Constitutional Law Kaplan Foundation Course MBE Questions Flashcards
Whether a party has “alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentations of the issues” is “the gist of the question of federal standing” [Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962)]
Under the constitutional standard imposed by the “case and controversy” requirement of Article III, personal standing requires a minimum concrete “personal stake” in the outcome by a two-fold showing of, first, “distinct and palpable injury” and, second, a “fairly traceable” causal connection between the claimed injury and the challenged conduct.
Under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, the “case or controversy” requirement establishes the concept that
federal court jurisdiction will not be exercised absent an actual and definite dispute between parties having adverse legal interests.
Protected classes include, male and females, which is protected, so the suit will
Is tested under “intermediate scrutiny” to satisfy this the requirement of Standing because the unequal treatment by an ordinance deals with males versus females might adversely affect the legal interests of all males who wish to engage in certain conduct afforded to females, thereby constituting an actual and definite dispute.
The President can only grant pardons or reprieves for
federal offenses. The President is not empowered to grant pardons for state offenses.
A treaty or act of Congress will supersede and take precedence over
An inconsistent executive agreement or order.
President’s actions, Restatement of Foreign Relations Law, 3d, takes the position that an executive agreement is effective and binding as long as it “does not supersede inconsistent provisions of earlier acts of Congress.”
As a general rule, matters involving foreign affairs involving Executive treaties are subject to what kind of judicial review are non-justiciable and immune from judicial review.
As a general rule, matters involving foreign affairs are non-justiciable and immune from judicial review.
The decided cases relate to foreign policy or international affairs (e.g., Cambodian bombing and legality of Vietnam War non-justiciable).
The executive agreement is constitutional as within the powers of the executive branch for matters involving foreign affairs, generally not subject to the judicial review, EXCEPT when
However, executive agreements relating to economic matters are generally subject to judicial review. For example, in United States v. Guy W. Capps, Inc. [348 U.S. 296 (1955)], a corporation had standing to challenge an executive agreement between Canada and the United States regulating potato exports by Canada. By the same token, private litigants were given standing to challenge President Carter’s executive order freezing Iranian assets.
Is the President (Executive Branch) permitted to have a limited administrative power to implement a statute.
Congress may delegate its power to do so to the President. First, the President has no authority to set regulatory standards. This is a legislative action. Congress has the power to legislate under its power to regulate interstate commerce.
Second, Congress may delegate certain of its enumerated powers to the President, the courts, or other administrative agencies.
When Congress attempts to delegate power under the constitution to the President, two general requirements must be met:
(1) the power must be one which Congress may delegate. Certain powers are constitutionally stated such that a delegation would be invalid (i.e., the power to declare war, to ratify treaties, to try cases of impeachment, etc.); and
(2) the delegation must contain at least some general guidelines such that a court could determine whether the delegatee had exceeded the authority granted by Congress. This would be a limited delegation of a small portion of Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce.
Moreover, the President’s determination of the proper percentage is subject to “specific standards” and “detailed procedures,” which would ensure that a court could determine if the President overstepped the authority granted by Congress.
Can an administrative order of a federal agency supersedes a conflicting state law.
As a general rule, the actions of federal agencies may preempt state law. “Federal regulations have no less preemptive effect than federal statutes. Where Congress has directed an administrator to exercise his discretion, his judgments are subject to judicial review only to determine whether he has exceeded his statutory authority or acted arbitrarily. When the administrator promulgates regulations intended to preempt state law, the court’s inquiry is similarly limited” [Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan Association v. De la Cuesta, 458 U.S. 141 (1982)].
The Supremacy Clause
The Supremacy Clause provides that when Congress intends to occupy a given field (preemption) or where an actual, direct conflict between a federal law and a state law exists, the state law will generally be invalidated.
Exception to the Supremacy Clause
However, if the subject matter has traditionally been left to the states, it is less likely to be found to be the subject of federal preemption. This is especially true in cases involving health and safety regulations.
The exercise of the state’s police power to provide for the health, safety, and welfare of its citizenry
The U.S. Supreme Court held that there was no preemption to Federal Law because the regulation of health and safety matters is primarily and historically a matter of local concern.
Intergovernmental immunity does not prevent
federal property used for proprietary purposes is not immune from nondiscriminatory state taxation.
While the Supremacy Clause prohibits state or local governments from directly regulating or taxing the federal government without its consent, a Tax that is not upon the federal government, but upon a private concessionaire using federal property, then
Such “property interest taxes” tax the user’s right to the use and enjoyment of federal property, although the property itself is exempt from the state taxation. As long as the property interest tax is nondiscriminatory, it is not constitutionally prohibited. Note that if the state attempted to tax the federal government directly (e.g., a state tax on rental receipts, including the federal government’s receipts from its concession lease to the plaintiff), would not be permitted
Determine if the tax is on the user leasing federal land in a state, or the federal government itself
Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution provides that Congress shall have the power to dispose of and make “all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property of the United States….
Use of this broad federal property power is subject to congressional discretion and not subject to state regulation. The federal property power is plenary and has been applied to the following areas: the establishment of legislative courts with powers not derived from Article III; and regulation of (1) wild animals on federal lands, (2) federal buildings and enclaves, (3) military ships and airplanes, and (4) Indian reservations. In light of the federal property power, Congress may validly convey the 1,000 acres of federal land to one group and not another.
If Congress conveys land to one group, and not another, the court should treat the action of Congress as (Constitutional or Unconstitutional)?
The court should treat the action of Congress as presumptively valid because the Constitution expressly gives Congress power to dispose of the territory or other property belonging to the United States.
Under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress is granted the exclusive power to coin money, which has what affect on State actions
Any attempt by the state or local governments to create a substitute or competitive currency will be struck down as violative of the exclusive federal power. Such as vouchers being used as a substitute for U.S. currency in the state. Thus, the state is substituting its own currency for legal U.S. tender in violation of the exclusive federal power to coin money.
Any state or local law that either directly or indirectly conflicts with federal law will be
Struck down as violative of the Supremacy Clause of Article VI.
The federal government has virtually unlimited power to regulate immigration policy and the conduct of U.S. foreign affairs with other nations. Therefore, a state government regulation seeking to
Penalizing, restricting or excluding the citizens of nations hostile to the US have been held could seriously undermine the efforts of the federal government to negotiate with these nations. Even when the federal government has not directly prohibited the states from acting in a particular area of regulation, state laws that act as an “obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress,” have been struck down [Hines v. Davidowitz 312 U.S. 52 (1941)].
The right to attend a state university should not be considered a
Fundamental right worthy of substantive due process protection. The Supreme Court has held in an analogous situation that public education is not a fundamental right [San Antonio v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973)]. In addition, denial of admission to the state university would be unlikely to warrant procedural due process protection either because there is nothing for a hearing to resolve.
(1) attending a state university is not a “privilege or immunity” of the Fourteenth Amendment; and (2) only U.S. citizens are protected under this clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Students should recognize that the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is extremely limited.
Under Article I, Section 9, Clause 7, Congress has plenary power to tax and spend for the general welfare, which means that
Congress has the power to appropriate funds for the general welfare, even though disparate treatment is given to different groups.
In United States v. Butler [297 U.S. 1 (1936)], the court held that Congress is not limited to spending only to achieve the specific powers granted in Article I of the Constitution. Congress may spend in any way it believes would serve the general welfare, as long as it does not violate another constitutional provision. An aid bill to subsidize one group over another for economic loss is clearly constitutional under Congress’s spending power.
If Congress requires the states to enact legislation using state agents or agencies, is in all likelihood to be deemed
Unconstitutional because Congress cannot “commandeer the legislative processes of the states by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program” [New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992)]. In New York, the court held that there are limits to Congress’s right to interfere with the states’ lawmaking processes, and Congress will violate the Tenth Amendment if it exceeds those limits.
Congress cannot commandeer the states to enact and enforce legislation.
Under Article I, Section 8, Congress shall have the power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” This plenary federal commerce power is held concurrently with the states, which
may freely govern matters that do not require uniform national regulation.
For a state regulation affecting interstate commerce to pass judicial scrutiny,
The State statute must be found reasonable and nondiscriminatory upon balancing the benefit to the state against the burden imposed on interstate commerce, such that no less restrictive alternative means of regulation is available.
Where a state statute may pose a discriminatory or undue burden on out-of-state interests, the USSC applies a “balancing test” [Pike v. Bruce Church, 397 U.S. 137 (1970)].
The Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause applies
only to actions by state and local governments, not to private companies, even where licensed by the state.
Insurance rate-setting policies of the private insurance company
do not involve state action. The state laws regulate only the licensing and solvency of insurance companies, not the premiums charged. State licensing of a private entity is not sufficient to render the discriminatory practices of the private entity state action within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment [Moose Lodge v. Irvis, 407 U.S. 163 (1972)]
