the legislative veto is embedded in an Act passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President
C) Violate the Constitution's bicameralism requirement but not the presentment requirement
D) Violate the Constitution's presentment requirement but not the bicameralism requirement
A)
The other answers are wrong because the Court found legislative vetoes unconstitutional because proper legislative actions requires both houses to pass legislation (bicameralism) and presented to the President for his signature (presentment). (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
Which of the following is NOT true
A) Congress can require the President to obtain congressional consent before removing an Officer of the US id the Office is of particular interest (Ex. Director of CIA) to Congress
B) Congress can delegate quasi-legislative functions to the president or agencies as long as the enabling legislation provides a guiding principle
C) Congress can weaken the president's control over the administrative apparatus by limiting the President's power to remove agency heads
Congress can delegate quasi-judicial functions to executive agencies
A)
The Court takes a “functional” approach allowing Congress to alter the constitutional structure so long as 1) it doesn’t arrogate power to itself and 2) doesn’t completely undermine the Executive’s or Judiciary’s ability to carry out their constitutional tasks. Answers a, c, and d are instances where the Court has upheld Congress’ alterations. Answer b receives a “formalistic” review because Congress is arrogating to itself power. (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
In Chadha, the majority characterized Congress' veto of Chadha's suspension of deportations as
A) Judicial in nature
B) Executive in nature
C) Administrative in nature
D) Legislative in nature
D)
Congress’ action in Chadha could have been characterized as Executive in nature because Congress was taking part in (reviewing action of) the Justice Department’s executive decision to suspend deportation. Congress’s action could have been characterized as Judicial in nature because Congress was applying the law of suspension to the facts of an individual. In the end, the Court concluded that Congress – since it was acting as Congress – was engaged in a legislative action. (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
The Court in Korematsu v. US said
A) Race based laws are subject to strict scrutiny
B) Race based laws are subject to intermediate scrutiny
C) Race based laws are subject to ad hoc balancing
D) Race based laws are subject to rational basis review
A)
The Court didn’t apply strict scrutiny because it conceived of the case as one dealing with war power and not race, but it said that racial classifications would be subject to the most rigid scrutiny. (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
The Court, in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Co. Acct. Oversight Bd., held that Congress lacked the authority to create "dual for-cause limitations" on the removal of agency official because
A) The need for public accountability limits Congress' authority to create "dual for-cause limitations" on the removal of agency officials
B) The unitary Executive requires that the President have the authority to remove agency heads
C) The requirement that the President "take care" that the laws are faithfully executed requires that the President have the authority to remove agency heads
A) (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
As we learned in Williamson v. Lee Optical, the default rule in equal protection cases places the burden on
A) The state to demonstrate that the law is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest
B) The challenger to demonstrate that the law is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest
C) The challenger to demonstrate that the law is not necessary to achieve a compelling state interest
D) The state to demonstrate that the law is rationally related to a legitimate government interest
B) (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
When applying rational basis review, the Court will
A) Defer to the lawmaker as to the end but not as to the means
B) Strike down any classification that is over- or under- inclusive
C) Defer to the lawmaker, inferring the ends from the means
D) Closely examine the nexus between the law's stated ends and the means chosen to effectuate the end
C) (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
According to the Civil Rights Cases, Congress has the power-pursuant to Section 5 of the 14th Amendment-to regulate
a) Privately owned inns and railroads
b) Privately owned amusement parks
c) Interstate Commerce
d) None of the above
d)
Congress can regulate Interstate Commerce pursuant to Article I, Section 8, not Section 5 of the 14th Am, which authorizes Congress to remedy state violations of the 14th Am so c is not the correct answer. Congress may also be able to regulate inns, railroads, and amusement parks under the Commerce Clause but not under Section 5 because the 14th Amendment targets state, not private, action.
-
According to Yick Wo v. Hopkins, state and local governments lack the authority to
A) Discriminate against US citizens of Chinese descent in the licensing of wooden laundries
B) Discriminate against the Chinese in the licensing of wooden laundries
C) Regulate laundries
D) Discriminate against those who operate laundries in wooden structures
B)
States have broad powers to regulate for health and safety reasons, therefore they can regulate laundries (a) and the structures laundries operate in (b). The equal protection clause protects “persons” not citizens so it is irrelevant whether the Chinese being discriminated against are citizens or not. (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
In Plessy v. Ferguson, the Court held that
A) Private RRs did not have to comply with the 14th Amendment's EPC
B) A state law requiring RRs to separate passengers by race satisfied the EPC of the 5th Amendment
C) A state law requiring RRs to separate passengers by race satisfied the EPC of the 14th Amendment
D) Prives RRs did not have to comply with the 5th Amendment's EPC
C)
5th Amendment applies to federal not state action. a is wrong because private railroads are not state actors. The Plessy case upheld a state law. (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
Where the challenger alleges that the law should be struck down under the EPC on the basis of race, the Court will apply strict scrutiny if
A) The law explicitly discriminates based on race and the law was adopted for a discriminatory purpose
B) The law explicitly discriminates based on race
C) The law has a discriminatory effect and it explicitly discriminates based on race
D) The law explicitly discriminated based on race and the law was adopted for a discriminatory purpose and the law was implemented in a purposefully discriminatory fashion
D)
Washington v. Davis held that discriminatory effect was not enough to receive strict scrutiny. Laws that purposefully discriminate based on race or that explicitly use of race to classify, receive strict scrutiny. See Washington v. Davis and Loving v. Virginia. Yick Wo v. Hopkins held that the purposeful or intentional discrimination could occur in the implementation of an otherwise non discriminatory law. (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
If the District of Columbia discriminate based on race, the discriminatory practice will be struck down under
A) The 5th Amendment's EPC
B) The 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause
C) The 14th Amendment's EPC
D) The 5th Amendment's Due Process Clause
D)
The 5th Amendment doesn’t have an equal protection clause. The Court in Bolling v. Sharpe held that the 5th Am.’s Due Process Clause had an equal protection component. The 14th Amendment applies to states so is inapplicable to D.C., which is a federal jurisdiction required to abide by the 5th Amendment. (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
When a state adopts an affirmative action program based on race, the burden will be on
A) The State to demonstrate that the action is necessary to achieve compelling state interests
B) The challenger to show that the action was not necessary to achieve compelling state interests
C) The State to demonstrate that the action is substantially related to important governmental interests
D) The State to demonstrate that the action is rationally related to legitimate government interests
A)
Although the Court appears to have relaxed the strict scrutiny standard in Grutter, it still insisted that affirmative action (explicit racial classification) is subject to strict scrutiny. Fisher reinforced this holding. (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
A state can employ affirmative action in admitting students to law school in order to
A) Ensure that minority communities will have their own lawyers
B) Rectify past societal discrimination that made it harder for minorities to attend law school
C) Create a diverse learning environment for the law school
D) Reduce the historic deficit of traditionally disfavored minorities in law schools
C)
Justice Powell in Bakke (and subsequent courts rejected a, b, and d as compelling reasons for affirmative action while embracing diversity as a compelling goal in higher education. (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
If Methodist run OCU employs racial quotas in its admission process to favor racial minorities, an applicant wishing to challenge the law would argue that OCU's law school violated the
a) 14th Amendment's EPC
b) 13th Amendment's prohibition on slavery and the badges and incidents of slavery
c) 5th Amendment's DPC
d) None of the above
d)
As a private institution neither the 14th Amendment nor the 5th Amendment apply to OCU. Although the 13th Amendment applies to private individuals and entities, the use of a quota system to admit minorities is not a “badge or incident of slavery.”
-
When the government classifies along gender/sex lines, the Court places the burden on
A) The challenger to demonstrate that the law is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest
B) The state to demonstrate that the law is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest
C) The state to demonstrate that the law is substantially related to an important government interest
D) The state to demonstrate that the law is rationally related to a legitimate government interest
C)
Intermediate scrutiny (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
When the government classifies in a way that singles out the mentally retarded, the Court places the burden on
A) The challenger to demonstrate that the law is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest
B) The state to demonstrate that the law is rationally related to a legitimate government interest
C) The state to demonstrate that the law is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest
D) The state to demonstrate that the law is substantially related to an important government interest
B)
In Cleburne, the Court said that the mentally retarded were not a suspect or quasi-suspect class entitled to intermediate or strict scrutiny because a) they weren’t politically powerless and b) there are relevant distinctions between the mentally retarded and non-mentally retarded; therefore c. and d. are wrong. The Court did not, however, apply Williamson v. Lee Optical minimum rational basis but put the burden on the state to demonstrate that the classification was rationally related to a legitimate government interest and not merely based on irrational prejudice; therefore b. is right and a. is wrong.
Rational basis PLUS (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
According to the Court, classifications based on sexual orientations are
A) Quasi-suspect because although homosexuals have suffered discrimination, etc., there are inherent differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals
B) Not identified as suspect or quasi-suspect
C) Suspect because homosexuals have historically suffered discriminations, are politically powerless, and have immutable characteristics
D) Not subject to equal protection analysis at all
B)
The Romer Court followed the Cleburne Court in treating the sexual orientation classification in the same way it treated classifications based on mental retardation. That is, it applied active rational basis because homosexuals are a disfavored group but it did not apply intermediate or strict scrutiny, which the Court applies when adjudicating suspect and quasi suspect classifications; therefore b. and c. are wrong. Romer did strike down the Colorado Amendment, which classified based on sexual orientation, on equal protection grounds; therefore d. is wrong. (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
The Court has concluded that the 14th Amendment's Privileges and Immunities Clause protects citizens in the enjoyment of
A) All rights which belong to citizens of all free governments
B) All natural rights
C) All rights that the citizens of the US enjoyed at the time of the Constitution's adoption
D) A limited number of rights, such as the right to peaceable assemble
D)
The Court in the Slaughter-house Cases rejected an expensive view (b., c., and d. all contain an expansive views) of the privileges and immunities clause that would have given the Court vast power to determine the validity of state laws and regulations. (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
Section One of the 14th Amendment
1 Grants citizenship to all person born in the United States
2 Grants citizenship to most persons born in the United States
3 Prohibits States from denying any person equal protection of the laws
4 Prohibits States from abridging the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States
A) 1, 3, & 4
B) 1 & 4
C) 1 & 3
D) 2, 3, & 4
D)
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens…” Those born in the U.S. and not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. (children of diplomats) do not have birthright citizenship. Both c. and d. are wrong for an additional reason – the 14th Am. includes both and equal protection clause and a privileges and immunities clause. (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
Is it unconstitutional for Congress to hire a chaplain?
No
-
Is it unconstitutional for the SC to start every session with "God save this honorable Court"?
No
-
Is it unconstitutional for a school district to allow student led prayer before football games?
Yes
-
Is it unconstitutional fir a city council to start each session in prayer?
No
-
Does the Judiciary Act of 1789 clearly give the SC original jurisdiction? (Marbury v. Madison)
No
-
Does the constitution EXPLICITLY grant the judiciary the power to review and strike down acts of Congress?
No
-
Is the presence of the Necessary and Proper Clause essential to Marshall's conclusion that Congress has the power to incorporate a bank? (McCulloch v. Maryland)
No
-
For the purposes of deciding the case, the SC assumed that Dred Scott was
a) A Slave
b) A Free Person
b)
Court concludes even if Scott is free, he is still not a citizen
-
Does the court provide an adequate limiting principle to put some local activity beyond federal reach?
Commerce completely internal is reserved to the state
-
What is the purpose (end) of the Fair Labor Standard Act? (US v. Darby)
A) To regulate interstate commerce
B) To promote a certain standard of living
C) To regulate purely local activity
B) (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
The issue in EC Knight is whether Congress can
A) Suppress monopolies
B) Suppress monopolies by imposing criminal sanctions
C) Suppress monopolies in manufacturing
D) Directly suppress monopolies in manufacturing
D)
The court is only deciding this narrow issue (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
Is the CSA challenged (Gonzales v. Raich)
A) In its classification of marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug
B) In its entirety as beyond Congress' commerce power
C) As applied in this case
C)
Not for market, for medicinal purposes in this specific case (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
Did the majority disagree with the dissent's conclusion that there is a rational basis for concluding that guns near schools substantially affect IC? (US v. Lopez)
No
The majority says it is irrelevant if it substantially affects interstate commerce; not enough
-
What factor was central to the Court's Morrison holding?
A) Lack of substantial affects
B) Lack of jurisdictional statement
C) Lack of congressional fact-finding
D) Lack of economic activity
D)
Congress cannot regulate noneconomic activity based solely on the conduct's aggregate affect on IC (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
Which of these conclusions did the Court reach in NY v. US?
A) States have the right on their own initiative to restrict the importation of radioactive waste from other states
B) Both Congress answers
C) Congress has the right to restrict interstate transportation of radioactive waste
D) Congress has the right to authorize states to restrict the importation of radioactive waste from other states
B)
Implies states do not have the right to restrict... (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
Does the state of Oklahoma have a unitary executive?
No
-
The Court held that the Independent Counsel Act did not violate (Morrison v. Olson)
a) The Appointments Clause of Art. II
b) The limitations of Article III
c) The constitutional principle of separation of powers
d) All of the above
d)
-
Can Alaska require purchasers of its state owned timber to process that timber in state owned saw mills?
A) No, Alaska cannot burden IC without a legitimate local concern that outweighs the burden
B) The answer is unclear and would depend on what the court considered the relevant market
C) Yes, as owner of both the timber and the saw mill, Alaska is a market participant
D) No, Alaska cannot discriminate against IC
B)
If the court views the markets as the same market, then market participant doctrine
If the court views them as two different markets, then this would be considered regulating up or downstream, and cannot discriminate this way (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
Could Congress make the Department of Agriculture and Education independent agencies?
Yes
-
Could Congress make the Department of Justice, State, or Defense independent agencies?
No, core executive things; this is going too far
-
Congress enacts legislation creation the National Airline Corporation, which is to hold exclusive rights to operate airlines within the US. The Corporation is to be governed by a board of directors including directors appointed by the federal government and directors elected by stockholders. The establishment of this corporation is probably
A) Unconstitutional, but only if a court finds it is an undue burn on IC
B) Constitutional because the power to create corporations is an enumerated power vested in Congress by Section 5 of the 14th Amendment
C) Unconstitutional because the power to create corporations is solely a matter of local concern reversed for the states
D) Unconstitutional because Congress lacks the authority to create corporations
E) Constitutional because Congress may create a monopoly as a means of regulating IC under the "necessary and proper" clause
E)
Slight alteration of McCulloch (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
Did the Taft-Hartley Act specifically deny the President the authority to seize businesses in an emergency? (Youngstown)
No
Just because a law is silent on giving the president authority, it does not mean Congress denied the president authority
-
Suppose instead of authorizing federal courts to determine the guilt or innocence of those remaining the the restricted area (hypo), Congress had authorized military tribunals to determine guilt or innocence.
Suppose further that Korematsu was convicted by a military tribunal and not a federal court.
Suppose further that K filed a writ of habeas corpus asking the SC to free him from military detention.
Under the hypothetical facts, Justice Jackson likely would have voted to
a) Overturn the military tribunal and free K
b) Uphold the military tribunal and keep him detained
c) Dismiss K's petition, leaving him in the hands of the military tribunal
?????
-
Congress passes, over the President's veto, a requirement that in the future all consular staff to Afghaniran Republic below the rank of Ambassador must be chosen from a list of approved candidates drawn up by Senate.
A federal court will likely
a) Rule the law unconstitutional as violation of the separation of powers because Congress is attempting to usurp the president's authority to select federal officers
b) Strike down the law as an unconstitutional attempt by Congress to aggrandize power
c) Uphold the law as a proper check on the President's authority under the constitutional principle of checks and balances.
d) Uphold the law as constitutional because consular staff are "inferior officers."
b)
Congress can take away power, cannot give themselves more power
-
Would a two-house veto survive a constitutional challenge if the Court applied the Chadha opinion's logic?
- No
- Problems with veto:
- 1. Lack of bicameralism (two house is OK)
- 2) Presentment to president (two house does not solve this)
-
Does the majority view the veto as (Chadha)
A) Executive in nature
B) Judicial in nature
C) Legislative in nature
C) (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
A professor brings 35 donuts to his class with 35 students. What constitutes an equal division of the donuts?
a) 1 for each student
b) More for heavier students
c) More for lighter students
d) More for students who did not eat breakfast
e) All of the above
e)
- Depends on goals; equal is NOT fair
- Every law benefits and burdens people differently and policymakers make this determination
-
On what grounds did the express company challenge NY's limitation on advertising? (Railway Express Agency v. NY)
a) Due Process
b) EPC
c) DCC
d) All of the above
d)
-
The Oklahoma legislature concluded that the law would lead to better eye health (Williamson v. Lee Optical)
a) True
b) False
b)
More false than true; the court puts words in legislature's mouth; court DOES NOT CARE why they did it, court thinks of the ends based on the means
-
Might it be rational to require an aerospace engineering degree when seeking to hire someone to design a fighter jet?
YES
Over and under inclusive
-
Might it be rational to require five years experience when seeking to hire someone to design a fighter jet?
Yes
-
Might it be rational to require an Asian heritage when seeking to hire someone to design a fighter jet?
Yes
Even if not moral or right
-
The Court held that the San Francisco ordinance was unconstitutional because (Yick Wo)
A) It was facially discriminatory
B) It was discriminatorily applied
C) It was adopted for a discriminatory purpose
D) Both facially and adopted
B) (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
Is racial separation inherently (in the abstract) unequal?
No
-
In Washington v. Davis, the court held that
a) The challenger had the burden of showing that the test was not rationally related to job performance
b) The state had the burden of showing that the test was necessary to achieve a compelling state interest
a)
-
Over a period of about 18 months in Laredo, Texas, along the Mexican border, some 36 Hispanic children between the ages of 4 and 17 mysteriously disappeared during late afternoon and evening hours. Subsequently, 22 were discovered to have been brutally murdered. Forensic evidence suggests that they died from drug violence, which has spilled over the border.
The city council passed an ordinance imposing a curfew on Hispanic children under 18, forbidding such children from venturing out after sunset unless accompanied by a parent, etc.
Children violating the curfew can be detained by police until their parents claim them.
Parents or guardians of children in violation of the curfew may be fined up to $500.
A group of Hispanic parents file suit in federal district court seeking to enjoin the ordinance on constitutional grounds.
In a suit challenging the order's constitutionally, which of the following is the city's strongest argument?
a) The city may use reasonable racial classifications in an emergency.
b) The city's racial classifications are narrowly drawn to protect probably victims of crime during an emergency
c) The city's ordinance does not substantially burden any fundamental rights
d) The city has a rational basis for this exercise of traditional police powers
b)
Different wording of SS test; not over and under inclusive, compelling interest
-
The Court held that the following were compelling state interests (Grutter v. Bollinger)
A) Reducing the deficit of minorities in medical practice
B) Obtaining the educational benefits flowing from a diverse class
C) Countering the effects of past societal discrimination
D) Countering and Obtaining
B) (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
In Fisher, the court held that
A) The COA improperly applied the ends portion of SS test
B) UT's means were not necessary to achieve a compelling state interest
C) The COA improperly applied means portion of SS test
D) UT lacked a compelling interest in using race as a factor
C) (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
In Frontiero, did the government have a rational basis for presuming wives but not husbands were dependent?
Yes
- At the time, more women dependent on husbands than vie versa; more efficient
- BUT heightened scrutiny for gender
-
The Court decided against the city of Cleburne finding that the city's actions were not
A) Rationally related to a legitimate government interest
B) Substantially related to an important state interest
C) Necessary to achieve a compelling state interest
A)
Active rational basis (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
Did the Louisiana legislature limit who could be a butcher? (Slaughterhouse)
No
-
At President Obama's request, Congress enacts legislation creating the National Airline Corporation, which is to hold exclusive rights to operate airlines within the US. The Corporation is to be governed by a board of directors including directors appointed by the federal government and directors elected by stockholders. The establishment of the corporation is probably
A) Constitutional because the power to create corporations is an enumerated power vested in Congress by Section 5 of the 14th Amendment.
B) Unconstitutional, but only if a court finds that it is an undue burden on IC.
C) Unconstitutional because Congress lacks the authority to create corporations.
D) Constitutional because Congress may create a monopoly as a means of regulating IC under the "necessary and proper" clause.
E) Unconstitutional because the power to create corporations is solely a matter of concern reserved to the states.
D) (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
-
Mark McCloskey is a black man who was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to die. In a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, McCloskey challenges the constitutionality of his death sentence. He presents a statistical study of the state's capital sentencing process prepared by a professor of statistics at a major university. The study concludes that a black man is five times more likely than a white man to be sentenced to die if convicted of a capital offense. Which of the following statements best summarizes the burden of proof that must be sustained?
A) To defeat a due process challenge, the state must show that its capital sentencing process is essential to achieve compelling interests, because the right to life is a fundamental right guaranteed by the 5th and 14th amendments.
B) Before an equal protection claim may prevail, McCloskey must show either that the state adopted the death penalty for an improper racial purpose or that the decision makers in his case--judge, jury or prosecutor--acted as a result of improper racial consideration.
C) Before an equal protection claim may prevail, McCloskey must show either that the state adopted the death penalty despite the foreseeable impact of the capital sentencing scheme on blacks or that the decision makers in most capital cases--judge, jury, or prosecutor--acted as a result of improper racial considerations.
D) To defeat an equal protection challenge, the state must show that its capital sentencing process promotes important government objectives, because the statistics demonstrate that the capital sentencing is influenced by racial factors.
E) Before an equal protection claim may prevail, McCloskey must show either that the state law has an adverse effect on blacks or that the decision makers in his case-judge, jury, or prosecutor--acted as a result of improper racial consideration
B) (this multiple choice question has been scrambled)
|
|