Constitutional Law Test #2

What is the process for impeaching a federal official?

the House of Representatives impeaches government officials and the trial takes place before the Senate.

What did the Court rule in Yakus v. United States (1944)?

WWII price control act. This is the price control case. Congress said that The court upheld it, the EPECA is an exercise by congress of its legislative powers and the constitution doesn't require that congress to find every fact it desires to base legislative action.

What did the Court rule in Brown v. Board of Education (1955)("Brown II")? What judicial phrase would govern the subsequent pace of desegregation?

We aren't going to deal with the actual remedy, because there really wasn't one to satisfy both sides. It remanded the case, it didn't do much in the south. *Deliberate Speed

What did the Court rule in Johnson v. California (2005)?

Can a prison segregate? No. Unconstitutional.

What ultimately became of the federal law allowing for the appointment of independent counsels?

• The law expired in 1999 and was not re-authorized

What did the opinion in The Slaughter-House Cases (1873) suggest with regard to the scope of the Equal Protection Clause?

• The opinion "doubted very much whether any action of a State not directed by way of discrimination against the negroes as a class, or on account of their race, will ever be held to come within the purview of this provision"

To what extent does the President have absolute immunity from incurring civil damages relating to his official duties? Members of his Cabinet?

• Total • Cabinet Members have qualified immunity

What did the Court rule in United States v. Nixon (1974)?

(Watergate) A grand jury returned indictments against seven of President Richard Nixon's closest aides in the Watergate affair. The special prosecutor appointed by Nixon and the defendants sought audio tapes of conversations recorded by Nixon in the Oval Office. Nixon asserted that he was immune from the subpoena claiming "executive privilege," which is the right to withhold information from other government branches to preserve confidential communications within the executive branch or to secure the national interest. Decided together with Nixon v. United States. Is the President's right to safeguard certain information, using his "executive privilege" confidentiality power, entirely immune from judicial review? No. The Court held that neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the generalized need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified, presidential privilege. The Court granted that there was a limited executive privilege in areas of military or diplomatic affairs, but gave preference to "the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice." Therefore, the president must obey the subpoena and produce the tapes and documents. Nixon resigned shortly after the release of the tapes.

Under Equal Protection jurisprudence, what is the "traditional approach"? The "strict scrutiny" standard? The "intermediate" standard?

*Rational basis is lowest o Most laws viewed at this level o Related to a legitimate state interest o Not arbitrary or capricious *Strict scrutiny is highest o If law involves suspect classification (race, religion, national origin) o Fundamental rights -Right to vote, etc. o Government must show compelling interest, not just a rational interest, and is narrowly tailor to meet that interest *Intermediate level for gender classifications o Must serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to the achievement of those objectives o Gender cases -Too many people to satisfy a "suspect class"

What law was at issue in New Orleans v. Dukes (1976)? What did the Court rule?

- No food on the streets because restaurants were dying, only vendors who were there 8 years could continue to sell. Violated Equal protection. -Court said, if it's a regular economic law they will defer to legislature. Unless, it is just arbitrary. Left it to New Orleans (state issue)

What was the legal status of dueling in the early 1800s? What was the general prospect (i.e. health-wise) for participants in a duel?

Dueling was against the law, it killed Hamilton by bouncing off his rib and into his vertebrae.

What did the Court rule in INS v. Chadha (1983)? How did the ruling affect Mr. Chadha? What did Justice White argue in dissent? How many federal statutes were potentially impacted by the ruling?

-Chadha needs to go pursuant to the law. Attorney general suspended the deportation because Chadha would've been killed back in his home country. Legislative Veto was important here. -Overturned 200 federal statutes- let's take a little power away. The court took a very black and white look at this. The legislative veto was unconstitutional. -White dissented and said who agreed to the govt set up. Now you've created an issue where the branches think they can always act by themselves. Federal Agencies cannot be checked. -End result, Chadha could stay.

Which justice wrote the opinion in Brown v. Board of Education (1954)? What did the Court hold with respect to is prior opinion in Plessy v. Ferguson? What did the Court determine with regard to the original intent of the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment on the issue of ending racial discrimination in public schools? What was the Court's vote in the case?

-Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the opinion of the unanimous Court. The Supreme Court held that "separate but equal" facilities are inherently unequal and violate the protections of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Originally argued in 1952. 5th amendment is at issue. There needed to be standing. Warren replaced Vince. The vote was unanimous, because of Warren. Warren wrote the opinion. -They said Plessy was the outlier and Starauder should be precedent, and things have changed. Separate but equal aint working, it's not really equal actually.

What did the Court rule in United States Department of Agriculture v. Moreno (1973)?

-Food stamp act, if theres any unrelated family member receiving benefits from food stamps will violate, thus taking away food stamps. -Court said this was not a state interest to punish an unpopular group.

What was the ultimate result of The Compromise in 1790 as it pertained to the placement of the nation's capital?

-Hamilton got the National Bank and Jefferson and Madison obtained the national capital (District of Columbia) for the South.

As James Madison explained to Edmund Randolph, what principles was Madison prepared to defend to the death at the Constitutional Convention ("Convention")?

-Proportional representation by citizens for house and senate so the new government would speak as a whole. -A very broad executive veto over state laws.

What facts were at issue in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)? What did the Court rule regarding his case? What did the Court hold with regard to the Missouri Compromise?

-Scott was a slave in Missouri and ended up in a free state but then sold again to be a slave. He sued under diversity of jurisdiction. Court struck down the Missouri Compromise as unconstitutional (judicial review). -The dissent argued the blacks can never be citizens.

How were votes counted at the Convention? Individually by delegate (with simple majority rule)? Or state-by-state?

-The Virginians and Others met a week early and formulated a plan. Nationalists ultimately prevailed because they had a plan, but did not get everything they wanted. -Votes were taken one state-one vote. -The biggest concession was there wasn't going to have equal representation in the house and senate.

According to The Quartet, what topic took up the most debate time and energy at the Convention?

-The debate over the executive branch was one of the biggest debates there was because they did not want what they ran away from. -Slavery- just didn't really talk about it. -Sherman Compromise is what saved the convention from falling apart in July.

What is an executive agreement? How common have they become in modern times? Does the President need Senate approval to enter into an executive agreement (see, United States v. Pink (1942)?

-an international agreement, usually regarding routine administrative matters not warranting a formal treaty, made by the executive branch of the US government without ratification by the Senate. President doesn't need approval. In a case similar to United States v. Belmont (1937), the United States attempted to assist the Soviet Union in recovering assets of the First Russian Insurance Company which the New York Superintendent of Insurance refused to release. The Court required New York to release the assets. Justice Douglas affirmed Justice Sutherland's reasoning in Belmont and argued that New York could not "rewrite our foreign policy to conform to its own domestic policies. Power over external affairs . . . is vested in the national government exclusively."

Pursuant to Article VII of the United States Constitution ("Constitution"), how many States were needed to ratify the document?

9

How many delegates to the Convention owned slaves?

25; including George Washington (More than half)

What was the average age of the delegates to the Convention?

44

To what extent did the original thirteen colonies give express legal support of slavery?

6 of them supported slavery, 1 explicitly was against it (Massachusetts), the rest were in the middle (they restricted rights of slaves)

According to the 1790 census, approximately how many slaves lived in the United States?

700,000, 90% of them were concentrated in the Chesapeake Region

What law was at issue in Personnel Administrator v. Fenney (1979)? What did the Court rule? What percentage of women were eligible to benefit under the State law at issue?

A Massachusetts law gave hiring preference to honorably discharged veterans applying for state civil service positions. Feeney, a woman who scored high on certain competitive civil service examinations, was ranked below male veterans who had lower scores. Did the law discriminate against women and violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? No. The Court held that the law was enacted to serve "legitimate and worthy purposes" and not to discriminate on the basis of sex. Even though few women benefitted from the scheme, Justice Stewart argued that "veteran status is not uniquely male." Furthermore, the law placed many men who were not veterans at a disadvantage as well. The distinction in the law was clearly between veterans and nonveterans, not between men and women. The court said this isn't men v women, it was veteran v veteran. There was no intentional discrimination, no 14th amendment violation.

What was the "Jeffersonian interpretation" of the American Revolution?

A depiction of the American Revolution as a liberation movement, a clean break not just from English domination but also from the historic corruptions of European monarchy and aristocracy.

What law was at issue in Washington v. Davis (1976)? What did the Court rule?

After the applications of two blacks were rejected by the District of Columbia Police Department, the two men filed suit against Mayor Walter E. Washington. The men alleged that the Department's recruiting procedures, including a written personnel test, discriminated against racial minorities. They claimed that the test was unrelated to job performance and excluded a disproportionate number of black applicants. Did the recruiting procedures violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?In a 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that the procedures and written personnel test did not constitute racial discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause.The Court found that the Clause was designed to prevent official discrimination on the basis of race; laws or other official acts that had racially disproportionate impacts did not automatically become constitutional violations. The Court reasoned that the D.C. Police Department's procedures did not have discriminatory intent and were racially neutral measures of employment qualification.

How long did it take for all 13 States to ratify the Constitution?

Almost 3 years

What did the Court rule in Palmore v. Sidoti (1984)?

Anthony and Linda Sidoti, both Caucasians, were divorced and Linda was awarded custody of their daughter. One year later, Anthony sought custody of the child after Linda began cohabitating with Clarence Palmore, an African-American. The Florida courts awarded Mr. Sidoti custody of the child, arguing that the child would be more vulnerable to social stigmatization in a racially mixed household. No evidence was introduced that indicated Ms. Sidoti was unfit to continue the custody of the child. Did the removal of the child from Linda Sidoti's custody violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? In a unanimous decision, the Court held that while ethnic prejudices did exist in society, those private biases were not permissible considerations for the removal of an infant child from the custody of its mother. "Private biases may be outside the reach of the law, but the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect." The Court thus held that the decision of the lower courts was an unconstitutional denial of rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

What "war powers" are given to Congress in the text of the Constitution?

Article 1 section 8: authorizes congress to: -Lay and collect taxes to provide for the common defense -Grant letters of Marque & Reprisal -Raise & support armies -Declare war -Make rules for the Govt. & Regulation of the land & Naval Bases -Provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union suppress insurrections & repel invasions -Provide for organizing, arming & disciplining the militia -Suspend "privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus in cases of Rebellion or Invasion"

Where in the Constitution are the Executive's powers located?

Article 2

What facts were at issue in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006)? What did the Court rule in Hamdan regarding the constitutionality of the military commissions at issue? What was the Court's vote?

Bush administration lost every single time. If you don't call them an enemy combatant then it becomes a Geneva Convention issue. Hamdan was from Yemen but was an american citizen. Bush had started creating military commissions. Congress allowed this. Facts: Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's former chauffeur, was captured by Afghan forces and imprisoned by the U.S. military in Guantanamo Bay. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court to challenge his detention. The district court granted Hamdan's habeas petition, ruling that he must first be given a hearing to determine whether he was a prisoner of war under the Geneva Convention before he could be tried by a military commission. The Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed the decision, however, finding that the Geneva Convention could not be enforced in federal court and that the establishment of military tribunals had been authorized by Congress and was therefore not unconstitutional. May the rights protected by the Geneva Convention be enforced in federal court through habeas corpus petitions? Was the military commission established to try Hamdan and others for alleged war crimes in the War on Terror authorized by the Congress or the inherent powers of the President? Yes and no. The Supreme Court, in a 5-to-3 decision authored by Justice John Paul Stevens, held that neither an act of Congress nor the inherent powers of the Executive laid out in the Constitution expressly authorized the sort of military commission at issue in this case. Absent that express authorization, the commission had to comply with the ordinary laws of the United States and the laws of war. The Geneva Convention, as a part of the ordinary laws of war, could therefore be enforced by the Supreme Court, along with the statutory Uniform Code of Military Justice. Hamdan's exclusion from certain parts of his trial deemed classified by the military commission violated both of these, and the trial was therefore illegal. Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito dissented. Chief Justice John Roberts, who participated in the case while serving on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, did not take part in the decision.

What did the Court rule in Mistretta v. United States (1989)?

Congress created the United States Sentencing Commission under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. This Commission was to attack the wide discrepancies in sentencing by federal court judges by creating sentencing guidelines for all federal offenses. It was to be part of the judicial branch, with members appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. John Mistretta (convicted of three counts of selling cocaine) claimed that the Act violated the delegation-of-powers principle by giving the Commission "excessive legislative powers." This case was decided together with United States v. Mistretta.Did the Act violate the nondelegation doctrine of the Constitution? he Court found the Act to be valid because although Congress cannot generally delegate its legislative power to another Branch, the nondelegation doctrine does not prevent Congress from obtaining assistance from coordinate Branches. The test of validity is that an "intelligible principle" must be established by the legislature where the agency of the delegated authority must adhere to specific directives that govern its authority. The delegation to the Commission was sufficiently detailed and specific to meet these requirements. The Commission was given substantial authority and discretion in setting the guidelines; however, Congress established a classification hierarchy for federal crimes that the Commission was to use as an outline for its work.

What did the Court rule in Clinton v. New York (1998)?

Congress passed a bill and said they're not going to take their ideas when it comes to spending. The president does not have that power. Line item veto case, president can strike down stuff that had already been passed, not constitutional. Did the President's ability to selectively cancel individual portions of bills, under the Line Item Veto Act, violate the Presentment Clause of Article I? Yes. In a 6-to-3 decision the Court first established that both the City of New York, and its affiliates, and the farmers' cooperative suffered sufficiently immediate and concrete injuries to sustain their standing to challenge the President's actions. The Court then explained that under the Presentment Clause, legislation that passes both Houses of Congress must either be entirely approved (i.e. signed) or rejected (i.e. vetoed) by the President. The Court held that by canceling only selected portions of the bills at issue, under authority granted him by the Act, the President in effect "amended" the laws before him. Such discretion, the Court concluded, violated the "finely wrought" legislative procedures of Article I as envisioned by the Framers.

The defendant in Medellin v. Texas (2008) was convicted of what crime and received what sentence? What did President Bush's "Memorandum" require State courts to do? What did the Court rule?

Crime: Gang Rape and Murder Sentence: Death Sentence Medellin raised a post-conviction challenge arguing that the state had violated his rights under the Vienna Convention, a treaty to which the United States is a party. Article 36 of the Vienna Convention gives any foreign national detained for a crime the right to contact his consulate. After his petition was ultimately dismissed by the Supreme Court (see Medellin v. Dretke ), Medellin's case returned to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Medellin argued that the Vienna Convention granted him an individual right that state courts must respect, a possibility left open by the Supreme Court's 2006 decision in Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon. Ruling: The Court held that the signed Protocol of the Vienna Convention did not make the treaty self-executing and, therefore, the treaty is not binding upon state courts until it is enacted into law by Congress. Furthermore, Chief Justice Roberts characterized the presidential memorandum as an attempt by the executive branch to enforce a non-self executing treaty without the necessary Congressional action, giving it no binding authority on state courts.

What is "de jure" discrimination? "De facto"?

De jure- intentional discrimination De facto- unintentional but is done by actions

What were Hamilton, Washington and Madison's feelings upon leaving the Convention in terms of their attempt to transform the confederation into a full-fledged nation?

Defeat: they didn't get everything they wanted

What was the Residence Bill?

Determined that a 100 mile square area for the capital of the United States would be chosen along the Potomac River along the Virginia-Maryland border. The area was to be named the District of Columbia, after Christopher Columbus, and was selected by George Washington.

What facts were at issue in Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978)? What governmental interests did the University advance in support of its admissions policy, and which of these did the Court deem "compelling"? What did the Court rule? Which justice wrote the controlling opinion? Was the strict scrutiny standard applied? What did Justice Thurgood Marshall note about legislation passed at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified?

Did the University of California violate the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by practicing an affirmative action policy that resulted in the repeated rejection of Bakke's application for admission to its medical school? No and yes. There was no single majority opinion. Four of the justices contended that any racial quota system supported by the government that violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., agreed, casting the deciding vote ordering the medical school to admit Bakke. However, in his opinion, Powell argued that the rigid use of racial quotas as employed at the school violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The remaining four justices held that the use of race as a criterion in admissions decisions in higher education was constitutionally permissible. Powell joined that opinion as well, contending that the use of race was permissible as one of several admission criteria. So, the Court managed to minimize white opposition to the goal of equality (by finding for Bakke) while extending gains for racial minorities through affirmative action.

What did the Court rule in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and Gratz v. Bollinger (2003)? How did the admissions policies at issue differ in the two cases? What did major American business and the United States military argue in briefs on the issue of affirmative action? What side did the United States take in Grutter v. Bollinger?

Did the University of Michigan's use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Yes. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist delivered the opinion for the 6-3 majority. The Court held that the OUA's policies were not sufficiently narrowly tailored to meet the strict scrutiny standard. Because the policy did not provide individual consideration, but rather resulted in the admission of nearly every applicant of "underrepresented minority" status, it was not narrowly tailored in the manner required by previous jurisprudence on the issue. Grutter v. Bollinger (2003): upheld the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School Gratz v. Bollinger (2003): ruled the University's point system's "predetermined point allocations" that awarded 20 points towards admission to underrepresented minorities "ensures that the diversity contributions of applicants cannot be individually assessed" and was therefore unconstitutional.

Where did the term "Americans" come from?

English writers who used the term negatively as a way of referring to marginal or peripheral population unworthy of equal status with full blooded Englishmen back at the metropolitan center of the British empire

What did the Court rule in Vance v. Bradley (1979)?

Facts: Mandatory retirement age of 60... Section 632 of the Foreign Service Act of 1946 required that members of the Foreign Service retirement system retire at 60. Bradley didnt like that so he took em to the district court of columbia and won. But The govt appealed to the Supreme court. Ruling: reasonable basis found, EP not violated → retirement law upheld 8-1

What did the United States Supreme Court ("Court") rule in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer [the Steel Seizure Case] (1952)? What did Justice Jackson argue in his concurrence?

Facts:In April of 1952, during the Korean War, President Truman issued an executive order directing Secretary of Commerce Charles Sawyer to seize and operate most of the nation's steel mills. This was done in order to avert the expected effects of a strike by the United Steelworkers of America. Ruling: In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that the President did not have the authority to issue such an order. The Court found that there was no congressional statute that authorized the President to take possession of private property. The Court also held that the President's military power as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces did not extend to labor disputes. The Court argued that "the President's power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker." Concur.: Jackson concurred that the president's power is at highest when its concurrent with congress

What facts were at issue in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)? What did the Court rule? What did Justice Harlan argue in dissent?

Facts: Louisiana enacted the Separate Car Act, which required separate railway cars for blacks and whites. In 1892, Homer Plessy - who was seven-eighths Caucasian - agreed to participate in a test to challenge the Act. He was solicited by the Comite des Citoyens (Committee of Citizens), a group of New Orleans residents who sought to repeal the Act. They asked Plessy, who was technically black under Louisiana law, to sit in a "whites only" car of a Louisiana train. The railroad cooperated because it thought the Act imposed unnecessary costs via the purchase of additional railroad cars. When Plessy was told to vacate the whites-only car, he was refused and arrested. Plessy was convicted. Does the Separate Car Act violate the Fourteenth Amendment? The Court held that the state law was constitutional. In an opinion authored by Justice Henry Billings Brown, the majority upheld state-imposed racial segregation. Justice Brown conceded that the 14th Amendment intended to establish absolute equality for the races before the law, but held that separate treatment did not imply the inferiority of African Americans. The Court noted that there was not a meaningful difference in quality between the white and black railway cars. In short, segregation did not in itself constitute unlawful discrimination. In dissent, John Marshall Harlan argued that the Constitution was color-blind and that the United States had no class system. Accordingly, all citizens should have equal access to civil rights.

What facts were at issue in Strauder v. West Virginia (1880)? What did the Court rule?

Food stamp act, if theres any unrelated family member receiving benefits from food stamps will violate, thus taking away food stamps. -Court said this was not a state interest to punish an unpopular group. Does the state law barring blacks from jury service violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Yes. Strong, writing for the majority, declared that to deny citizen participation in the administration of justice solely on racial grounds "is practically a brand upon them, affixed by law; an assertion of their inferiority, and a stimulant to that race prejudice which is an impediment to securing to individuals of the race that equal justice which the law aims to secure to all others."

According to The Quartet, which individual should share with James Madison the title of "Father of the Constitution"?

Gouverneur Morris

How did Madison and Thomas Jefferson's economic beliefs differ from those of Alexander Hamilton?

Hamilton wanted to consolidate power. Madison started to line up with Hamilton's but after a while they started to align with Jefferson's more because too much central power.

In the first administration, what posts were held by Hamilton, Jefferson and John Jay?

Hamilton: First Secretary of the Treasury Jefferson: First Secretary of State John Jay: First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

What facts are known about the Burr-Hamilton duel?

Hamiltonian version- Hamilton put his gun in the air and wasted a shot Burr version- Hamilton fired and missed, and then Burr fired and it killed him.

How did Hamilton view the national debt as it existed in 1790?

He viewed it as a way to build credit as a nation and as a way to unify the states(by having a national bank to assume the debt of all the states)

What did the Court rule in Fisher v. Texas (2016)? What was the nature of the admissions policy at issue? What was the vote in the case? What did the dissenters argue?

Held that the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit correctly applied strict scrutiny to the University of Texas at Austin's undergraduate admissions policy, in accordance with Fisher v. University of Texas (2013), which ruled that strict scrutiny should be applied to determine the constitutionality of the University's race-sensitive admissions policy. decided by 4-3. Dissenters: Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissent in which he argued that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment categorically prohibits the use of race as a consideration in a higher education admissions process. In his separate dissent, Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. wrote that majority's decision was too deferential to the University of Texas' determination that its use of race in the admissions process was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest and that the majority failed to properly apply strict scrutiny. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and Justice Clarence Thomas joined in the dissent. Justice Elena Kagan did not participate in the discussion or decision of the case.

How often has the Court invalidated a congressional delegation of legislative power to a federal officer or agency?

In only two cases and both involved New Deal Legislation: Schecter v U.S. and Panama Refining Co. v Ryan

What were Jefferson's personal characteristics?

Jefferson admired country folk, planters, farmers, etc. A very complicated guy, always trying to hide his involvement. He would leave when things got rough, did not want centralized power.

Generally speaking, what did Thomas Jefferson think about constitutions? About government in general and how strong it should be?

Jefferson thought the government should be weak & state focused, constitutions are transitory and should be rewritten every few decades. -Civil liberties- rights a government can't infringe upon.

What governmental office did Aaron Burr hold at the time of the duel?

Jefferson's Vice President

Who was present at "the dinner" held on June 20, 1790?

Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton

What did the Court rule in Korematsu v. United States (1944)? What did Justice Murphy argue in dissent?

In response to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor during World War II, the U.S. government decided to require Japanese-Americans to move into relocation camps as a matter of national security. President Franklin Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 in February 1942, two months after Pearl Harbor. A Japanese-American man living in San Leandro, Fred Korematsu, chose to stay at his residence rather than obey the order to relocate. Korematsu was arrested and convicted of violating the order. He responded by arguing that Executive Order 9066 violated the Fifth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit affirmed Korematsu's conviction. Did the President and Congress go beyond their war powers by implementing exclusion and restricting the rights of Americans of Japanese descent? In an opinion written by Justice Black, the Court ruled that the evacuation order violated by Korematsu was valid. The majority found that the Executive Order did not show racial prejudice but rather responded to the strategic imperative of keeping the U.S. and particularly the West Coast (the region nearest Japan) secure from invasion. -Roosevelt gave the order to prevent sabotage and espionage. They wanted to exclude anyone on the west coast that was Japanese-American. -Congress backed it up with legislation, 6-3 case -Murphy dissented there was no tangible evidence that shows disloyalty, and this opinion than the executive order itself. You put a judicial imprint of propriety.

What became of Burr and his career after mortally wounding Hamilton?

It ended his career and any life he would want to have. He went to Georgia because he was indicted.

What did the Court rule with regard to the two school district plans at issue in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1 (2007)? What did Justice Clarence Thomas argue in his concurrence? Justice William Kennedy in his concurrence? Justice John Paul Stevens in his dissent?

It is unconstitutional for a school district to deny a student admission to her chosen school on the basis of race. Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment & Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 5-4 for Parents Involved. ustice Kennedy agreed that the District's use of race was unconstitutional but stressed that public schools may sometimes consider race to ensure equal educational opportunity.

Which Framer is the consensus "Father of the Bill of Rights"?

James Madison (Member of the House)

As of 1790, what were James Madison's political views and how had they evolved? What was the nature of his relationship with Alexander Hamilton?

James Madison was a federalist who became an advocate for state's rights.

Where did the duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr occur?

July 11, 1804 on the Hudson River near Weehawken, New Jersey.

In what opinion did the Court first state that race-based classifications would be subject to the strict scrutiny analysis pursuant to the Equal Protection Clause?

Korematsu v. US

Prior to Brown, what was the NAACP's general litigation strategy?

Marshall said we need to pick narrower battles. He started going around state graduate schools, you don't allow African Americans and THAT is unconstitutional. There's no separate but equal law.

At the time of the State ratifying conventions, did the majority of American newspapers favor or oppose the proposed Constitution?

Most of the newspapers were Federalist and pushed for those federalist ideals.

What did the Court rule in Myers v. United States (1926)? In Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935)?

Myers: If a position is purely executive, the president can remove them at will. But not all agencies are strictly under the executive office. Humphrey: Congress could restrict the removal because the position was not purely executive.

How often were all 55 delegates to the Convention actually present?

Never

Which State officially ratified the Constitution?

New Hampshire

In Virginia, which individual effectively blocked James Madison's election to the U.S. Senate?

Patrick Henry

What did the Court rule in The Antelope (1825)? In Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842)

PvP: Did Pennsylvania's law prohibiting the extradition of Negroes to other states for the purpose of slavery violate Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution? Did the law violate the Fugitive Slave Law of 1793 as applied by the Supremacy Clause? Yes and yes. Justice Joseph Story delivered the opinion of the Court. The 1788 and 1826 Pennsylvania laws contradicted Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution and the Fugitive Slave Law. The Supremacy Clause assured that federal laws prevailed over the state laws. The decision did not wholly end asylum across state lines for slaves. Story granted that the state laws put in place by slave states to recapture slaves in free states only had to be enforced by federal officials, and not state magistrates.

What facts were at issue in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Company (1936)? What did the Court rule? Generally speaking, what role does the President play in the United States' relations with foreign nations?

Roosevelt declared an arms veto, opposers claimed they did not have power to enact this. The Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation, a weapons manufacturer, sold fighter planes and bombers to Bolivia during the Chaco War, during which Paraguay and Bolivia contested control of a semi-arid region. This violated a Joint Resolution of Congress and a proclamation issued by President Roosevelt, which banned U.S. weapons manufacturers from aiding either side of the war. Challenging its indictment, Curtiss-Wright argued that Congress had violated the non-delegation doctrine in allowing the executive branch to make decisions that were properly left to the legislature. In an opinion written by Justice Sutherland, the majority upheld the Joint Resolution. (Law struck down) The Court reasoned that the federal government could not exceed its enumerated powers regarding internal issues but had a much broader scope of discretion in foreign affairs. Because "the President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation,"Congress may provide the President with a special degree of discretion in external matters which would not be afforded domestically. Roosevelt thus had the discretion to determine what impact a certain policy might have on foreign affairs and make decisions accordingly, even had Congress not authorized him. Justice McReynolds authored a dissenting opinion.

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena (1995)?

Strict Scrutiny: Affirmative action programs that give preference to minorities must respond to specific past instances of discrimination and not simply historical discrimination. A limit on affirmative action.

What did the Court rule in Whitman v. American Trucking Association (2001)?

Supreme Court case that allows Congress to delegate broad authority to regulatory agency. The Clean Air act. Delegates to the EPA the power to set air quality standards to protect the public health, this was a strong enough delegation. Unanimous.

At the time of the American Revolution, what was the relative power of the British army and navy vis-à-vis the colonies?

The British army and navy constituted the most powerful military in the world.

What did the Court rule in Bolling v. Sharpe(1954)? What constitutional provision was at issue?

The D.C. Board of Education denied a petition by a group of parents in Anacostia to racially integrate John Phillip Sousa Junior High School. The following year, in 1950, the parents sought admission to the all-white school for 11 African-American children. When the request was again denied by the Board, a Howard University law professor brought a lawsuit. The claim was dismissed by the trial court. Did the segregation of the public schools of Washington D.C. violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment? The Fifth Amendment's guarantee of "liberty" protected by due process also guaranteed racial equality in public education in the District of Columbia. In a unanimous decision authored by Chief Justice Earl Warren, the Court found that racial discrimination in the public schools of Washington, DC, denied blacks due process of law as protected by the Fifth Amendment. Noting the legal peculiarities of DC, Justice Warren recognized that the Fifth Amendment (which applied to the District) did not contain an Equal Protection Clause, while the Fourteenth Amendment. Lacking an equal protection standard to invalidate the District's segregation, Warren creatively relied on the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of "liberty" to find the segregation of the Washington, DC, schools unconstitutional. The Supreme Court decided this case on the same day as Brown v. Board of Education, which overshadowed it. Its most important legacy is the concept of reverse incorporation and the application of the same anti-discrimination principles to state and federal governments.

Generally speaking, were the Federalists or the Antifederalists better organized during the State ratifying conventions?

The Federalist were more organized.

What did the Court rule in Memphis v. Greene (1980)?

The court agreed that "the adverse impact on blacks was greater than on whites" found no violation of 42 USC or the 13th amendment. Issue: When a street is closed and has the effect of somewhat restricting access to property in a minority neighborhood, will the closing be a violation of civil rights? Held: No.

What law was at issue in Loving v. Virginia (1967)? What did the Court rule? Was marriage recognized as a "fundamental" constitutional right?

The court struck down this law, this law treated people very differently with a heavy burden of justification. This was white supremacy in its simplicity. In 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia. The Lovings returned to Virginia shortly thereafter. The couple was then charged with violating the state's antimiscegenation statute, which banned inter-racial marriages. The Lovings were found guilty and sentenced to a year in jail (the trial judge agreed to suspend the sentence if the Lovings would leave Virginia and not return for 25 years). Did Virginia's antimiscegenation law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Yes. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that distinctions drawn according to race were generally "odious to a free people" and were subject to "the most rigid scrutiny" under the Equal Protection Clause. The Virginia law, the Court found, had no legitimate purpose "independent of invidious racial discrimination." The Court rejected the state's argument that the statute was legitimate because it applied equally to both blacks and whites and found that racial classifications were not subject to a "rational purpose" test under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also held that the Virginia law violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. "Under our Constitution," wrote Chief Justice Earl Warren, "the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State."

What are the details of the presidential election of 1800 regarding the candidates, the result, and the influence of Alexander Hamilton?

The election was put in the house of representatives. It was a wild affair but Jefferson did win, but back then there was a tie. Jefferson was more favored over Burr because of Hamilton.

At the time of the dinner, what were the participants' positions in the federal government?

Thomas Jefferson: Secretary of State Hamilton: Secretary of the Treasury Madison: leader of southern congressmen

In what Article of the Constitution is the word "slave" or "slavery" utilized?

Twice: 13th amendment and Slavery was implicitly permitted in the original Constitution through such as Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, commonly known as the Three-Fifths Compromise, which detailed how each slave state's enslaved population would be factored into its total population count for the purposes of apportioning seats in the United States House of Representatives and direct taxes among the states.

Has the Court ever struck down a statute pursuant to the Equal Protection Clause while using the "traditional approach"?

Yes, USDA vs Moreno

What facts were at issue in Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)? What did the Court rule?

Yick Wo was an alien Did the unequal enforcement of the city ordinance violate Yick Wo and Wo Lee's rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Yes. In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice T. Stanley Matthews, the Court concluded that, despite the impartial wording of the law, its biased enforcement violated the Equal Protection Clause. According to the Court, even if the law is impartial on its face, "if it is applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and an unequal hand, so as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations between persons in similar circumstances, material to their rights, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the Constitution." The kind of biased enforcement experienced by the plaintiffs, the Court concluded, amounted to "a practical denial by the State of that equal protection of the law" and therefore violated the provision of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What did the Military Commissions Act of 2006 attempt to do in terms of the United States courts' jurisdiction over the habeas corpus claims of Guantanamo Bay detainees? What did the Court rule in Boumediene v. Bush (2008) regarding the habeas corpus protections of Guantanamo Bay detainees?

You cannot just strip habeas corpus, it's in the constitution. Also Guantanamo Bay is a US territory. Allowed commissions but removed Habeas Corpus from the courts. The government said were acting pursuant to legislation and the court ruled that "No you're not going to do it. Guantanamo bay is part of the U.S." This effort was struck down, 5-4 case.

How does Title VII of the Civil Rights Act deal with hiring practices that negatively impact a disproportionate number of minorities? How does this standard differ from a case brought under the Equal Protection Clause?

You don't have to prove intent, it shifts the verdict to the other side.

What is a bill of attainder?

an act of legislature finding a person guilty of treason or felony without trial.

During the first third of the twentieth century, what constitutional provision was utilized to overturn numerous economic and social welfare regulations?

due process clause

What law was at issue in New York City Transit Authority v. Beazer (1979)? What did the Court rule?

violated rational basis... Carl Beazer and Jose Reyes were employees of the New York Transit Authority (NYTA). Both were heroin addicts undergoing methadone treatment. NYTA maintained a policy against hiring anyone using narcotics. Methadone was considered a narcotic, and both Beazer and Reyes were terminated after NYTA learned of their methadone use. Beazer and Reyes filed a class action against the Transit Authority, alleging that NYTA's policy discriminated against blacks and Hispanics. They cited a statistic showing that 81 percent of suspected violations of NYTA's policy were black or Hispanic. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled for Beazer, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed this decision. • Did the New York Transit Authority's prohibition against the hiring of anybody using methadone violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? • No and no. In a 6-3 opinion, the Court reversed the Second Circuit and held that the Transit Authority's policy was not unconstitutional or illegal under the Civil Rights Act. Writing for the majority, Justice Stevens described Beazer's statistical argument as "weak", as the 81 percent statistic did not relate to methadone users specifically. The Court recognized the public safety interest in keeping narcotics users from working for NYTA. The narcotics rule was an allowable policy choice made by NYTA, and any specific exemption for methadone users from the narcotics rule would have been "costly" and "imprecise." Justice Lewis Powell wrote an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. o Not a fundamental right to work for government

What is an in camera inspection of documents?

when a judge reviews evidence (depositions, documents, photos and the like) to determine whether it should be provided to other parties. This usually occurs when both sides in a case disagree about whether a certain, usually crucial piece of evidence should come in, meaning (1) is it admissible-is it relevant to the trier of fact in making a determination of the ultimate issue of the case and (2) is the prejudicial affect to the defendant substantially outweighed by the probative value of the evidence. Any material that is not relevant is not disclosed or may be redacted.

Does the equal protection guarantee restrain the federal government and the State governments to the same extent?

yes

What provisions in the Constitution dealt with slavery (as the document was ratified in 1787)?

• Article I, Section 2 based a state's representation in the House of Representatives on its free population and three-fifths of "all other persons" within its territory • Article I, Section 9 barred Congress from abolishing the slave trade before 1808 • Article IV, Section 2 which provided that "no person held to service or labor" under the laws of one state could escape that status upon flight to another state but, on the contrary, "shall be delivered up on the claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due" (fugitive slave clause) -3/5 rule, fugitive slave clause

What did Justice Holmes say about the legitimacy of claims brought under the Equal Protection Clause?

• He dismissed the Equal Protection Clause as "the usual last resort of constitutional arguments"

What did the Court rule in Clinton v. Jones (1997)?

• Jones sued Clinton for sexual harassment, not official duties o Clinton said to abate action (file a motion not to dismiss but hold off until he's out of office) because it would hinder the effective performance of his office (separation of powers) and be a huge burden • Court said it wouldn't be that big an impediment on his presidency and presidential duties and allow lawsuit to go forward o Civil action unrelated to official duties (including that occurring before he became president) can go forward

What did the Court rule in Morrison v. Olsen (1988)? Specifically, to what extent could Congress limit the Attorney General's removal powers? What did Justice Scalia argue in dissent?

• The Court held that the independent counsel provision of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 did not violate the principle of separation of powers because it did not increase the power of one branch at the expense of another. Instead, even though the President cannot directly fire an Independent Counsel, the person holding that office was still an officer of the Executive branch and not under the control of either the U.S. Congress or the courts. 7-1 decision didn't violate the appointment clause. Justice Scalia, the lone dissenter, said that the law should be struck down because (1) criminal prosecution is an exercise of "purely executive power" and (2) the law deprived the president of "exclusive control" of that power. o In his opinion, Scalia also predicted how the law might be abused in practice, writing, "I fear the Court has permanently encumbered the Republic with an institution that will do it great harm." o Any interference is significant president must be able to control his officers

What did the Court rule in Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982)?

• The President is entitled to absolute immunity from liability for damages based on his official acts. o Doesn't take away protection against misconduct on the part of the president can still impeach and there are formal and informal checks on presidential action that do not apply with equal force to other executive officials + president is under constant press scrutiny • In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the President is entitled to absolute immunity from liability for civil damages based on his official acts. The court emphasized that the President is not immune from criminal charges stemming from his official (or unofficial) acts while in office. • The court noted that a grant of absolute immunity to the President would not leave the President with unfettered power. The Court stated that there were formal and informal checks on presidential action that did not apply with equal force to other executive officials. The court observed that the President was subjected to constant scrutiny by the press. It noted that vigilant oversight by Congress would also serve to deter presidential abuses of office, as well as to make credible the threat of impeachment. The court determined that other incentives to avoid misconduct existed, including a desire to earn reelection, the need to maintain prestige as an element of presidential influence, and a President's traditional concern for his historical stature.

What did the Court rule in Buckley v. Valeo (1974) regarding the appointment scheme?

• is a U.S. constitutional law Supreme Court case on campaign finance. A majority of judges held that limits on election spending in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 §608 are unconstitutional. In a per curiam (by the Court) opinion, they ruled that expenditure limits contravene the First Amendment provision on freedom of speech because a restriction on spending for political communication necessarily reduces the quantity of expression. It limited disclosure provisions and limited the Federal Election Commission's power. Justice Byron White dissented in part and wrote that Congress had legitimately recognized unlimited election spending "as a mortal danger against which effective preventive and curative steps must be taken".[1] o Senate could appoint two members, House could appoint two, president could appoint two ♣ Only president can do it • The Court upheld some federal limits on campaign contributions, but held expenditure limits unconstitutional.

What law was at issue in Railway Express Agency v. New York (1949)? What did the Court rule?

•Screwy traffic regulation in NY, you can't put an AD on a moving vehicle if its delivery. (I.e. Newspaper company) The Court Ruled: under the rational basis test the law was upheld, leave it to the democratic process. If its minor, leave it to the states. When it is deferred to legislature, it crosses the E.P. clauses.