MBE Con Law

Question 1

11A

Answer 1

states and state official in their official capacity (not local officials, not in individual capacity).
But various exceptions: consent, abrogated (14A only, must be clear), injunctive relief (even if from fisc). Also can sue for damages in sister state’s court.

Question 2

Political questions

Answer 2

if no manageable standards
	Gauranty Clause 
	Foreign Affairs
	Impeachment procedures 
	Political gerrymandering

Question 3

Standing: basics, org, inj, taxpayers, leg, 3d party

Answer 3

injury, causation, redressability
Organizations: pass through standing
Injunctive: must have standing AS TO THAT RELIEF, Lyons
Taxpayers: standing to challenge tax liability, no general standing to challenge gov’t expenditurs
EXCEPTION: may challenge specific approps that violate Establishment Clause
Legislative: no standing to challenge laws they voted against
Third-party: generally not
EXCEPTION: party to exchnage/transaction (dr./abos; or saloon/18 yrs old)

Question 4

Defamation

Answer 4

P is public official (Obama, Romney):
P is general purpose public figure (Madonna, peyton manning)
P is limited purpose public figure (spokeswoman for MADD)
P thrust herself to forefront of controversy

Question 5

Line between indirect/direct taxes of federal instrumentalities.

Answer 5

The federal government and its instrumentalities (such as a national bank) are immune from taxation by the states. States may, however, impose generally applicable indirect taxes so long as they do not unreasonably burden the federal government (e.g., state income taxes on federal employees). The tax here is not so indirect as to be permitted, especially as it would create a burden on the federal government, which would be forced to apply different taxes to notes issued in national banks across the country. Answer choice A is incorrect because the state has no such absolute authority. This answer is overly vague, and further, the exchange of bank notes would be considered commercial.

Question 6

Purpose of a special needs search

Answer 6

Police may stop an automobile at a checkpoint without reasonable, individualized suspicion of a violation of the law if the stop is based on neutral, articulable standards and its purpose is closely related to an issue affecting automobiles. A roadblock to perform sobriety checks has been upheld, while a similar roadblock to perform drug checks has not. In this case, the checkpoint stops would constitute an unreasonable seizure because their purpose was to only to perform drug checks rather than to prevent an issue affecting automobiles (for example, driving safely). Answer choice A is incorrect because although the sniff provided probable cause for the search of the trunk, the evidence seized would not be admissible because the stop itself violated the Fourth Amendment. Answer choice B is incorrect because, even if the standards are neutral and articulable, the purpose of the stop must be permissible. Checkpoint stops to perform drug tests are not permissible.

Question 7

Warrants must…

Answer 7

State with particularity the tiems to be seized

e Fourth Amendment requires that a search warrant state with particularity the items to be seized. The warrant in this case failed to do so. Answer choice B is incorrect. Probable cause may be based on an informant’s tip where the officer’s affidavit also establishes the informant’s reliability or other justification for relying on the tip. Answer choice C is incorrect because, although the magistrate was aware of the items to be seized at the time that the magistrate issued the warrant and the police officer only seized an item specified in the affidavit, the dictates of the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement were not satisfied. Consequently, the search was by definition unreasonable