federalism

Question 1

The study of which public functions are most efficiently delivered when operated/delivered by a larger, centralized national government, and which public functions operate most efficiently when decentralized and operated by more local (and accountable) government entities is called ____ ____.

In the United States, federal grants play an important role in this by transferring money from the centralized ____
government to the more decentralized ____
governments.

Answer 1

fiscal, federalism, federal, state

Question 2

The Supreme Court ruled that 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act unconstitutionally exceeded the power of Congress to legislate under the Commerce Clause in a case called ____ ____ v. ____.

It held that the possession of a gun in a local school zone is not an economic activity with a substantial impact on ____ commerce. It said that it was instead a ____ statute that didn’t have anything to do with any sort of economic activity.

Therefore, the possession of guns in school zones could only be regulated and criminalized by ____ governments.

In response, Congress passed the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1994 that withheld federal funding from states that do not adopt a zero-tolerance law for guns in school zones.

Answer 2

United States, Lopez, interstate, criminal, state

Question 3

Regarding domestic environmental policy, Congress has taken the following actions in an attempt to improve environmental conditions:

1970 - Passed the Clean Air Act (signed by President Nixon) to regulate the discharge of air contaminants with the aim of reducing them
1970 - Passed the National Environmental Policy Act (signed by President Nixon) requiring government agencies to file an environmental ____ statement any time a policy might impact the environment
1970 - President Nixon created the ____ ____ ____ to oversee federal environmental policy recommendations, implementation, and regulation.
1972 - Passed the Clean Water Act (signed by President Nixon) to regulate discharges of pollutants into the ____ waters of the United States
1973 - Passed the Endangered Species Act (signed by President Nixon) empowering the National ____ and ____ ____ to protect endangered species.
1980 - Passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (signed by President Carter) which created ____. It required manufacturers, producers, and importers of chemicals to pay a special excise tax into a fund that then finances environmental cleanups of toxic chemicals - particularly in instances in which the company responsible is no longer in operation.
Most of these actions relied on Congress’ ____ Clause powers since environmental policy tends to impact more than one state and be directly impacted by commercial activities.

Answer 3

impact, Environmental, Protection, Agency, navigable, Fish, Wildlife, Service, Superfund, Commerce

Question 4

The doctrine that Congress may only regulate a commercial activity when a uniform national rule is required is called ____ ____. Otherwise, Chief Justice John Marshall asserted in Ogden v. Gibbons that states retained exclusive regulatory authority over internal, intrastate commercial activity.

Answer 4

selective exclusiveness

Question 5

Simone is an architect and after working long and hard hours for a large, nationally-known architecture firm, and saving as much as she could, she was finally able to fulfill her dream of opening her own architectural firm called Built Environments by Simone, LLC (“BE by Simone, LLC”)

Her first client signed a contract with BE by Simone to design a house to be built by a builder. However, when Simone submitted her billings to the client, the client insisted that he didn’t have to pay Simone because the contract wasn’t valid. He asserted that only people could enter into contracts - not soulless companies who only existed to profit from poor people.

However, Simone’s lawyer informed her that under 1
Dartmouth
v. 2
Woodward
, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that companies can enter into and enforce contracts - just like a person can.

After Simone successfully sued the client for her billings (including attorney’s fees,) she submitted a proposal to design a new City Hall for very own hometown. She was disappointed that she didn’t get the project, but was stunned when the mayor of the town accidentally hit Reply All and, while writing to another individual that Simone was accidentally copied on, suggested that BE by Simone was never seriously considered for the project because Simone was a black female.

Simone replied back to the mayor that it was illegal under existing civil rights laws for the government to discriminate against her on the basis of her race and gender. The mayor was embarrassed by his technological mistake in accidentally hitting Reply All, but he said that those laws didn’t apply because he technically wasn’t discriminating against her - he was discriminating against her company. Since companies don’t have races or genders, her company couldn’t sue him or the city for discriminating against her architectural company.

She forwarded the email chain to her lawyer who informed her that under the U.S. Supreme Court’s precedent in 3
Pembina
v. 4
Pennsylvania
, companies are actually covered by the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause, also.

After losing the Equal Protection Clause lawsuit against BE by Simone, the mayor was very upset. Soon after, BE by Simone was notified by the city that it would be exercising its 5
eminent
6
domain
powers in order to dispossess BE by Simone of its office in order to build a public bathroom - just so Simone would know exactly what he thought about her.

Simone’s architectural practice had been doing so well - maybe in part to the publicity she had received from all of the lawsuits she had been winning after being treated so unfairly by powerful interests - that she had actually been thinking of buying a piece of property and building a bigger office to accommodate more employees working for her. So, she wasn’t too upset - until she read that the city planned to pay her $100 for her office.

Simone had poured her life savings into building this architecture practice, and the mayor was attempting to bankrupt her by giving her nothing for the office she bought. She immediately got an appraisal for her office, which came back with an appraised value of $500,000. Simone called the city to tell them that there was no way they could take this office she had worked so hard to afford. She knew that the government had to pay a person what a property was worth if it wanted to take it. However, the mayor told her that only applied to people - not to corporations. And, since the title to the office was technically held by BE by Simone, LLC instead of Simone herself, the city didn’t have to pay her a dime. She should take the $100 and be grateful.

Simone called her attorney and said, “here we go again. Please, tell me this can’t be right.” Her attorney informed her that, once again, the city was very wrong. Under the Supreme Court’s precedent in the 7
Gospel
8
in
9
Foreign
10
Parts
v. 11
Town
12
of
13
Pawlett
(1823,) the 14
fifth
(spell it out) Amendment’s Just Compensation Clause and Takings Clause – which required the government to prove it was taking a property for a public use and to pay “just compensation” (which has been interpreted to be fair 15
market
value) – both applied to corporations such as much as they applied to people.

Once the city received BE by Simone’s attorney’s brief on the issue, the city decided to not proceed with the public bathroom in place of her office.

Months later, a house that was designed by BE by Simone caught fire and someone tragically died inside the house in the fire.

The mayor saw his chance to get back at Simone and has his good friend the District Attorney file charges against BE by Simone for criminal negligence in designing the house that caused the person to die in the fire. The District Attorney asked for the trial to be in front of the judge - without a jury. However, the judge had gone to law school with the District Attorney and BE by Simone’s attorney was afraid that the firm would not get a fair trial.

So, he requested a jury trial - which one is entitled to under the 16
sixth
(spell it out) Amendment.

The District Attorney responded that only people are entitled to jury trials in criminal cases under the 17
sixth
(spell it out) Amendment - not people. However, when BE by Simone’s attorney replied that according to the Supreme Court precedent in 18
Armour
19
Packing
v. 20
United
21
States
corporations are entitled to jury trials in criminal cases, also, the judge in the case (to his credit) ruled that BE by Simone was entitled to a jury trial.

After BE by Simone was acquitted of any criminal wrongdoing in the trial (which showed that it was caused by arson - not by any defects in the house’s design,) the District Attorney thought he could get a different result if he could just get a more favorable jury.

So, he filed new charges against BE by Simone for the same incident.

Citing the Supreme Court precedent in 22
Fong
23
Foo
v. 24
United
25
States
, the judge dismissed the new charges which he said protects corporations from being tried for the same crime twice, which is called 26
double
27
jeopardy
, just as much as individual citizens are.

Finally, Simone had enough. There was a mayoral election coming up, and she used the money that was in her company’s bank account to buy advertisements telling everyone to vote against the mayor and detailing how she had been persecuted by him. She said that corrupt, unethical bullies like the mayor should be thrown out of office.

The city sued her, claiming that it was illegal for her to use funds from her business to buy political advertisements. However, the judge once again ruled for BE by Simone, LLC citing the Supreme Court’s precedent in 28
Citizens
29
United
v. 30
Federal
31
Election
32
Commission
which extended 33
First
(spell it out) Amendment free speech rights (especially for political speech) to corporations and labor unions.

What Simone really learned from all of this is that if corporations weren’t treated like a 34
person
under the law, the mayor would have been able to bully, bankrupt, and discriminate against her - and the employees who worked for her - just because her assets were tied up in this company she was trying to build.

Question 6

There has been overlap and uncertainty regarding marriage under the Constitution.

Article 1
IV
of the Constitution says that state have to recognize the “public acts” (marriage and divorce decrees, criminal convictions, civil liability verdicts, etc.) We call this the 2
Full
3
Faith
4
and
5
Credit
Clause.

However, states have traditionally been understood to define what marriage is because of the 6
Tenth
7
Amendment
to the Constitution which states that all powers not given to the federal government (in Article 8
I
Section 9
8
) or denied to the states (in Article 10
I
Section 11
10
) are reserved to the states and to the people.

This became an issue when a few states legalized same-sex marriages while they remained illegal and/or unconstitutional in 46 states.

During this time, many states elevated their prohibitions against same-sex marriage from being simply illegal to unconstitutional via popular ballot initiatives and state legislative acts in order to try to take advantage of the Supreme Court’s public policy exception to the clause referenced above on the theory that making it unconstitutional would demonstrate that same-sex marriages were against the state’s public policy.

Eventually, a case reached the Supreme Court called 12
Obergefell
v. 13
Hodges
in order to resolve the issue.

In an opinion by Justice 14
Anthony
15
Kennedy
, a closely divided 5-vote majority of the Supreme Court decided the following questions:

1. Are states constitutionally required to perform same-sex marriages under the 16
   Fourteenth
   Amendment’s Equal Protection and Due Process clauses?

The court answered 17
yes
(yes or no.)

2. Are states required to recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other states under Article 18
   V
   ‘s 19
   Full
   20
   Faith
   21
   and
   22
   Credit
   Clause.

The court answered 23
yes
(yes/no.)

We call the part of a Supreme Court’s majority opinion which receives at least five votes from the nine-member court and becomes law and a precedent of the court that applies to future cases a 24
holding
.

We call the part of a Supreme Court opinion in which the justices in the minority explain why they disagreed with the majority’s opinion a 25
dissent
.

In his opinion disagreeing with the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts stated that same-sex marriage might be good policy but the thrust of his disagreement with the majority’s opinion was two-fold:

1. He made a 26
   federalist
   argument that it was not a power given to the federal government in Constitution and was primarily the province of the states under the Tenth Amendment.
2. He made a 27
   separation
   28
   of
   29
   powers
   argument that it was a policy argument that the Constitution doesn’t speak to and was best left to the 30
   legislative
   branches of the states.

Question 7

Our federalist system of government allows states to take the lead in some environmental policy, if they so choose.

For example, California has passed a statewide system whereby manufacturers are given a certain number of allowances to emit carbon from the state. The total amount of allowances has a cap that declines over time. If a manufacturer needs to emit more carbon than they were given allowances by the state, they have to buy them from other producers (who could theoretically generate excess credits to sell by finding ways to emit less carbon over time.) This is intended to leverage a market mechanism to foster innovation in achieving a state goal - reducing carbon emissions.

This system is called 1
cap
2
and
3
trade
.

The trade-off is that electricity prices in California are almost double those in Texas. Electricity generation is a major carbon emitting industry.

Question 8

A structure within a society that connects the people to the government or centralized authority is called a 1
linakge
2
institution
.

Examples include elections, political parties, special interest groups (ACLU, NRA, NAACP, PETA, Sierra Club,) and the media.

Question 9

The government enjoys immunity from lawsuits under a doctrine called 1
sovereign
2
immunity
.

The government may waive this right by passing a law granting citizens the right to sue the government under certain circumstances.

There are two type of immunity:

1. There are instances in which the government and government officials cannot be sued under any circumstances (such as when a judge renders a verdict, a lawmaker passes legislation that may harm someone - particularly their economic interests, or other cases in which a government official is acting in his/her official capacity.) This is called 3
   absolute
   immunity.
2. There are instance in which the government and government officials cannot be sued or held liable unless certain circumstances are met. For example, one cannot generally sue a police officer for carrying out his official duties unless he engages in particularly egregious brutality. This is called 4
   qualified
   immunity.

Question 10

A law that applies retroactively is called an 1
ex
2
post
3
facto
law.

The federal government is 4
denied
(denied/allowed) the power to pass these laws under Article 5
I
Section 6
9
.

State governments are 7
denied
(denied/allowed) the power to pass these laws under Article 8
I
Section 9
10
.

Question 11

In 1996, voters circulated a petition to place the Compassionate Use Act (Proposition 215) on the state ballot. It legalized the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes with a doctor’s prescription. The initiative passed with 55.6% of the vote.

This was an example of 1
direct
or 2
participatory
(alphabetical order) democracy.

When this became the state law in California, it was in conflict with a federal law called the 3
Controlled
4
Substances
5
Act
passed in 1970 as part of the Nixon administration’s War on Drugs.

When the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) seized doctor-prescribed marijuana from a California individual’s home, a group of activists sued the DEA and U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft (who was replaced by former Texas Supreme Court Justice and former Texas Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez before the case reached the Supreme Court,) in a case called 6
Gonzalez
v. 7
Raich
(2005,) after the district court ruled for the 8
defendant
(plaintiff/defendant; plaintiff = medical marijuana user; defendant = government) and after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for the 9
appellee
(appellant/appellee; the party that lost at the district/trial court and is appealing is the appellant; the party that won at the trial court level is the appellee.)

At the Supreme Court, the 10
appellant
(appellant/appellee) prevailed.

The majority ruling by Justice 11
John
12
Paul
13
Stevens
, one of the most liberal members of the court at the time, upheld the government’s confiscation on the basis that it was a valid exercise of the the federal government’s 14
Commerce
Clause authority which grants the federal government the right to regulate 15
international
and 16
interstate
(alphabetical order) commerce (but not 17
intrastate
commerce.)

Justices Antonin Scalia (the court’s second most conservative member), Anthony Kennedy (a “swing vote”,) David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer (all three more left-leaning members of the court) joined the majority opinion.

The court’s reasoning held that even though the marijuana that was the subject of this case never crossed state boundaries (it was grown and consumed in California without ever crossing a state or national boundary,) it impacted the 18
supply
19
and
20
demand
(hint: it’s an economics term) for marijuana in the the national marijuana market. Therefore, in order to regulate the national market, the court reasoned that regulating purely local commerce trading in this product was also necessary.

In his dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas - the court’s most conservative member - argued that the federal government lacked the ability to regulate the marijuana at hand because it never crossed state lines and therefore the regulation of marijuana was strictly the province of the state. He was joined by then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist and then-Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

Question 12

In order for a private sea vessel to wage war on behalf of the government it requires a 1
Letter
of 2
Marque
and 3
Reprisal
.

The federal government is 4
allowed
(denied/allowed) this power according to Article 5
I
Section 6
8
.

The state governments are 7
denied
(denied/allowed) this power according to Article 8
I
Section 9
10
.

Question 13

The crime of 1
racketeering
involves organized crime setting up a coercive, fraudulent, extortionary, or otherwise illegal coordinated scheme or operation to repeatedly or consistently collect a profit (e.g. when the mafia asks store owners to pay them “protection money.”)

Question 14

The idea that the national government exercises supremacy in its constitutionally-empowered sphere and that state law is supreme in the spheres not delegated to the federal government nor denied to the state governments is called 1
dual
2
federalism
.

Question 15

When the federal government returns power to the states, we call it 1
devolution
.

This was a major initiative of the 2
Reagan
administration’s “New Federalism” project, but its biggest successes didn’t come to fruition until the 3
Clinton
administration in the 1990s - which included 4
mandate
reform that embolden states to take more control of how government assistance was distributed to its residents as well as outlawing unfunded mandates.

This was noteworthy, because the two administrations belonged to different 5
political
6
parties
(hint: organized groups of activists that helped get them elected.)

Question 16

The City Council of Washington, DC passes a law declaring that it is a basic human right for people to live on any public land.

Unfortunately, this causes the plight of the homeless to become quite visible to residents, visitors, and Congressmen, alike.

In response, Congress (which includes no members elected by the residents of the District of Columbia) passes a law restricting where people may camp in the District of Columbia, reversing the actions of the Washington, DC City Council.

This is possible because the residents of the District of Columbia live in a 1
unitary
form of government in which their local government has no power that is not subject to the national government’s power. Any decisions made by the DC City Council are exercises of powers that have been granted (and can be taken away) by the national government.

This would be a valid exercise of federal power because Article 2
I
Section 3
8
gives Congress the power to exercise exclusive legislation over the District of Columbia.

Question 17

When a government returns an individual to another government’s jurisdiction in order to stand trial, the individual is said to have been 1
extradited
(past tense.)

When the two government are both national governments, they have to have a 2
treaty
in order to facilitate this action, and they often place conditions on the return. For example, Mexico will not send someone to the United States to stand trial unless the death penalty is excluded as a possible punishment because it is unconstitutional under Mexican law.

Under Article 3
IV
of the Constitution, states are required to send individuals to other states to stand trial. States 4
may not
(may/may not) attach conditions to returning an individual to stand trial..

Question 18

When something was formerly illegal becomes legal, we say it has been 1
legalized
.

When something that was illegal remains illegal, but the punishment has been dramatically reduced (to something comparable to a speeding ticket,) we say it has been 2
decriminalized
.

Question 19

The transportation of women across state lines for “immoral purposes” was criminalized by Congress by the (unironically named) 1
Mann
Act of 1910.

Therefore, if a woman was transported from a small town in West Texas to Houston - to engage in prostitution (whether or not she was a willing participant who had obtained majority age - the individual who transported her could only be tried in 2
state
court. (hint: level of government.)

However, if an individual transported her to Las Vegas to engage in prostitution (with all of the same stipulations,) one could be tried in either 3
federal
or 4
state
court (hint: levels of government listed in alphabetical order.)

However, if a man were transported across state lines for “immoral purposes,” the individual who transported the man 5
couldn’t
(could/couldn’t) be prosecuted under this statute - which could be a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s 6
Equal
7
Protection
8
Clause
.

Question 20

Originally, the Bill of Rights only applied to the 1
federal
government. The Supreme Court has used the 2
fourteenth
(spell it out) Amendment, ratified in 1868) to apply most of the Bill of Rights to 3
state
governments, also.

We call this application of the Bill of Rights to the states 4
incorporation
.

Question 21

Although administration of education is considered to be a 1
power of the states under the Constitution, the federal government has used its power to spend to induce states to help them achieve national goals in this area of national policy interest.

In 1954, the Supreme Court held in 2
Brown
v. 3
Board
4
of
5
Education
that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause required schools to be 6
desegregated
.

In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act which provided funding to states for schools that met the requirements (titles) of the act. This is why today we refer to economically disadvantaged schools as being Title 7
I
(roman numeral) schools. It was generally well received by the states since it provided a lot of extra money with relatively few strings attached.

In 2002, President George W. Bush (R) signed the No Child Left Behind Act into law - which was co-authored and sponsored by U.S. Sen. Teddy Kennedy (D-MA.) It held states accountable for student achievement which was measured on high stakes 8
standardized
tests. If schools failed to meet adequate yearly progress (AYP,) they could see a reduction in federal funding. It was less well received by states due to the pressure of the possibility of losing funding.

Something interesting about these two major education initiatives is that both president who pushed them and signed them into law were originally from the state of 9
Texas
.

In 2015, the Every Student Succeeds Act was signed by President Obama. It kept the standards set by No Child Left Behind, but it returned accountability to the states. This would be an example of 10
devolution
.

Question 22

The United States under the U.S. Constitution has a 1
federal
type of government in which the state government and national government are co-equal sovereigns with Constitutionally delegated powers.

According to the 2
Supremacy
Clause in Article 3
VI
, the national government’s laws overrule state laws in areas in which the Constitution has delegated it power to legislate (which can be found in Article 4
I
Section 5
8
of the Constitution.)

We call these 6
exclusive
powers, and they fall into two categories: those that are specifically listed which are called 7
enumerated
powers, and those that flow from the listed powers which we call 8
implied
powers. The 9
Necessary
and 10
Proper
Clause (also called the 11
Elastic
Clause) authorizes Congress to exercise these powers that aren’t listed in order to carry out the powers that are listed.

All powers not delegated to the national government nor denied to the state governments in Article 12
I
Section 13
10
are within the authority of the state government according to the 14
tenth
(spell it out) 15
amendment
.

We call these state powers 16
police
or 17
reserved
powers (list in alphabetical order.)

Powers that are exercised by both the national and state governments are called 18
concurrent
powers.

Question 23

When the United States established a branch of the Second Bank of the United States in Baltimore, the state of Maryland attempted to drive it out of the state by making all banks that weren’t chartered by the state of Maryland pay a $1
15,000
(use commas) tax (the equivalent of $350,000 in 2022 USD.)

Mr. McCulloch was the chief 2
cashier
of the bank and refused to pay the tax - which set up the landmark Supreme Court case, McCulloch v. Maryland which was presided over by Chief Justice 3
John
4
Marshall
.

Question 24

According to the Commerce Compromise, the federal government is allowed to tax 1
imports
but not 2
exports
.

Question 25

The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) is a special interest advocacy group that formed in 1970 to advocate for the legalization and/or decriminalization of marijuana.

This pressure group is an example of 1
pluralist
democracy.

Question 26

Although the Constitution contains no preference rules for adjudicating disputes between the states beyond empowering the Supreme Court in Article 1
III
Section 2
2
to exercise original jurisdiction over legal disputes between the states, we refer to the relationship between the states under the federal government as 3
horizontal
4
federalism
.

Question 27

When the federal government offers money to induce states to perform an action that the federal government either lacks power/authority to make states perform or if their power/authority is unclear, we call that a federal 1
grants
.

These fall into two categories:

1. Those with lots of strings attached are called 2
   categorical
   3
   grants
   and require states to perform often long lists of specific tasks in order to receive the money; and
2. Those for a general purpose (like to improve education or expand access to healthcare) are called 4
   block
   5
   grants
   and have fewer strings attached. They allow states to use the money as they see fit to best achieve the stated objective within their states.

When the federal government requires states to perform a task that they have the power and authority to require states to perform, it is called a federal 6
mandate
.

These fall into two categories:

1. Those that the federal government provides money to help states implement the requirements, called 7
   funded
   8
   mandates
   ; and
2. Those that the federal government does not provide money to help states implement, called 9
   unfunded
   10
   mandates
   .

These have been illegal since 1995 when President 11
Bill
12
Clinton
signed a law passed by a 13
democratic
-controlled (political party) Congress that outlawed the practice.

Question 28

In 1918, the Supreme Court initially constrained Congress’ ability to regulate using the Commerce Clause by separating the production of goods, 1
manufacturing
, from the exchange of goods for money, 2
commerce
in a case called 3
Hammer
v. 4
Dagenhart
. As a result, only 5
state
governments could regulate child labor since it primarily had to deal with the production of goods.

In 1941, the Supreme Court reversed this precedent in a case called 6
United
7
States
v. 8
Darby
, in which it evaluated the constitutionality of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) after a lumber manufacturer was charged with violating the act when it produced lumber in one state and then transported it across state lines.

Relying heavily on the court’s reasoning in Gibbons v. Ogden, the court stated that the FLSA was passed to prevent states from using substandard labor practices to their own economic advantage in interstate commerce, so therefore Congress acted lawfully in outlawing these practices.

Question 29

A 1
bill
2
of
3
attainder
is when an individual is convicted of a crime by legislation instead of by a jury.

The federal government is 4
denied
(denied/allowed) this power according to Article 5
I
Section 6
9
.

The state government is 7
denied
(denied/allowed) this power according to Article 8
I
Section 9
10
.

Question 30

In 1915, it became a federal offense to knowingly drive a stolen car across state lines under the 1
Automobile
2
Theft
Act.

As a result, if someone stole a car in Houston and drove it to Houston, the individual could only stand trial in 3
state
court. (hint: level of government.)

If someone stole a car in Houston and drove it to New Orleans, the individual could stand trial in either 4
federal
court or 5
state
court (hint: levels of government listed in alphabetical order.)

Of course in both Texas and in the federal court system, trial courts are called 6
district
courts.

Question 31

The two major issues facing the Supreme Court in McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819 were:

1. Could the United States establish a 1
   bank
   in a state (in this case, Maryland;)

The Supreme Court answered 2
yes
(yes/no) because it was an 3
enumerated
power of the federal government that flowed from their 4
commerce
powers to coin and borrow money, collect taxes, write bankruptcy laws, and punish counterfeiting.

2. Could a state (again, in this case Maryland) 5
   tax
   an institution of the federal government?

The Supreme Court answered 6
no
because the power to 7
tax
is exercised by 8
sovereigns
, and the subjects of a 9
sovereign
cannot 10
tax
those who exercise 11
power
over them.

Question 32

There have been several international climate pacts with the goal of increasing international cooperation in improving global environmental conditions.

1997 - President Bill Clinton agreed to the Kyoto Protocols in an attempt to fight climate change, but it was not ratified by the U.S. Senate because it fell short of the 1
3
/2
4
(proportion) support required to become an enforceable international treaty.
2015 - President Barack Obama joined the 2015 Paris Agreement via 3
executive
4
order
(spell it out) since he knew he would be unable to get the necessary support in the U.S. Senate to ratify the agreement as an enforceable treaty. However, this did have the effect of directing federal agencies to attempt to comply with the Paris Agreement where possible and permitted under existing law.

2017 - President Donald Trump withdraws the United States from the Paris Agreement via the same method used by President Obama to enter into it.

In response, 25 states vowed to adhere to the Paris Agreement standards, however they were barred from officially joining as parties to the agreement by Article 5
I
Section 6
10
which prohibits states from entering into international treaties because it is a power exclusively delegated to the federal government.

However, in spite of not being a party fo the Paris Agreement, from 2005-2018 the United States actually led the world in the reduction in carbon emissions due to a peculiar reason. Due to the development of hydraulic fracturing (also known as 7
fracking
) the United States was able to dramatically increase its production and supply of natural gas. This caused natural gas prices to 8
decrease
(increase/decrease) relative to coal, which produces twice as many carbon emissions compared to natural gas. As a result, a large quantity of electric power production switched from coal to 9
natural
10
gas
, which increased its share of electric power production from 19% to 38% over that period of time.

2021 - President Joe Biden re-joins the Paris Agreement via 11
executive
12
order
(spell it out,) the same method used by President Obama to join and later President Trump to withdraw. Since a president can unilaterally withdraw the country from a treaty without approval by the U.S. Senate, the major difference in joining an international agreement this way instead of by a ratified treaty is that it cannot be enforced outside the Executive Branch. The judiciary cannot and will not force any other entity to comply with the terms of the agreement in the same way they would enforce a ratified treaty.

Question 33

The United States’ first national governing document was the 1
Articles
2
of
3
Confederation
. It created a highly decentralized/very weak central government that had almost no power that was not granted to it by the states. We call this a 4
confederal
type of government.

Question 34

The concept that the state and federal governments work together on issues and programs in which they have a common interest is called 1
cooperative
2
federalism
.

Question 35

In 2000, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government did not have the constitutional authority to enact the Violence Against Women Act under the Commerce Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment in a case called 1
United
2
States
v. 3
Morrison
.

Writing for the majority, then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote that “[I]f the allegations here are true, no civilized system of justice could fail to provide [Brzonkala] a remedy for the conduct of…[Mr.] Morrison. But under our federal system that remedy must be provided by the Commonwealth of 4
Virginia
, and not by the United States.”

As a result, the criminalization of violence against women remains largely a duty of 5
state
governments to prosecute.

In his dissent, Justice David Souter argued that the Supreme Court should have upheld the Violence Against Women Act as a constitutional exercise of Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause because violence against women would lead to some women dying, and that in turn would impact the 6
supply
7
and
8
demand
(hint: economics term) for goods that have a national market and cross state lines.

Question 36

The Eleventh Amendment was ratified in 1795 to grant states sovereign immunity from lawsuits.

It was passed in response to the Supreme Court case called 1
Chisholm
v. 2
Georgia
in which the Supreme Court ruled 4-1 that Article 3
III
Section 4
2
which gave power to the Supreme Court to hear cases involving the states and private individuals made state actions subject to judicial review.

There are three exceptions to this:

1. 5
   Congressional
   6
   abrogation
   . These are cases in which Congress passes a law that clearly states that states are subject to being sued pursuant to a valid exercise of federal power. For example, Congress could pass a law to allow private individuals to sue the state if one’s Fourteenth Amendment rights were being violated.
2. The Ex Parte Young exception states that a private litigant can bring a lawsuit against a state for prospective injunctive relief in order to end “a continuing violation of 7
   federal
   8
   law
   .”
3. 9
   Voluntary
   10
   waiver
   is the final exception, and it occurs when a state law or the state constitution allows the state to be sued, or if the state accepts federal funds that contain a provision that requires states to allow themselves to be sued (usually for actions related to how they use the funds.)

The notable Eleventh Amendment Supreme Court cases include:

1. 11
   Hans
   v. 12
   Louisiana
   which clarified that the Eleventh Amendment also prohibits residents of a state from suing the state (not just residents of other states.)
2. 13
   Seminole
   14
   Tribe
   15
   of
   16
   Florida
   v. 17
   Florida
   (1996) in which the Supreme Court held (in a closely divided 5-4 opinion by then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist) that the state could not be sued for violating the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act’s (IGRA) requirement that the state engaging in “good faith negotiations” with the Indian tribe, and although Congress did intend to abrogate state sovereign immunity under the IGRA it was not a valid exercise of federal power because the Indian Commerce Clause did not cover the activity.
3. In 18
   Alden
   v. 19
   Maine
   (1999), the Supreme Court (in another closely divided 5-4 opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy with the same justices in the majority and in the minority as were in the previous case) held that states can assert Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity in their own state courts (as opposed to only in federal court.)

Question 37

In 1808, the New York Legislature granted to Robert Livingston and Robert Fulton a 20-year monopoly to operate steamboats in New York waters. Mr. Fulton then licensed Aaron Ogden to operate a steamboat between New York and New Jersey (in exchange for a tidy fee.)

However, in 1818, the U.S. Congress licensed Thomas Gibbons to operate steamboats between New York and New Jersey.

Mr. Ogden then sued Mr. Gibbons in New York state court, claiming his exclusive license (which he obtained from the state of New York via Mr. Fulton) to operate steamboats between New York and New Jersey had been violated.

The New York state court sided with Mr. Ogden and issued an 1
injunction
against Mr. Gibbons - which forbid him from continuing to operate steamboats between New York and New Jersey.

Mr. Gibbons 2
appealed
the New York state court’s ruling to the United States Supreme Court, asking the high court to review the decision. They agreed to do so.

The Supreme Court concluded that since 3
interstate
navigation was inherent in Congress’ power to regulate 4
interstate
commerce enumerated in Article I Section 8, it was the exclusive domain of the federal government to regulate these waterways.

Therefore, New York’s attempt to regulate these waterways was unconstitutional because it was in conflict with the 5
Supremacy
Clause in Article VI.

As a result, the temporary monopoly that was licensed to Mr. Ogden (via Mr. Fulton) was invalid.

Initially, this ruling wasn’t seen as very important because most commerce in the United States at the time was 6
intrastate
and did not cross state lines. However, the 7
Industrial
8
Revolution
– which began in Great Britain in the mid-1700s took off in the United States in the late 1800s – brought about larger supply chains. As a result of improvements in manufacturing, transportation, and communication technologies, commerce more frequently involved multiple parties across different states.

As these supply chains and transportation networks grew, so did Congress’ 9
Commerce
Clause powers.

Question 38

A major Supreme Court case of great historical and legal significance that has great effect throughout the country is called a 1
landmark
case. They often concern individual rights and civil liberties.