Quiz Questions Flashcards
It has been argued that Chief Justice Marshall might well have interpreted the statute in question differently in Marbury v. Madison (1803). If he had (but everything else remained the same) which of the following statements would be valid?
A) The statute would have been ruled unconstitutional.
B) Marbury would not have had his commission delivered.
C) The decision would have established judicial review of state judicial acts.
D) The decision would have established judicial review of state legislative acts.
E) Both (A) and (D).
F) None of the above.
B) Marbury would not have had his commission delivered.
Some commentators have argued that judicial review is “antidemocratic.” Which of the valid arguments below tends to support that claim?
A) Members of Congress take the same oath to the Constitution as do the justices. Why should we assume that they are less loyal to the words of that document than the justices?
B) Federal judges (including justices of the Court) are subject to impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate (provided both act by approval of two-thirds vote).
C) Federal judges are appointed by the president, subject to approval by a two-thirds vote of the Senate.
D) Choice (B), except that the House needs only a majority vote to impeach.
E) Choice (C), except that the Senate may approve by a simple majority
F) Both (D) and (E).
A) Members of Congress take the same oath to the Constitution as do the justices. Why should we assume that they are less loyal to the words of that document than the justices?
It has been argued that Chief Justice Marshall cynically manipulated his opinion in Marbury so as to “have his cake and eat it too.” Which of the following arguments tends to support that claim?
A) He should have interpreted the statute differently. It would have made more sense to read it as giving the Court original jurisdiction in a mandamus case against the Secretary of State.
B) He should have interpreted the Constitution differently. It would have made more sense to read it as a prohibition against Congress’s ability to expand the Court’s original jurisdiction.
C) He should have recused himself from the case as he had in a similar (although not identical) situation in Cohens v. Virginia.
D) He should have avoided a decision on the merits of the case by dealing first with the constitutional issue.
E) Both (A) and (D).
F) None of the above.
D) He should have avoided a decision on the merits of the case by dealing first with the constitutional issue.
Which of the following statements is valid?
A) The power of judicial review exercised in Marbury is nowhere expressed in the Constitution; it is merely implied.
B) The U.S. Supreme Court may review the decision of a lower federal court regarding the proper interpretation of a federal statute but if the lawsuit was initiated in state court, once the highest court in that state rules on that interpretation the U.S. Supreme Court has no constitutional power to review the ruling.
C) No federal judge, after being impeached, has been convicted and removed from office by the Senate.
D) Both (A) and (B).
E) All of the above.
F) None of the above.
A) The power of judicial review exercised in Marbury is nowhere expressed in the Constitution; it is merely implied.
Who is arguably “activist?”
A) Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury in that he was willing to overrule pertinent precedent regarding interpretation of the statute in issue.
B) Chief Justice Marshall in Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816).
C) The majority in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) (upholding a state law mandating racial segregation in public transportation) in that it was willing to interpret the equal protection clause in a manner that virtually all legal thought today condemns as immoral and illegal.
D) The majority in Brown v. Bd. of Educ. (1954) in that it overruled Plessy.
E) Both (B) and (C).
D) The majority in Brown v. Bd. of Educ. (1954) in that it overruled Plessy.
The judicial review power of the U.S. Supreme Court is subject to certain “external” limitations; i.e., limitations which may be imposed by governmental branches other than the judicial. These include which of the following?
A) Standing doctrine.
B) Ripeness doctrine.
C) Mootness doctrine.
D) Political Question doctrine.
E) All of the above.
F) None of the above.
F) None of the above.
f you had been counsel to the state of Maryland in McCulloch v. Md. (1819) you might reasonably have argued:
A.) “Your Honor, we must never forget it is a Constitution we are expounding.”
B.) “Your Honor, we fought a long, hard war against a strong and therefore oppressive central government. The stronger the central government the more likely it is to become oppressive.”
C.) “If it please the Court, the words ‘necessary’ and ‘proper’ cannot mean the same thing.”
D.) “If it please the Court, the necessary and proper clause is located in Art. I, Sec. 8, not Art. I, Sec. 9.”
E.) Both (B) and (C).
F.) None of the above.
E.) Both (B) and (C).
If you had been counsel to the United States in McCulloch, you might reasonably have argued:
A.) “Your Honor, the word ‘necessary’ implies ‘convenient, ‘useful,’ or ‘rationally related.’ “
B.) “Your Honor, the necessary and proper clause is located in Art. I, Sec. 8, not Art. I, Sec. 9.”
C.) “If it please the Court, the words ‘necessary’ and ‘proper’ cannot mean the same thing.”
D.) Both (A) and (B).
E.) Both (A) and (C).
F.) Both (B) and (C).
D.) Both (A) and (B).
3.) Which of the following statements is valid?
A.) The Court did not reach the merits in Baker v. Carr (1962) because it found the issues presented constituted a political question.
B.) Ratification of an amendment to the Constitution is satisfied when two-thirds of both the House and the Senate vote favorably on it, and then three-quarters of the legislatures of the state vote to ratify.
C.) The Court did not reach the merits in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) because it found there was a lack of standing.
D.) Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992) held that standing requires either a concrete injury, or, in the absence of such injury, a showing of causation by the defendant plus a substantial possibility of redress.
E.) Both (A) and (D).
F.) None of the above.
B.) Ratification of an amendment to the Constitution is satisfied when two-thirds of both the House and the Senate vote favorably on it, and then three-quarters of the legislatures of the state vote to ratify.
In Powell v. McCormack (1969):
A.) Adam Clayton Powell won his case in the U.S. Supreme Court because the Court found that the issues presented constituted a political question.
B.) Powell lost his case in the U.S. Supreme Court.
C.) The Court held the House lacked constitutional power to determine whether Powell met the age, citizenship, and residence requirements of Art. I, Sec. 2.
D.) The Court held that Art. I, Sec. 5 gave the House the power to exclude Powell, provided it did so by a two-thirds vote.
E.) The Court held that the House lacked constitutional power to exclude Powell provided he met the age, citizenship, and residence requirements of Art. 1, Sec. 2.
F.) None of the above.
E.) The Court held that the House lacked constitutional power to exclude Powell provided he met the age, citizenship, and residence requirements of Art. 1, Sec. 2.
When the Court applies “ordinary scrutiny” to a congressional or state statute we can fairly state that:
A.) The end or goal need not be “compelling” but it must be at least “important.”
B.) The means to the end or goal must be at least :”rationally related” to that end or goal.
C.) The means to the end or goal need not be anything more than “rationally related” to that end or goal.
D.) Both (A) and (B).
E.) Both (B) and (C).
F.) None of the above.
E.) Both (B) and (C).
Had Chief Justice Marshall interpreted the constitutional provision at issue differently in Marbury how would the result have differed from that in the actual case?
A.) The Court would order that Marbury’s commission be delivered to him.
B.) Marbury would have a legal right to his commission, according to the Court’s opinion.
C.) The Court would not order delivery of Marbury’s commission to him.
D.) The Court would establish the principle of judicial review by striking down the congressional statute which purported to grant the Court jurisdiction in Marbury.
E.) Both (A) and (C).
F.) Both (C) and (D).
A.) The Court would order that Marbury’s commission be delivered to him.
On an HBO program hosted by Bill Maher, Mr. Maher and the panel (journalist Andrew Sullivan, former tennis champion Martina Navratilova, and retired General Wesley Clark) discussed the praise given to then-Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger for his response to a California fire disaster. All agreed that Mr. Schwartzenegger, a naturalized U.S. citizen, could never be president, “because there’s a constitutional amendment” so stating. Mr. Maher stated it was a shame he could not be president. Ms. Navratilova, herself a naturalized citizen, disagreed. She said it was a good thing that John McEnroe, former tennis champion known for his explosive (non-presidential) temper, could not be president because he was born in Germany to his two US citizen parents. What, if anything, is troubling about the panel discussion?
A.) Mr. Schwartzenegger was eligible to be president, assuming he had been a US citizen for at least 14 years.
B.) There is no constitutional amendment preventing a naturalized US citizen from becoming president.
C.) Mr. McEnroe was eligible to become president, since he was a US citizen from birth, was over 35 years old, and had lived all his life in the US, according to the US Supreme Court.
D.) Both (A) and (B).
E.) Both (A) and (C).
F.) All of the above.
B.) There is no constitutional amendment preventing a naturalized US citizen from becoming president.
Which of the following statements is valid?
A.) No US Supreme Court justice, after being impeached, has been convicted and removed from office by the Senate.
B.) If Chief Justice Marshall had interpreted the statute differently in Marbury, he would have lost the opportunity to castigate the Jeffersonians for not delivering the commission at issue.
C.) The “reserved powers” of the states is nowhere expressed in the text of the Constitution but has been interpreted by the Court to be fairly implied from that document.
D.) The political question and advisory opinion doctrines are internal checks on the judicial review power of the federal courts.
E.) Both (A) and (D).
F.) Both (B) and (C).
E.) Both (A) and (D).
The party or parties claiming a congressional statute was unconstitutional won on that claim in the U.S. Supreme Court in the case(s) of:
A. Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918).
B. NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel (1937).
C. Garcia v. San Antonio Metro. Transit Auth’y (1985).
D. Gonzalez v. Raich (2005).
E. Both (B) and (C).
F. None of the above.
A. Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918).
