The text of the Religion Clause(s) of the First
Amendment forbids _________ from prohibiting the free exercise of religion
A) Congress
In Marbury v. Madison, the SC held that
A) Marbury was entitled to his commission but the Court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief
In Marbury v. Madison, the SC found the
authority to review – and to hold unconstitutional-acts of Congress in
D) The nature of the judicial power and the nature of the Constitution as a type of law coupled with the oath taken
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
Pursuant to doctrines of constitutional construction, the Supreme Court
D) If reasonable, interprets statutes to save the statute from constitutional infirmity
The Anti-Feds opposed the Constitution in part because
A) The Constitution fails to provide adequate controls on the judiciary, especially the SC
The Federalist responded to the Anti-Federalist
arguments concerning the judiciary by arguing
C) That the judiciary, including the SC, lacked the political tools to impose its will on the nations
Which of the following most
closely resembles the test used by Chief Justice Marshall and the Supreme Court
in McCulloch v. Maryland:
A) An act of Congress is constitutional only if the means chosen by Congress are rationally related to a legitimate end of Congress
According to _____, Congress would have some choice of means even if the “necessary and proper” clause had not been added to the
Constitution.
A) Both Marshall and Madison
The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the
power to?
A) Create neither a corporation nor a bank
Which of the following is an argumentthat C.J. Marshall did not make in McCulloch v. Maryland?
D)
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.
In McCulloch, the SC held that
C)
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.
Which facts are relevant to the SC's holding in Dred Scott?
D)
Which issue was dispositive in Dred Scott?
C)
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.
According to CJ Taney, in Dred Scott, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment:
C)
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
The Court in Gibbons v. Ogden said
B)
According to the Court in Gibbons v. Ogden, the power to lay duties and imports is part of the
B)
In crafting out governmental structure, the framers were most concerned about
D)
According to the framers, factions are controlled by
D)
According the Scap, the framers operated from an anthropology rooted in
D)
In US v. Morrison, the Court concluded
C)
Even if violent crime (gender based or otherwise substantially affects interestate commerce), Congress cannot regulate it without some tie to "economic activity."
According to the Court in E.C. Knight (sugar refining case)
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
B)
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.
In Wickard v. Filburn, the Court concluded that Congress' power to regulate IC
D)
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.
In US v. Lopez, the Court held that possession of a gun near a school
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.
In NFIB v. Sebelius, CJ Roberts concluded that the individual mandate was
C)
Roberts concluded that it was not a tax for statutory purposes (Anti-Injunction Act) and a tax for constitutional purposes.
Can Congress constitutionally nationalize health care with a single payer system?
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.
In NY v. US the Court held that Congress can
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.
In Gonzales v. Raich (medical marijuana), the Court used
A)
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.
In Gonzales v. Raich, the Court held that local noncommercial activity could be regulated by Congress
A)
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.
In Kassel v. Consolidated Freight, the Court concluded that
B)
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.
New Jersey's ban on out of state trash was
A)
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.
In Youngstown Sheet & Tube, the Court concluded that
D)
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.
The Court, in Morrison v. Olson, concluded that the Independent Counsel was
A)
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.
The Court, in Morrison v. Olson, assumed that the Independent Counsel was engaged in
A)
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.
In INS v. Chadha, the Court concluded that one house legislative vetoes
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).
Which of the following is NOT true
Congress can delegate quasi-judicial functions to executive agencies
C)
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.
In Chadha, the majority characterized Congress' veto of Chadha's suspension of deportations as
C)
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.
The Court in Korematsu v. US said
C)
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.
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)
As we learned in Williamson v. Lee Optical, the default rule in equal protection cases places the burden on
A)
When applying rational basis review, the Court will
B)
According to the Civil Rights Cases, Congress has the power-pursuant to Section 5 of the 14th Amendment-to regulate
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
D)
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.
In Plessy v. Ferguson, the Court held that
D)
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.
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)
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.
If the District of Columbia discriminate based on race, the discriminatory practice will be struck down under
B)
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.
When a state adopts an affirmative action program based on race, the burden will be on
D)
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.
A state can employ affirmative action in admitting students to law school in order to
A)
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.
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
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
B)
Intermediate scrutiny
When the government classifies in a way that singles out the mentally retarded, the Court places the burden on
D)
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
According to the Court, classifications based on sexual orientations are
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.
The Court has concluded that the 14th Amendment's Privileges and Immunities Clause protects citizens in the enjoyment of
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.
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
B)
“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.
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)
B)
The issue in EC Knight is whether Congress can
B)
The court is only deciding this narrow issue
Is the CSA challenged (Gonzales v. Raich)
B)
Not for market, for medicinal purposes in this specific case
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)
Congress cannot regulate noneconomic activity based solely on the conduct's aggregate affect on IC
Which of these conclusions did the Court reach in NY v. US?
A)
Implies states do not have the right to restrict...
Does the state of Oklahoma have a unitary executive?
No
The Court held that the Independent Counsel Act did not violate (Morrison v. Olson)
D)
Can Alaska require purchasers of its state owned timber to process that timber in state owned saw mills?
D)
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
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
C)
Slight alteration of McCulloch
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)
A professor brings 35 donuts to his class with 35 students. What constitutes an equal division of the donuts?
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)
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)
B)
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)
D)
In Fisher, the court held that
D)
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)
Active rational basis
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
C)
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?
