case laws

Question 1

United States v Alvarez (2012) Facts

Answer 1

• lied when he said he played Hockey for the Detroit Red Wings
• Introduced himself [at a meeting’ as: retired marine of 25 years. I retired in the year 2001. Back in 1987, I was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honour’

Question 2

what part of the Constitution links to United States vs Alvarez and the quote

Answer 2

• The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment
• ‘Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech’

Question 3

What did the majority of the Supreme Court find in United States v Alvarez

Answer 3

First Amendment protected Alvarez’ lies

Question 4

Justice Kennedy on United States v Alvarez

Answer 4

‘This opinion…rejects the notion that false speech should be in a general category that is presumptively unprotected’

‘The remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true. This is the ordinary course in a free society’

Question 5

Dissenting opinion by Samuel Alito in United States v Alvarez

Answer 5

‘These lies have no value in and of themselves, and proscribing them does not chill any valuable speech…’

‘The right to free speech [should] not protect false factual statements that inflict real harm and serve no legitimate interest’

Question 6

The Current U.S. Supreme Court

Answer 6

• Chief Justice John Roberts
• Clarence Thomas
• Samuel Alito
• Sonia Sotomayor
• Elena Kagan
• Neil Gorsuch
• Brett Kavanaugh
• Amy Coney Barret
• Ketanji Brown Jackson

Question 7

Marbury v Madison Factual Background:

Answer 7

• The outgoing President, John Adams, wanted to fill the courts with his appointees before he left office.
• he made a series of last-minute judicial appointments and left the commissions with Chief Justice John Marshall
• Several of the commissions weren’t delivered in time
• When Thomas Jefferson took office as president and found out about this oversight, he told his new Secretary of State James Madison not to deliver the remaining commissions
• William Marbury was one of the judges who was to be appointed. He sued Madison for failing to deliver his commission and sought a writ of mandamus - a writ which compels a government official to perform his duties correctly - from the Supreme Court to order Madison to deliver

Question 8

John Adams

Answer 8

• outgoing President. Wanted to do last-minute court appointments

Question 9

Thomas Jefferson

Answer 9

• incoming president. Wanted to make his own court appointments

Question 10

James Madison

Answer 10

• Jefferson’s secretary of state. Jefferson’s messenger in this story

Question 11

William Marbury

Answer 11

• appointed to be a judge by John Adams, but never received his commission. Sued to fix that

Question 12

John Marshall

Answer 12

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Heard Marbury’s lawsuit against Madison (who was carrying out Jefferson’s wishes)

Question 13

What two options did Chief Justice Marshall do?

Answer 13

• issue the writ of mandamus
• do not issue the writ of mandamus

Question 14

Why did Chief Justice Marshall not want to issue the writ of mandamus?

Answer 14

• if he issued the writ and ordered Madison to deliver the commission. Madison might simply ignore him. This would expose the Supreme Court as powerless to enforce its own decisions

Question 15

Why did Chief Justice Marshall not want to issue the writ?

Answer 15

• could seem like the Court was simply caving to whoever was in office

Question 16

What 3 questions did Marshall framed the opinion in Marbury:

Answer 16

1. Has the applicant a right to the commission he demands?
2. If he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy?
3. If [the laws] do afford him a remedy, is it a mandamus issuing from this court?

Question 17

What did the third question in Marbury v Madison revolve around?

Answer 17

• jurisdiction

Question 18

Article 3 of the Constitution outlines two different types of jurisdiction

Answer 18

• The Supreme Court is mostly an appellate court: it hears appeals from the lower federal courts or from state supreme courts using its appellate jurisdiction
• The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over only a limited number of cases

Question 19

Marbury v Madison law

Answer 19

• Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress said it was giving the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to grant writs of mandamus
• Marshall asked whether Congress could do that:
• Article 3 gives Congress authority over the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction only
• But Marbury had come directly to the Supreme Court asking for a writ of mandamus, pointing to section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789

Question 20

Marshall -> Marbury v. Madison 1803

Answer 20

• Marshall issues one of his most famous lines
  ‘it is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is’

Question 21

Marshall’s answer in Marbury v Madison

Answer 21

a) Mandamus would be the right remedy if the Supreme Court could issue it in this case.
b) However, section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 - which granted the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over writs of mandamus - was unconstitutional.
c) An unconstitutional law is invalid and can’t be enforced
d) Therefore, the Supreme Court couldn’t issue the writ, and the case had to be dismissed

Question 22

How did Marbury v. Madison - John Marshall avoid the two issues

Answer 22

• He claimed the Court had the authority to decide the outcome of the case, but the proper decision was to declare that the relevant law was unconstitutional
• he asserted the Court’s power of judicial review, but didn’t use it in this case to challenge the other branches

Question 23

McCulloch v Maryland facts of the case

Answer 23

• The state of Maryland passed a law imposing a tax on banks that were not chartered by the state legislature
• McCulloch worked for the Maryland branch of the Bank of the United States and he refused to pay up
• Maryland sued him and won, but he appealed the decision, arguing the law was unconstitutional

Question 24

Two important questions raised in McCulloch v. Maryland

Answer 24

1. Does Congress have the authority to establish a national bank, even though it isn’t listed under the enumerated powers in Article 1? (limited government)

Answer: Yes, this allowed under the Necessary and Proper Clause because it’s in futherance of other, enumerated powers and not specifically prohibited by the Constitution

2. Could a state tax a federal institution (federalism and federal supremacy)

Answer: No, that would interfere with federal supremacy

Question 25

Marshall’s argument in McCulloch v. Maryland

Answer 25

• the federal government is one of enumerated powers
• The ‘Necessary and Proper’ Clause allows Congress to take actions that aren’t specifically granted in the Constitution, if

(1) Those actions are otherwise constitutional; and
(2) They are means to carrying out the enumerated powers in the Constitution

Question 26

McCulloch v. Maryland - in this case

Answer 26

1. Congress has explicit powers in economic matters, e.g., regulating interstate commerce
2. Nothing in the Constitution forbids Congress from establishing a bank.

Therefore,
3. Establishing a bank is a ‘necessary and proper’ way for Congress to carry out its enumerated powers

Question 27

Chief Justice Marshall’s Legacy

Answer 27

• judiciary claims the power of judicial review
• the judiciary takes on an important role to play in policing the separation of powers and enforcing federalism

Question 28

west virginia board of education v. barnette (1943)

Answer 28

• dealing with both free expression and freedom of religion
• case dealt with a state law requiring children in public schools to salute the flag everyday. Jehovah’s Witnesses have religious objections to saluting secular symbols.
• Walter Barnette claimed that forcing his children to salute the flag violated their First Amendment Rights

Question 29

Schenk v. United States

Answer 29

• Supreme Court addressed a WW1- era conviction for violating the Espionage Act of 1917, which made it a crime to interfere with the military draft.
• ‘refusal of duty’
• ‘shall willfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United State’

Question 30

Schenk v. United States

Answer 30

• Charles Schenk distributed leaflets arguing that the military draft was wrong and implying that potential soldiers shouldn’t go along with it

Question 31

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes explained his view of when the Free Speech Clause allowed the government to prohibit incitement (Schenk v. United States)

Answer 31

• ‘clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evil that Congress has a right to prevent’