Con Law

Who is best suited to handle issues involving political questions

Congress and the Executive Branch

A state Occupational Health and Safety Board recently issued regulations valid under its statutory mandate requiring that all employers in the state provide ionizing air purification systems for all employee work areas. These regulations replaced previous guidelines for employee air quality that were generally not mandatory and did not specify the method of air purification used. The requirements regarding air purification systems are likely to be unconstitutional as applied to which of the following employers? A. A wholly owned subsidiary of a Japanese corporation with seven retail outlets within the state. B. The state supreme court, which recently completed construction of its new courthouse with a non-ionizing air purification system which the builder is contractually bound to maintain for the next three years. C. A United States Armed Forces Recruiting Center located adjacent to the state capitol building. D. A privately operated community service center funded by donations and constructed through use of a loan provided by the United States Veterans Administration and repayable to that agency.

.C. A United States Armed Forces Recruiting Center located adjacent to the state capitol building. The armed forces recruiting center is least likely to be required to comply with the new state law. A state has no power to regulate activities of the federal government unless Congress consents to the regulation. Accordingly, agents and instrumentalities of the federal government, such as the armed forces recruiting center, are immune from state regulations relating to performance of their federal functions

What is the maximum number of years a person may serve as President?

1

Commerce Clause allows Congress to regulate

1) Channels, Instrumentalities and activities having a substantial effects on interstate commerce.

Our national government is divided into how many branches?

3

How many members serve in the Legislative Branch?

535

What is required for a state law to be preempted?

A clear congressional intent to have a federal law occupy the entire field. Federal laws that are intended to apply throughout the entire field automatically make state laws in that field void.

In compliance with federal statute that permits government agencies to sell or give away surplus government property, the Secretary of State directed that one of the State Department's surplus airplanes be given to a church. The Secretary knew that the church planned to use the plane to fly medical supplies to its missions in Third World countries. These missions provide medical assistance, but they also attempt to evangelize residents of the countries in question and the Secretary was aware that, in addition to medical supplies, the plane might transport Bibles and religious tracts translated into local languages. Had the Secretary not ordered the plane to be given to the church, it would have been sold at a very reasonable cost to nonprofit organization that helps teach young people the fundamentals of piloting and maintaining aircraft. Which of the following parties would be most likely to have standing to sue to prevent the Secretary of State from making the gift to the church?

A member of the nonprofit flying organization.

In compliance with a federal statute that permits government agencies to sell or give away surplus government property, the Secretary of State directed that one of the State Department's surplus airplanes be given to a church. The Secretary knew that the church planned to use the plane to fly medical supplies to its missions in Third World countries. These missions provide medical assistance, but they also attempt to evangelize residents of the countries in question, and the Secretary was aware that, in addition to medical supplies, the plane might transport Bibles and religious tracts translated into local languages. Had the Secretary not ordered the plane to be given to the church, it would have been sold at a very reasonable cost to a nonprofit organization that helps teach young people the fundamentals of piloting and maintaining aircraft. Which of the following parties would be most likely to have standing to sue to prevent the Secretary of State from making the gift to the church?

A member of the nonprofit flying organization. In order to have standing, a party must show they have suffered an injury that is relief can be granted for.

Which answer choice below is NOT a Constitutional Standing Requirement?

A party may allege only his or her own rights and cannot raise the claims of third parties not before the court.

The prudential standing requirements are:

A party must assert its own rights and there is no taxpayer standing unless one of the exceptions has been satisfied.

Which of the following acts would be improper for the United States Senate to perform? A. Adjudicating a border dispute between states. B. Defining certain qualifications for being a member in good standing of the United States Senate. C. Sitting in joint session with the House of Representatives. D. Passing a resolution directing the President to pursue a particular foreign policy course.

A. Adjudicating a border dispute between states. The power to presidve

Exceptions to the Mootness Doctrine

A. Class action lawsuits. B. Wrongs capable of repetition but evading review. C. Voluntary cessation.

Which of the following suits would not fall within the United States Supreme Court's original jurisdiction under Article III, Section 2? A. Suit by a state seeking to assert the interest of its citizens in retaining diplomatic relations with a foreign nation. B. Suit by a state seeking to protect the state's timber from allegedly illegal cutting by residents of another state. C. Suit by a state seeking to enjoin enforcement of an allegedly unconstitutional executive order that will greatly limit the state's authority to make policy decisions regarding admission to state universities. D. A suit by the United States Government seeking to enjoin state construction of a bridge over a navigable waterway.

A. Suit by a state seeking to assert the interest of its citizens in retaining diplomatic relations with a foreign nation. Under Article III, Section 2, the United States Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and in which a state is a party. In (A), the state is not really seeking to advance or protect any interest of its own. The state may be attempting to act in parens patriae (that is, to act as a representative of its citizens, thereby asserting their interests), but it probably wouldn't actually be permitted to do so. The suit described is really more of a collection of private suits than a suit involving personal claims stemming from sovereign rights. In other words, the interests at issue are truly that of the citizens themselves rather than the state. Therefore, the state is not an actual party (which it would be if it could act in parens patriae) in the sense that the Supreme Court has traditionally required to justify exercise of original jurisdiction. (Note: In addition to not being within the Court's original jurisdiction, the suit described in (A) would probably be dismissed as a political question.)

Which of the following would be considered an enemy combatant A. A US citizen who is actively providing deadly weapons to a nation that is currently at war with the US B. A chef who cooks meals for soldiers who are currently at war with the US C. A US citizen who is actively providing deadly weapons to two nations who are at war D. A and B

A. The answer is A. An enemy combatant is an individual who is part of or supporting forces hostile to the United States or coalition partners. Answer A shows an individual who is supporting forces hostile to the United States by providing weapons to them. B is incorrect because the chef is not necessarily supporting the forces by providing food, he is simply doing his job. C is incorrect because the US citizen is not providing weapons to an enemy of the US, he is providing weapons to two random nations who are fighting. It cannot be said that the citizen is supporting forces that are against the United States.

WHAT DOES THE NECESSARY AND PROPER CLAUSE GRANT CONGRESS THE POWER TO DO?

A.Gives Congress the ability to prescribe sanctions over crimes it creates. B. Allows Congress to pass special laws to require other departments of the government to prosecute or adjudicate particular claims. C. The power to regulate even non-economic activities if that regulation is a necessary part of more general regulation, such as, interstate commerce.

James Madison and Alexander Hamilton were known for there many disputes during the presidency of George Washington. But during the war occuring between England and France, both men wondered if the president could:

A.Issue a statement of neutrality. Madison and Hamilton were in dispute over whether the president could issue a neutrality proclamation between the two countries per their interpretation of Article II.

Upset about a recent incident overseas, a state government adopted a law that prohibited a particular foreign country from owning any land within the state. However, the president previously entered into an executive agreement involving that country which allowed open ownership of land in each other's countries. The Senate did not approve the agreement.

A.The foreign national will maintain his property rights because the state law was preempted by the executive agreement. A state or city cannot adopt or enforce a law, ordinance, or policy if doing so would impair federal foreign-policy objectives. The power to conduct the nation's foreign affairs belongs exclusively to the federal government. Executive agreements execute foreign-policy objectives and preempt state and local laws. Here, the state law banning foreign ownership of land within the state conflicts with the executive agreement allowing open ownership of land within the state. The conflicting law impairs federal foreign-policy objectives because the state sought to conduct foreign relations. Thus, the state law is preempted and the foreign national is will maintain his property rights.

What is a characteristic that must be present in a lawsuit to avoid becoming an advisory opinion?

Actual disputes

The Justiciability requirements are guidelines that determine whether a case is suitable for federal courts to hear and decide on the merits. Which of the following are required elements?

All of the above

Which of the following can be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors?

All of the choices are correct

Which of the following is shared power, protected by the 10th amendment, given to the federal and state governments? A.Declaring War against foreign nations B. Taxation against citizens C. Regulating Interstate Commerce D. Maintaining the US Postal System

B. Taxation against citizens. Both State and Federal Government have the ability to tax citizens. A is incorrect because only the federal government can declare war against foreign nations. C is incorrect because regulating interstate commerce is the duty of the federal government as well. Finally, D is incorrect because they do not not both manage the US Postal System.

A town adopted an ordinance providing that a person must have been a resident of the town for at least one year to be eligible to vote in school board elections. A resident who moved to the town seven months ago attempted to register to vote in the school board elections scheduled for the next month. However, the town clerk refused to register the resident because he will not have resided in the town for a full year prior to the election. The resident filed a class action suit on behalf of all of the new residents of the town, challenging the validity of the one-year residency requirement. Which of the following statements is correct?

B. The resident will prevail even if the matter is not decided until after next month's election. The resident will prevail even if the matter is not decided until after the election, because the suit is not moot and the residency requirement is unconstitutional. The resident's suit is not moot even if the matter will not be decided until after the election because other members of the class might have a live controversy. Under the case and controversy requirement of the Constitution, there must be a real, live controversy at all stages of the suit. If through the passage of time, the controversy between the parties is resolved, the case is said to be moot. However, there are exceptions to the mootness doctrine. In a class action, it is not necessary that the suit by the named plaintiff be viable at all stages, as long as the claim is viable by some member of the class. Thus, the suit here would not be moot. Moreover, the residency requirement here violates the resident's fundamental rights to vote and to interstate travel. A restriction on the right to vote is subject to strict scrutiny and is valid only if it is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest (otherwise the restriction violates the Equal Protection Clause by treating new residents differently from old residents). Relatively short residency requirements (e.g., 30 days) have been upheld as being necessary to promote the compelling interest of assuring that only bona fide residents vote. However, the Supreme Court has struck down longer durational requirements for lack of a compelling justification. Thus, the one-year requirement here probably unconstitutionally impinges on the right to vote. The residency requirement also impinges on the fundamental right to travel in the same manner (i.e., it discourages people from migrating by denying them the right to vote without a compelling reason). Thus, the requirement is invalid.

The President of the United States accepted an invitation to give a commencement address at a small, Midwestern university in its auditorium. Pursuant to school rules, no one is permitted to bring posters, banners, or signs of any kind larger than the size of a piece of notebook paper into any event at the auditorium. The main purpose of the rule is to prevent obstruction of the view within the auditorium. Nevertheless, at the commencement ceremony, a student in a front row balcony seat unfurled a banner that he had hidden in his coat with a message supporting the President. The student was promptly arrested and charged in municipal court with trespassing. The student filed suit in federal court to enjoin the municipal prosecution and to have the trespass ordinance declared unconstitutional as applied to him. Will the federal court likely hear the student's case? A. Yes, if he argues that the trespass ordinance is invalid on its face. B. Yes, if he argues that the prosecutor had no hope of conviction and was proceeding to harass him. C. No, if the prosecution argues that the student lacks standing. DNo, if the prosecution argues that the case involves a political question.

B. Yes, if he argues that the prosecutor had no hope of conviction and was proceeding to harass him. The federal courts generally will abstain from enjoining pending state criminal proceedings, such as the one here, even if they have jurisdiction over the case. For purposes of this rule, a case is deemed to be pending as soon as it is filed. Thus, the federal court would ordinarily not hear the student's claim here until after the state prosecution has ended. However, there is an exception to the general rule—a federal court will hear an action to enjoin a pending state court prosecution if it is being conducted in bad faith; e.g., merely to harass the defendant.

Although the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, presidents have initiated a number of military actions without congressional approval. Criticism of the president's role in Vietnam led to the War Powers Act of 1973. This act:

B.Restricted the president's war-making powers

A state provided for a public school system based primarily on property tax revenues from the various districts. School districts that had a property tax base below a certain threshold received supplemental funds from the state that were derived from state lottery revenues. The school districts receiving the supplemental funds served a predominantly Hispanic population as compared to the school districts funded only from property tax revenues. To help balance its budget this year, the state legislature passed a statute terminating the supplemental funds program and earmarking the lottery revenues for deficit reduction. A group of parents of Hispanic schoolchildren in one of the school districts formerly receiving supplemental funds filed suit in federal court, alleging that the state's action in terminating the funding violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Which of the following best describes the appropriate standard by which the court should review the constitutionality of the state action?

Because no suspect classification or fundamental right is improperly burdened in this case, the parents will have to demonstrate that the statute is not rationally related to any legitimate state interest. To prevail, the parents will have to show that the statute does not meet the rational basis test. Under that test, a law is presumed to be valid and will be upheld unless the challenger can make the difficult showing that it is not rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Here, the statute terminating the funds did not target a suspect classification and did not burden a fundamental right, so the rational basis test applies.

Which answer choice below is NOT a Constitutional Standing Requirement? A. The plaintiff must allege that he or she has suffered or imminently will suffer an injury B. The plaintiff must allege that the injury is fairly traceable to the defendant's conduct C. A party may allege only his or her own rights and cannot raise the claims of third parties not before the court D. The plaintiff must allege that a favorable federal court decision is likely to redress the injury

C. A party may allege only his or her own rights and cannot raise the claims of third parties not before the court

Congress passed legislation banning the hunting of snipe birds within the United States. The range of the snipe is quite limited; they are found primarily in only one state, although they migrate annually to several nearby states. Hunters from throughout the United States have traditionally traveled to the snipe's home state during snipe hunting season, bringing considerable revenue into the state. A state statute allows hunting of snipe during a two-week period in November and charges a $50 license fee for state residents and a $250 fee for hunters from other states. The bag limit is one snipe bird per licensed hunter. Is the state statute allowing snipe hunting valid? A. Yes, because states have the right to control their own natural resources and wildlife B. Yes, because the power exercised is reserved by the states by the tenth amendment C. No, because of the Supremacy Clause D., No, because of the Commerce Clause

C. No, because of the Supremacy Clause Under the Clause, if the federal government adopts legislation that it has the power to adopt, the federal legislation is supreme, and a conflicting state law is rendered invalid. The federal law here, banning the hunting of snipe, is within the federal government's power under the Commerce Clause, which gives the government power to regulate anything that might affect interstate commerce. Because the birds themselves are found in a few states, they probably cross state lines. Also, hunters come from out of state and generate revenue in the state, so interstate commerce is involved. The state law directly conflicts with the federal law because it allows hunting of snipe. Therefore, the state law will be held invalid under the Supremacy Clause.

What section in the Constitution gives rise to the requirement that a party must have standing to proceed with their case?

Case and Controversies Clause in Article III

Field pre-emption occurs when:

Congress (the federal legislature) has created laws in a certain area such as immigration.

To prevent the Supreme Court from whittling away the protections that previous Supreme Court decisions had created for individuals accused of crimes, Congress passed a law eliminating from Supreme Court jurisdiction all cases in which a state supreme court has decided that a defendant's federal constitutional rights have been violated. If the statute is held unconstitutional, what is the most likely reason?

Congress may not eliminate all avenues for Supreme Court review of issues vested within the judicial power of the federal courts. Article III, Section 2 provides that the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction under such regulations as the Congress shall make. Although Ex parte McCardle (1868) gives Congress broad power to regulate the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction, it has been suggested that Congress may not eliminate all avenues for Supreme Court review of issues vested within the federal judicial power. This argument is the most likely basis for finding the law here unconstitutional because none of the other choices is viable.

McCulloch v. Maryland

Congress may only act when there is constitutional authority for its action whereas states can act unless the constitution forbids the action

Justiciabilty Limitations

Constitutional and Prudential

Ezio, a US citizen, is an assassin. Recently, Ezio has been working to steal US information and sell it to a nation at war with the US. Consequently, the US has detained Ezio and designated him an enemy combatant who will be held indefinitely. Ezio argues that he is entitled to due process and should be released

D. A and B

The City of Los Angeles, concerned about their government employees participating in the upcoming feeding frenzy known as the state governor's race, is considering legislation to ban state workers from endorsing or supporting candidates in the upcoming election. Concerned about the impact on their right to vote, a group of workers from the Los Angeles Department of Children's Services files suit in federal court to challenge the plan.

Dismiss the action because legislation has not yet been passed

State A passed a law limiting liability for accidents at nuclear power plants. Duchess Energy announced plans to build nuclear plant on land next to a river that flows toward Blackacre. Alice filed suit to stop construction of the plant alleging that super-hot wastewater from the plant would negatively affect the endangered Candy Apple Flavored toad which only breeds on the banks of the river at Blackacre. If the court dismisses the case, declaring it unripe, the reason is likely to be:

Environmental impact studies are in progress (Answer is problamatic)

Executive privilege protects all communication between a president and his advisors.

False, executive privilege was recognized to protect confidentiality related to high-level communications. Neither separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications can sustain an absolute, unqualified presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances. More specifically, absolute privilege has the potential to interfere with the ability of the judiciary to perform its functions in situations where needed evidence is said to be protected, especially in criminal cases. The privilege to withhold evidence that is demonstrably relevant in a criminal trial would cut deeply into the guarantee of due process of law and gravely impair the basic function of the courts. The answer is not true because executive privilege must yield when there are important countervailing interests.

To combat rising unemployment, a state offered a $25,000 prize to anyone who could devise a scheme to create at least 200 jobs within the state and demonstrate its viability. While hiking through a national park within the state, a geologist noticed rock containing titanium. Knowing that titanium was commonly used in military aircraft built within the state and that mining and refining titanium could provide the state with thousands of jobs, the geologist chipped out a sample of the ore and took it back to the state employment division. After reviewing the geologist's ideas, the state announced in a press release that he was the first recipient of the $25,000 prize. Within a few days, the federal ranger in charge of the valley from which the sample was taken had the geologist arrested for violating a federal law making it illegal to remove any "plants, animals, or minerals from federal lands." The geologist was convicted and fined $5,000. He appeals the conviction to the federal court of appeals, claiming that the fine is unconstitutional. How should the court rule?

For the government, because the federal statute providing for the fine is constitutional under the Property Clause of Article IV, Section 3 of the federal Constitution. The fine is constitutional under the Property Clause, which gives Congress the power to "make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States." This power permits Congress to acquire and dispose of all kinds of property, and to protect its property with a law such as the one here.

What is necessary for a case to be deemed ripe?

Imminent threat of enforcement.

Which of the following features of democracy is not provided in the Constitution?

Political Parties

Conflicts between which of the following represent the principle of checks and balances?

Judiciary and legislature

A federal statute just signed into law by the President provided that school districts no longer needed to recognize the tenure of elementary school teachers—all tenured teachers would lose their status and would be treated the same as non-tenured teachers. The effect of the law would be to allow all tenured teachers to be fired more easily if their performance was not adequate. The law also allowed the salaries of tenured teachers to be lowered, at least until a new contract with the teachers could be negotiated. The law had a two-year grace period before it was to take effect, to give schools and teachers time to adjust to the law; however, it specifically provided that once it is in effect, school board actions under the law supersede any existing contract terms. A public elementary school district is in the first year of a three-year union contract with its teachers. The school board has stated that it plans to abolish tenured positions as soon as the law takes effect. The union, believing that numerous terms of the contract will be invalidated when the law takes effect, filed an action in federal court on behalf of the teachers, asking for an injunction to prevent the school board from abolishing tenured positions and for a declaratory judgment stating that the law is invalid

No, because a ruling on the law at this point is premature. Under Article III, Section 2, the United States Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and in which a state is a party. In (A), the state is not really seeking to advance or protect any interest of its own. The state may be attempting to act in parens patriae (that is, to act as a representative of its citizens, thereby asserting their interests), but it probably wouldn't actually be permitted to do so. The suit described is really more of a collection of private suits than a suit involving personal claims stemming from sovereign rights. In other words, the interests at issue are truly that of the citizens themselves rather than the state. Therefore, the state is not an actual party (which it would be if it could act in parens patriae) in the sense that the Supreme Court has traditionally required to justify exercise of original jurisdiction. (Note: In addition to not being within the Court's original jurisdiction, the suit described in (A) would probably be dismissed as a political question.)

A federal statute just signed into law by the President provided that school districts no longer needed to recognize the tenure of elementary school teachers—all tenured teachers would lose their status and would be treated the same as nontenured teachers. The effect of the law would be to allow all tenured teachers to be fired more easily if their performance was not adequate. The law also allowed the salaries of tenured teachers to be lowered, at least until a new contract with the teachers could be negotiated. The law had a two-year grace period before it was to take effect, to give schools and teachers time to adjust to the law; however, it specifically provided that once it is in effect, school board actions under the law supersede any existing contract terms. A public elementary school district is in the first year of a three-year union contract with its teachers. The school board has stated that it plans to abolish tenured positions as soon as the law takes effect. The union, believing that numerous terms of the contract will be invalidated when the law takes effect, filed an action in federal court on behalf of the teachers, asking for an injunction to prevent the school board from abolishing tenured positions and for a declaratory judgment stating that the law is invalid. Should the federal court hear the case?

No, because a ruling on the law at this point is premature. A federal court will not hear a case unless there exists a "case and controversy." This has been interpreted to mean, among other things, that a plaintiff generally is not entitled to review of his claim unless he has been harmed or there is an immediate threat of harm. This is to prevent the federal courts from hearing unnecessary actions. There is no immediate threat of harm to the union here because the law does not take effect for another two years. Before that happens, Congress might change the law or repeal it altogether, or the school board may decide to keep the old contract system after all.

A new federal law prohibited the use of various pesticides in areas with a certain population density near navigable waters. A city located in the southeastern United States was plagued by a sharp increase in disease-carrying mosquitoes. The city's board of health recommended that all residential areas be sprayed with a pesticide proven to be highly effective against mosquitoes. Despite the fact that the federal law would prohibit use of that pesticide in these areas, the city council passed an ordinance adopting the board of health plan, relying on the opinions of several independent experts that the health benefits of reducing the mosquito population outweighed the risks of spraying. An environmentally minded citizen of the city brought an action in federal court challenging the ordinance. Assuming that the citizen has standing, is the court likely to find the ordinance valid

No, because it conflicts with a federal law that Congress had the power to make under the Commerce Clause. Congress's power to regulate commerce has been construed broadly, so that it may regulate any activity, local or interstate, that either in itself or in combination with other activities has a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce. If Congress has determined that the use of chemical pesticides and their runoff into waterways (which are channels of interstate commerce) will have an overall detrimental impact on the environment, this determination will be sufficient in this case to satisfy the standards established by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the law probably is a valid exercise of the commerce power. Any state or local action that conflicts with a valid act of Congress is invalid under the Supremacy Clause.

Congress has enacted a law providing that all disagreements between the United States and a state over federal grant-in-aid funds shall be settled by the filing of a suit in the federal district court in the affected state. The law further provides: "The judgment of the federal court shall be transmitted to the head of the federal agency dispensing such funds, who, if satisfied that the judgment is fair and lawful, shall execute the judgment according to its terms." Is this law constitutional?

No, because it vests authority in a federal court to render an advisory opinion. A federal court will not hear a case unless there exists a "case and controversy." This has been interpreted to mean, among other things, that a plaintiff generally is not entitled to review of his claim unless he has been harmed or there is an immediate threat of harm. This is to prevent the federal courts from hearing unnecessary actions. There is no immediate threat of harm to the union here because the law does not take effect for another two years. Before that happens, Congress might change the law or repeal it altogether, or the school board may decide to keep the old contract system after all.

The armed forces recruiting center is least likely to be required to comply with the new state law. A state has no power to regulate activities of the federal government unless Congress consents to the regulation. Accordingly, agents and instrumentalities of the federal government, such as the armed forces recruiting center, are immune from state regulations relating to performance of their federal functions

No, because of the Supremacy Clause.

An ordinance of a city prohibits leafleting on the grounds of any hospital or on the sidewalks within five feet of the hospital entrances during visiting hours. A member of a religious group advocating prayer to restore the sick to good health is arrested for violating the ordinance, is fined $100, and is convicted. She appeals her conviction, claiming that her constitutional rights were violated. The case was heard by the state supreme court, which ruled that while the ordinance was permissible under the United States Constitution, it was unconstitutional under the state constitution because the fine money was designated to go to the city's only hospital, which was privately owned, rather than to the city. The city seeks to bring the case before the United States Supreme Court. Should the United States Supreme Court grant certiorari?

No, because the case was decided on independent state grounds. The Supreme Court will not hear a case from a state court, even though it has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter, if there are adequate and independent state grounds to support the decision. Here, the state court held the law invalid on state, rather than federal, constitutional grounds. Therefore, the Supreme Court should refuse to grant certiorari.

An 1811 law prohibits the sale of alcoholic beverages in your state. The law has never been applied to airplanes flying over the state even though the state claims that its sovereignty runs to the heavens. A commercial airline identifies the law and sues to have it removed as state law, claiming that federal law governing the serving of alcohol on commercial airlines preempts state law. Is it likely the issue is ripe for judicial review?

No, because the law is a so-called "dead-letter law," which is to say, it has not been enforced

A city enacted an ordinance that made it illegal for commercial trucks to park overnight in city owned parking lots. The consequence for violating the ordinance was a ticket with criminal penalties or fines. After the city ordinance was passed, the city raised the possibility of revisiting the issue before enforcing the ordinance. The city then scheduled a hearing to allow new evidence to be heard regarding the pros and cons of the ordinance. Before the hearing occurred or the new ordinance was enforced, a group of interstate trucking companies sued the city commissioner, arguing that the new ordinance unlawfully impacted interstate trucking. The city commissioner moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the claim was not ripe for adjudication.

No, because the ordinance has not been enforced.

Congress passed a law giving federal tax funds to states for the purpose of implementing programs to reduce infant mortality. State participation in the program was optional. The law authorized the withholding of the program's funds to any state that was not in compliance. A state filed suit, claiming that the law imposed on the state's sovereignty and presented an unconstitutional use of federal taxpayer funds. The United States moved to dismiss because the state had not actually suffered any injury. Does the state likely have standing to sue?

No, because the statute does not cause any injury to the state

Congress passed a law giving federal tax funds to states for the purpose of implementing programs to reduce infant mortality. State participation in the program was optional. The law authorized the withholding of the program's funds to any state that was not in compliance. A state filed suit, claiming that the law imposed on the state's sovereignty and presented an unconstitutional use of federal taxpayer funds. The United States moved to dismiss because the state had not actually suffered any injury. Does the state likely have standing to sue?

No, because the statute does not cause any injury to the state.

A state law provides that all persons who have been residents of the state for more than three years shall be entitled to free tuition at the state's main university. It further provides that persons who have resided in the state for three years of less shall pay the nonresident tuition rate, which is significantly higher. A student at the state's university who had been a state resident for less than three years filed a class action in federal court on behalf of himself and other similarly situated university students, seeking declaration that the state statute is unconstitutional. When the case came to trial, the student had been a resident of the state for more than three years and was no longer required to pay tuition.By that time, a number of amicus curiae briefs had been filed in the case, some supporting and some opposing the student's position. Nevertheless, the state moved to dismiss the case as moot

No, because there is a live controversy

Which of the following is charged with negotiating treaties with foreign nations?

President

Which of the following is responsible for enforcement of federal laws

President of the US

A man was arrested in a state for armed robbery. A combined preliminary hearing to determine probable cause and initial appearance was held within 20 hours of his arrest. Probable cause was found, and bail was properly denied under the state's Bail Reform Act. A state statute provided that when a defendant is in custody, his trial must begin within 50 days of his arrest. After 50 days had passed since the man's arrest and no trial had been held, he filed a motion for dismissal for violation of his right to a speedy trial under the state constitution, which tracked verbatim the speedy trial provision of the United States Constitution. The trial judge held that he was bound to follow federal interpretations of the speedy trial provision and granted the man's motion on that basis. On appeal, the state supreme court agreed with the trial judge. The state prosecutor seeks to challenge the ruling in the United States Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court thinks that the state court wrongly decided that the man was denied his right to a speedy trial under federal standards, how should it proceed?

Reverse the decision and remand the case to be decided on the independent state grounds only. he Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear the case, because it has jurisdiction to hear appeals from a state's highest court concerning the constitutionality of a state statute, and as indicated above, the state court's decision was not based on independent state grounds; the decision was based on federal case law interpreting an identical federal provision. Thus, jurisdiction was proper and the Court could reverse the state court decision and hold that a 50-day delay does not violate the federal Constitution. However, the case should be remanded so that the state may decide whether the delay was too long under state law, since a state is free to provide its citizens with more civil protection than is required by the federal Constitution.

An employee of the United States Department of Labor was instructed by his superior to solicit subscriptions to the Department's bulletin on a door-to-door basis in the city in which he worked. While doing so, the employee was arrested for violation of a city ordinance that prohibited commercial solicitation of private residences. What is the employee's best defense?

State and local governments cannot tax or regulate the activities of the federal government.

The leader of the house of representatives

Speaker of the House

The President of the United States has broken off diplomatic relations with the government of Cyador, due to that nation's military takeover of a neighboring country. Cyador is governed by arepressive totalitarian government.In an appropriate federal court, Yomi Obasanjo brings a suit against the President and Secretaryof State to set aside the President's action because Obasanjo claims the action is inconsistentwith the principles of our constitutional form of government. Obasanjo had a lucrative contractwith the United States Department of Commerce to provide commercial information aboutCyador. The contract expressly terminates, however, when the President breaks off diplomaticrelations with the government of Cyador.What is the most likely disposition of Obasanjo's lawsuit?

Suit dismissed, because it presents a non-justiciable political question.

A local civil rights group, Citizens Against Racism and Police Brutality (CRPB), filed suit against the Louisville Metro Police Department (LMPD) alleging police brutality. Based on a recent study, CRPB can show that the police are 60% more likely to stop African-American motorists and that LMPD officers kill African-American suspects at a rate three times higher than the rate for Caucasians. CRPB admits that none of its members have ever been stopped by the police and that none have ever been subjected to police abuse (or, for that matter, to lethal force). Nevertheless, CRPB claims that its member (many of whom are African-American) live in fear of being stopped by the police and of the possibility that they will be subject to police brutality (and possibly death). As a result, CRPB asks a federal judge to order LMPD to take several preventative steps including providing special training for all police officers on matters relating to racial profiling and issues confronting African-American individuals. LMPD moves to dismiss the case on the basis that it is not ripe for review (because none of CRPB's members have been subjected to police abuse).

That the case is not ripe for review because CRPB members have never been stopped or subjected to police abuse, and it is speculative whether they ever will be stopped or subject to abuse

A town in a rural state facing financial difficulties passed a variety of "sin taxes," including one aimed at electronic game arcades frequented by local juveniles. The tax is a one cent per game tax imposed on the manufacturers of the games based on the estimated number of plays over a machine's lifetime. There are no electronic game manufacturers in the state. Which of the following constitutional provisions would support the best argument against enforcement of the tax?

The Commerce Clause If Congress has not adopted laws regarding a subject, local governments are free to tax or regulate local aspects of the subject area as long as the tax or regulation does not discriminate against interstate commerce or unduly burden it. Here, the tax does not discriminate against interstate commerce, since it does not single out interstate commerce for taxation in order to benefit the local economy. However, it could be argued that the tax unduly burdens interstate commerce. A local tax will be held to unduly burden interstate commerce if the locality's need for the revenue does not outweigh the burden on interstate commerce. The Supreme Court will consider whether there is a substantial nexus between the activity or property taxed and the taxing state, whether the tax is fairly apportioned, and whether there is a fair relationship between the tax and the benefit the taxed party receives from the state. Here, there is little nexus between the manufacturer and the town. The facts indicate that out-of-state manufacturers' machines are used in the town, but do not indicate whether the manufacturers conduct any selling activity in the town. Similarly, nothing indicates that there is a relationship between the tax and any benefit that the manufacturers derive from the town. Thus, the tax would probably be unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause

Institutional Legitimacy

The Courts needed to establish institutional legitimacy in the early history of the Supreme Court to curry support and trust in the court's opinion. This applies to the opinions in Marbury v. Madison, Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, Cohens v. Virginia, and Ex Parte McCardle.

A state bans the use of disposable diapers to reduce the volume of nonbiodegradable material in its landfills. The ban was a boon for diaper services within the state, but many parents of young children were displeased with the use of conventional diapers. With support from retail establishments that lost business from the disposable diaper ban, a grass roots coalition formed to fight the ban funded a study showing that the trucks and cleaning supplies used by diaper services within the state harmed the environment more than disposable diapers. The coalition and retailers then filed suit seeking to have the ban on disposable diapers declared unconstitutional. If the court strikes down the statute, on which of the following constitutional provisions would its decision most likely be based?

The Due Process Clause Substantive due process tests the reasonableness of a statute; it prohibits arbitrary governmental action. Under substantive due process, when government action limits a fundamental right, the government must prove that the action is necessary to promote a compelling interest. If a fundamental right is not involved, the challenging party must prove that the act is not rationally related to any legitimate government interest.

A state was suffering from a near-depression caused by layoffs in the tourist service industry. In an attempt to alleviate the problem, the state enacted a statute providing for the immediate hiring of 100,000 employees to repair, maintain, and otherwise work at the discretion of the state director of highways. The statute further stated that preference would be given to persons who had worked in the tourist service industry for five years and had been laid off. Which of the following constitutional provisions would be most relevant in determining the constitutionality of the preference for tourist service industry workers?

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Equal Protection Clause is at issue when a law treats a person or class of persons differently from others. Here, the classification scheme makes a distinction between individuals who worked in tourism and those who did not, and those who worked for five years versus those with a lesser period of employment.

What is the power of the Supreme Court?

The Power of the Pen, the power of the supreme court decisions, requires faith in the court's decisions.

Why should the Supreme Court exercise Judicial Restraint

The Supreme Court overruled the Congress is not in line with the principles of democracy and republican forms of government by having a few

A state can implement a law that is in a field that is covered by the Federal Government so long as the law is parallel with the federal stance. True or False.

The answer is false. The state governments cannot make laws that are in fields covered by the Federal Government like we see in the Arizona v. United States case regarding immigration laws, even if they complement and are parallel with the federal stance in that field.

2. Which of the following is NOT one of the three ways implied preemption of state law is found? A. If Congress intends to preempt state law with clear, express language B. If federal statute explicitly says the federal law is exclusive in a particular area C. If federal and state laws are mutually exclusive D. If state law impedes the achievement of a federal objective

The correct answer is B. The other answer choices are the 3 ways in which implied preemption of state law is found while choice B is the way express preemption is found.

If Florida passes a statute that regulates the transport of Oranges out of state but the statute goes against Congress's plans to provide a specific route for produce to ensure all states receive their fair share. Congress could implicitly preempt the Florida statute. (True or False)

The correct answer is false. Congress has plans to regulate commerce and they have the constitutional power to do so. Although Florida passed a statute to transport Oranges out of state, this interferes with Congress's plans provides them with the ability to preempt the Florida statute implicitly. The federal government has the ability to control interstate commerce due to the Constitution.

Is the court likely to find standing on the prudential standing restriction of first-party injuries?

The court will likely find standing where the third-party customers cannot assert their own rights and the plaintiff's interest and third-party rights are exclusively linked

Plaintiff brings suit against the City of Chicago police department's for failure to enforce more strict picketing restrictions on the protestors outside of the plaintiff's privately owned medical marijuana dispensary. Plaintiff contends that the protestors are taking over the parking lot and discouraging customers from coming in. Plaintiff claims this is impeding on his right to conduct business and the right of his customers to access their prescribed marijuana. A bill has recently been passed increasing the cost for obtaining a medical marijuana card to nearly double the previous cost. Is the court likely to find standing on the prudential standing restriction of third-party injuries?

The court will likely find standing where the third-party customers cannot assert their own rights and the plaintiff's interest and third-party rights are exclusively linked.

Plaintiff brings suit against the City of Chicago police department's for failure to enforce more strict picketing restrictions on the protestors outside of the plaintiff's privately owned medical marijuana dispensary. Plaintiff contends that the protestors are taking over the parking lot and discouraging customers from coming in. Plaintiff claims this is impeding on his right to conduct business and the right of his customers to access their prescribed marijuana. A bill has recently been passed increasing the cost for obtaining a medical marijuana card to nearly double the previous cost. Is the court likely to find standing on the causation/redressability issue to hear the dispute?

The court will not find standing where there is only speculation that the picketing restriction enforcement will increase the customers at her store. It is plausible that the cost increase is the reason for a lack of customers.

The United States is occupying the nation of Yvetal as part of a peacekeeping mission in conjunction with UN. Congress has authorized the President to put US troops on the ground to stop the civil war in Yvetal between the US backed government and the revolting provinces. Ethan, a Yvetal citizen, is detained by the US military as an "enemy of the state" after posting a Tiktok critical of US involvement in Yvetal and is held without charges on a US Air Force Base in Virginia without a trial. Which of the following is correct?

The suspension clause of prohibits Ethan's detention

The director of a one-person field station of the United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA") in a small town was instructed by his superiors to sell surplus government cheese and butter to local low income residents at 10% of market value. All sales were conducted at the USDA warehouse next to the field station. Pursuant to state statutes allowing municipal governments to establish reasonable regulations governing the retail sale of foodstuffs, the town in which the field office is located requires any establishment for the retail sale of food to pass a health and sanitation inspection and meet other specified criteria for obtaining a city license. The director of the field office failed to obtain a license from the town and was prosecuted for the failure. Which of the following will provide the best defense for the director in this prosecution?

The ordinance under which the director is being prosecuted violates the principles of intergovernmental immunity as applied to him. The United States Government, as well as its agencies and instrumentalities, is immune from state regulation that interferes with federal activities, functions, and programs. To the extent that state regulations substantially interfere with an authorized federal program, the state laws must yield.

A state statute prohibits merchants from selling goods manufactured in a foreign country unless the merchant clearly marks the goods with their country of origin. The United States has a treaty with a foreign country that allows each country to import and sell goods and products from the other country. If a person is prosecuted under the state law for refusing to mark goods as being of that foreign country's origin, which of the following statements reflects the most likely outcome of the case?

The person should be acquitted because the state statute is unconstitutional. A treaty is the supreme law of the land. State law that conflicts with a US treaty is thus invalid under the Supremacy Clause.

The Department of Education passed the Keep the Change Act of 2022. This Act provides student loan forgiveness for all post-secondary graduates that have taken out student loans recognized by the Department of Education and attending DOE-recognized post-secondary schools or comparable programs. Duffy, a 2022 graduate of Eagle University (DOE-recognized school), decides to bring suit against the DOE, alleging that the keep the Change Act discriminated against her because she paid out of pocket, and she is entitled to Loan Forgiveness under the Keep the Change Act. If the Court dismisses the suit for lack of standing, it likely does so because?

The plaintiff has suffered no harm

The Department of Education passed the Keep the Change act of 2022. This Act provides student loan forgiveness for all post-secondary graduates that have taken out student loans recognized by the Department of Education and attending DOE recognized post-secondary schools or comparable programs Duffy, a 2022 graduate of Eagle University (DOE recognized school), decides to bring suit against the DOE alleging that the keep the Change Act discriminated against her because she paid out of pocket, and she is entitled to Loan Forgiveness under the Keep the Change Act. If the Court dismisses the suit for lack of standing, it would likely do so because:

The plaintiff has suffered no harm

The United States Surgeon General was cited for contempt for refusing to answer questions as part of a Senate investigation regarding an issue in the Food and Drug Administration. His contempt citation will be dismissed if he can show which of the following? Responses Press Enter or Space to submit the answer

The questions do not relate to any matter concerning which the Senate may legislate or to any other official action. ongress's power to investigate is limited to matters on which it can legislate. Therefore, if the Surgeon General can demonstrate that the questions concerned matters upon which Congress could not legislate (not an enumerated power under Article I, Section 8), then this contempt citation must be dismissed.

A newly enacted federal law requires states to adopt a law banning texting while driving on interstate highways. Under the law, any state that does not enact such a law within three years will be denied 10% of the state's allotment of federal highway construction funding. What is the best argument that can be made in support of the constitutionality of this federal statute?

The requirement is not unduly coercive and is related to making travel on highways safer. Congress may "regulate" states through the spending power by imposing conditions on the grant of money to state or local governments. Such conditions will not violate the Tenth Amendment merely because Congress lacked the power to directly regulate the activity that is the subject of the spending program if the conditions (i) are clearly stated; (ii) relate to the purpose of the program; and (iii) are not unduly coercive. Here, the condition is clearly stated and appears to be related to a goal of the highway program-safer highway travel. While there is not a brightline test for when a condition is unduly coercive, withholding just one-tenth of a state's federal highway funds would likely be considered reasonable. .

A city's water board election laws provide that, although members of the board are elected at large, one member of the board is required to live within each of the five designated water districts within the city. The city's population was more or less evenly distributed among the districts when this election law was enacted. A resident and registered voter of the city investigated the district residency requirement and discovered that most of the city's newer residents had moved into the same two water districts, so that the city's population was no longer evenly distributed among the five water districts. Instead, 80% of the city's residents lived within its central and eastern water districts, while the other 20% of the city's residents were scattered among its three other, more rural, districts. If the resident files suit in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the residency requirement, how will the court most likely rule?

The residency requirement is constitutionally permissible because the water board members are elected at large. The Equal Protection Clause prohibits state dilution of the right to vote, so that when a governmental body establishes voting districts for the election of representatives, the number of persons in each district may not vary significantly. This is known as the principle of "one person, one vote." This principle applies to almost every election where a person is being elected to perform normal governmental functions (e.g., an election for trustees for a junior college district). However, the principle of one person, one vote generally is inapplicable where there is an at-large system of election (except where the system is adopted for discriminatory purposes). Here, the water board members are elected by all of the qualified voters in the city in an at-large system (rather than having the voters of each individual district select one board member apiece), and no discriminatory intent is evident. Thus, the statutory provision requiring board members to reside in each of the five districts does not result in an imbalance or a dilution of the voting rights of the citizens of the city.

Congress passed a law allowing widespread oil exploration on federal lands in the western United States. A large deposit of oil sand was discovered in one western state and Congress authorized an oil sand refining plant to be built on federal park land within the state. The refinery was built in compliance with federal pollution regulations. Pursuant to state law, the plant manager allowed the state to inspect the plant before putting it into operation. Because state refinery standards were more strict than the federal standards (in order to better protect state citizens from pollution associated with refineries), the refinery did not pass the inspection, and the state inspector refused to give the manager a permit to run the refinery. The refinery manager nevertheless began to run the refinery and was fined by the state. Which of the following is the manager's best defense against imposition of the fine?

The state is not allowed to regulate the actions of the federal government. The states have no power to regulate the activities of the federal government unless Congress consents to the regulation. Thus, instrumentalities and agents of the federal government are immune from state regulations that interfere with their federal functions. Here, the regulation clearly interferes with the manager's duties to run the refinery. While it might be argued that the manager agreed to comply with the state regulations, because he allowed the state inspection, nothing indicates that Congress consented, and so the state regulation cannot be applied to the manager.

A state with a number of automobile manufacturing facilities within its borders and a high unemployment rate because of declining sales of automobiles, especially ones built domestically, enacted a statute calling for a $100-per-car tax on all foreign-built automobiles sold within the state. The tax revenues were to be placed into a state fund to be used to retrain the state's unemployed automobile workers. A major automobile importer and dealership owner brings suit in federal district court seeking to halt the enforcement of the statute on constitutional grounds. Should the court find the statute to be constitutional?Question A state with a number of automobile manufacturing facilities within its borders and a high unemployment rate because of declining sales of automobiles, especially ones built domestically, enacted a statute calling for a $100-per-car tax on all foreign-built automobiles sold within the state. The tax revenues were to be placed into a state fund to be used to retrain the state's unemployed automobile workers. A major automobile importer and dealership owner brings suit in federal district court seeking to halt the enforcement of the statute on constitutional grounds. Should the court find the statute to be constitutional?

The statute burdens foreign commerce. For all practical purposes, the power to regulate foreign commerce lies exclusively with Congress. Therefore, a state that adopts legislation requiring private vendors to favor United States products over foreign products, as the state did here, may be acting outside the scope of its powers.

The President of the United States has decided to recognize Zoroastrian Pacifica in the interest of promoting international trade and world peace."Friends of the Dark" is an anti-Zoroastrian organization that has opposed the reopening of diplomatic relations. Asmodean, a member of Friends of the Dark, has a government contract to provide information about educational institutions within Zoroastrian Pacifica. Asmodean will lose this contract when normal diplomatic relations are restored. Asmodean brings suit in a federal court to set aside the President's action on the grounds that it is inconsistent with the principles of our constitutional form of government. What is the most likely disposition of Asmodean's suit?

The suit will be dismissed because it involves a non-justiciable political question.

Vox populi, vox Dei

The voice of the people is the voice of god

Originalism

This includes a textual reading of the constitution and arguably includes the "Framer's Intent" approach to what the framers were thinking at the time.

Non-Originalism

This includes the living constitutional mode of interpretation.

U.S. v. Klein

This is when the institutional legitimacy of the courts gets to the point where the Supreme Court can tell the other branches what to do as the final arbitrator of the Constitution

You can sue a state official if they are acting under their individual capacity. True or False?

True, a citizen can sue a state official instead of suing the state to get around the 11th amendment.

Who serves a six-year term of office?

US Senator

Congress has enacted a law providing that all disagreements between the United States and a state over federal grant-in-aid funds shall be settled by the filing of a suit in the federal district court in the affected state. The law further provides: "The judgment of the federal court shall be transmitted to the head of the federal agency dispensing such funds, who, if satisfied that the judgment is fair and lawful, shall execute the judgment according to its terms

Unconstitutional, because it vests authority in a federal court to render an advisory opinion

The Leader of the Senate

Vice President

Which of the following powers belongs to Congress?

all of the choices are correct

What group was kept from voting until the passage of the 19th amendment in 1920?

Women

During a presidential campaign, a candidate's campaign manager secretly engaged in activities that may have violated both state and federal laws. After the candidate was elected President, the FBI investigated the manager's activities as well as whether the President was involved. After the campaign manager was indicted in federal court, but before trial, the President granted a blanket pardon to the campaign manager for "all federal crimes that may have been committed in the past 20 years." Is the pardon valid?

Yes, because the pardon power is an unqualified power (except as to impeachment). The President's pardon power is a plenary power under the constitution, not subject to Congressional control or Judicial Review.

A state with a number of automobile manufacturing facilities within its borders and a high unemployment rate because of declining sales of automobiles, especially ones built domestically, enacted a statute calling for a $100-per-car tax on all foreign-built automobiles sold within the state. The tax revenues were to be placed into a state fund to be used to retrain the state's unemployed automobile workers. A major automobile importer and dealership owner brings suit in federal district court seeking to halt the enforcement of the statute on constitutional grounds. Should the court find the statute to be constitutional?

Yes, As long it is consented to by Congress. Article I, Section 10, Clause 2 provides: "No state shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection Laws." Hence, the Import-Export Clause prohibits the states from imposing any tax on imported goods as such or on commercial activity connected with imported goods as such (i.e., taxes discriminating against imports), except with congressional consent.

Due to budget shortages and a critical need of funding to fight a war, Congress enacted a $25 tax on each person flying into an airport in the five most popular vacation destinations in the country, as determined by Congress. The tax was implemented, and officials in the five destinations were outraged, fearing that the number of vacationers to the taxed destinations would decrease due to the tax. If the tax is challenged in federal court by an official with standing, is the most likely result that the tax will be held constitutional?

Yes, because Congress has plenary power to impose taxes to raise revenue. Congress has the power to lay taxes under Article I, Section 8, and a tax measure will usually be upheld if it bears some reasonable relationship to revenue production or if Congress has the power to regulate the taxed activity. Despite the protest from the officials of the affected locations, the tax here does appear to be related to revenue production and so will be upheld. (

Small, prolific mussels called zebra mussels were first introduced into the Great Lakes by a foreign cargo ship. They became a serious problem because they attached themselves to smooth, hard surfaces, and often clogged water intake pipes. Congress determined that zebra mussels posed a great threat to the economic welfare of the Great Lakes region and passed a statute requiring all Great Lakes water intakes to be coated with a special chemical compound that repels zebra mussels. Studies by biologists at a major state university showed that while the special chemical compound that the federal government has required was effective, it also was toxic to other aquatic life. The biologists recommended that Great Lakes intake pipes be coated with a less toxic and less expensive copper-based paint. On the basis of those studies and the recommendation, three Great Lakes states adopted laws permitting municipal water districts to coat their intake pipes with copper paint. Can municipalities using copper-based paint on their intake pipes successfully be prosecuted for violating the federal law?

Yes, because Congress may adopt laws regulating navigable waters. The federal law here could be found valid as an exercise of the commerce power (Congress can regulate any activity that either in itself or in combination with other activities has a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce) or under the admiralty power (Congress can regulate all navigable waterways). The action of the municipalities directly conflicts with the directives of the federal law and can therefore be stopped.

An 1811 law prohibits the sale of alcoholic beverages in your state. The law has never been applied to airplanes flying over the state even though the state claims that its sovereignty runs to the heavens. A new state attorney general has announced that commercial airliners will no longer be permitted to serve alcohol while in the state's air space. A commercial airliner sues to challenge the attorney general's decision claiming that federal law governing the serving of alcohol on commercial airlines preempts state law. s it likely the issue is ripe for judicial review.

Yes, because enforcement is imminent.

A federal statute imposes a $1,000 tax on all vehicles sold in the United States. It requires that all proceeds of the tax will be allocated to a special fund, which will be distributed to school boards in every state for the purchase of new science textbooks. Is the statute constitutional?

Yes, because it is a reasonable exercise of Congress's power to tax and spend. Article I, Section 8, clause 1 of the Constitution gives Congress broad power to tax and spend for the general welfare. The spending power has been interpreted very broadly, and Congress may spend for any public purpose, and not just to pursue its other enumerated powers. Answer choice A is incorrect because a tax by Congress will generally be upheld if it has a reasonable relationship to revenue production. Answer choice B is incorrect because Congress may exercise its spending power for the general welfare, which is for any public purpose, even if the spending is being used to indirectly affect areas that Congress cannot directly regulate. Answer choice D is incorrect because Congress has the plenary power to raise revenue through the imposition of taxes. There is no need to show that the tax is necessary to a compelling government interest.

A state engaged a private company to run its lottery, but the state maintained close regulation of the manufacture and distribution of lottery equipment by the private company in order to prevent frauds. One lottery regulation required the company to submit to the state all applications of persons being considered for employment. The state ran background checks on the prospective employees to ensure that they did not have a criminal record. A prospective employee that did not pass the state background check could not be hired by the company. An employee of the company who had a poor work record and called in sick often was spotted by her supervisor dancing at a bar one evening after she had called in sick during the day. The supervisor immediately told the employee that she should consider herself terminated, although the employee tried to explain that she in fact had been sick that morning but began feeling well by mid-afternoon. A state law provided that employees of the state could not be fired from their positions except for cause. The woman sued in federal court, claiming that she was constitutionally entitled to a hearing to determine whether her supervisor had cause to fire her. If the court rules correctly, will it find the employee's termination to be constitutional?

Yes, because the employer is free to fire employees at will Unless prohibited by a state statute, a private employer usually can fire an employee for any reason or no reason at all, absent a contract providing otherwise.

A township located in a farming community was composed mostly of persons belonging to a specific religious sect. To help instill proper respect for authority in children, which was a central tenet of the sect, and to maintain order in the classroom, the local school board allowed teachers to inflict corporal punishment. Such punishment was inflicted on a fourth grader in a township school immediately after his teacher saw him pulling a girl's hair. Neither he nor his parents belonged to the religious sect. When the boy's parents learned of the incident, they hired an attorney. Rather than suing the teacher for battery as permitted under state law, the attorney brought an action against the teacher under a federal statute providing a cause of action for damages against any government employee who deprives a person of his constitutional rights. Should the court find the policy allowing corporal punishment to be constitutional?

Yes, because the punishment was not grossly disproportionate under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Several years ago, Congress created the National Agency for Burglar Alarms ("NABA"), giving it the power to regulate both burglar alarm hardware and installation personnel. A NABA regulation requires that all burglar alarm installation companies be licensed, and anyone installing an alarm without a license can be fined. The regulation also provides that a person can obtain a license upon certification that they have worked as an installer at a licensed company for at least three years. A man who had been installing alarm systems for a licensed company for eight years was approached by a representative from a national department store chain who offered to hire the man as an independent contractor to revamp the chain's alarm systems. The man quit his job and, because he knew he had the requisite experience, began installing the chain's systems immediately without applying for a license. Angry that the man had quit suddenly, the man's former employer reported him to NABA. NABA fined the man for installing alarm systems without a license. Can the man properly be fined for installing alarms?

Yes, because the regulation falls within the scope of Congress's commerce power, and Congress may delegate its authority to regulate as it has done here. Burglar alarm companies use instrumentalities of interstate commerce such as phone lines and have a cumulative effect on interstate commerce even though some may only do business locally. Hence, their activities can be regulated by Congress. The delegation to the NABA is valid because Congress has broad discretion to delegate its legislative power as long as intelligible standards are set and the power is not uniquely confined to Congress. Therefore, the man can be fined.

A state probation officer filed suit against the state in state court alleging that the state had violated the provisions of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Act set a federal minimum wage that applied to any employee engaged in interstate commerce or employed by an entity engaged in interstate commerce. The state was often engaged in interstate commerce. The state moved for the court to dismiss the case, arguing it had not consented to lawsuits like the one brought by the officer. Should the court dismiss the case?

Yes, because the state did not consent to such lawsuits. Under the Eleventh Amendment, a state government is generally immune from a civil suit by private parties without the state's consent.

The Federal government set a new air pollution standard nation wide in order to curb climate change for future generations. The intent behind this new standard was to block all emissions from being in excess of this new standard. A State with a large concentration of high pollutants decided to set a different, much higher standard, in order for their businesses to not have to comply with the much lower federal standard. If the federal government sets a standard for air pollution control, but a state sets a weaker standard, is there a conflict preemption between the two?

Yes, the Federal standard preempts the State standard.

Congress enacted a statute that purported to ban all discrimination against African-Americans in any commercial transaction taking place within the United States. Would the statute most likely be held constitutional?

Yes, under Thirteenth Amendment provisions barring badges or incidents of slavery The statute is constitutional as a legitimate exercise of the Thirteenth Amendment. The Enabling Clause of the amendment has been held to confer on Congress the authority to proscribe almost any private racially discriminatory action that can be characterized as a badge or incident of slavery. Because the statute at issue bans all discrimination against African-Americans in commercial transactions, it necessarily reaches private conduct. Such action is constitutionally permissible pursuant to the Thirteenth Amendment.

A federal law effectively banned single-use plastics in consumer products. The purpose of this law is to promote more environmentally friendly packaging options. A newly enacted FL law provides that single-use plastic packaging is required for single serving-snack products. The purpose of the FL law is to ensure sterile packaging in school lunches. Would the FL law be preempted?

Yes. The laws are mutually exclusive. Federal law prevails because it is impossible to comply with both laws. It would be impossible to follow both the state and federal law. If a federal and state law are mutually exclusive, so that a person cannot comply with both, the state law is deemed preempted.

Democracy is best described as:

a form of government where the people make the laws

The Constitution does not allow states to:

declare war

The 26th Amendment gives the right to vote to

eighteen year olds

A republican form of government is one where:

elected representatives make the laws

For a case to be justiciable and not an advisory opinion, there must be a substantial likelihood that a federal court decision ____ a claimant will bring about some change.

in favor of

For a case to be justiciable and not an advisory opinion, there must be substantial likelihood that a federal court decision ____ a claimant will bring about some change.

in favor of

The main responsibility of the judicial branch of the national government as states in the US Constitution is to:

interpret laws

How can Congress override a Presidential veto of a proposed law?

it can override with a two-thirds vote in both houses

All of the following statements about the executive branch are true, except:

it passes laws

When the Supreme Court declares a law unconstitutional, it is using its power of:

judicial review

Which of the following is a qualification for a person serving as a Representative in Congress?

must be at least 25 years of age

A federal system of government is one in which:

powers are divided between the national government and the state governments

Amendment 17 of the US Constitution changes the election of Senators from:

state legislatures to the people of the state