Strategies and Tactics Con Law Questions Pre-Midterm
Question #15, p. 879 (bankruptcy power) An employer owed an employee $200 in unpaid wages. A law of the state in which the employer and the employee reside and in which the employee works provides that the courts of that state must decide claims for unpaid wages within 10 days of filing. After the employee filed a claim in state court pursuant to this law, the employer filed a voluntary bankruptcy petition in federal bankruptcy court. In the bankruptcy proceeding, the employer sought to stay further proceedings in the unpaid wages claim on the basis of a federal statute which provides that a person who files a federal bankruptcy petition receives an automatic stay of all proceedings against him or her in all federal and state courts. No other federal laws apply. In addition to the supremacy clause of Article VI, what is the most obvious constitutional basis for the imposition of a stay of the unpaid wages claim in the state court? A. Congress's power to provide for the general welfare B. Congress's power to provide uniform rules of bankruptcy C. Congress's power to regulate the jurisdiction and procedures of the courts D. Congress's power to regulate commerce among the states.
Congress's power to provide uniform rules of bankruptcy
Question #32, p. 157 (Congressional police power in District of Columbia) Congressional Legislation authorizing marriages and divorces as a matter of federal law on prescribed terms and conditions could most easily be upheld if it A. Applied only to marriages and divorces in which at least one of the parties is a member of the armed forces B. Applied only to marriages performed by federal judges and to divorced granted by federal courts C. Implemented an executive agreement seeking to define basic human rights D. Applied only to marriages and divorces in the District of Columbia
D. Congress has the power to "regulate commerce... among the several states." D is the best response because it recognizes an area over which Congress would clearly have authority to legislate marriages and divorces.
Question #170, p. 708 (Congressional power under 14th amendment) Congressional committees heard testimony from present and former holders of licenses issued by state vocational licensing boards. According to the testimony, the boards had unfairly manipulated their disciplinary proceedings in order to revoke the licenses of some license holders as a means of protecting favored licensees from competition. In response, Congress enacted a statute prescribing detailed procedural requirements for the disciplinary proceedings of all state vocational licensing boards. The statute requires the state boards to provide licensees with adequate notice and opportunity for an adjudicatory hearing in all disciplinary proceedings. The statute also prescribes membership criteria for state vocational licensing boards, designed to ensure that the boards are likely to be neutral. Which of the following provides the best source of authority for this federal statute? (A) Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. (B) The general welfare clause of Article I, Section 8. (C) The privileges and immunities clause of Article IV, Section 2. (D) The takings clause of the Fifth Amendment.
(A) Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Question #4, p. 150 (Limits on Federal Judicial Power) A state law provides for an award of damages against anyone who publishes the name of a rape victim. Pursuant to that law, a woman sued a local newspaper in state court after the newspaper identified her as a rape victim. The state trial and appellate courts rejected the claim, holding that the state law was invalid under both the state constitution and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The state supreme court affirmed, holding specifically: "We think that this well-intentioned law very likely violates the First Amendment of the federal Constitution. We need not, however, decide that issue, because the law assuredly violates our state constitution, which provides even greater protection to the right of the press to report the news." The woman petitioned for review in the U.S. Supreme Court. Is the U.S. Supreme Court likely to review the state supreme court judgment? (A) No, because the First Amendment prohibits the imposition of liability for the publication of truthful information. (B) No, because the judgment of the state supreme court rests upon an adequate and independent state-law ground. (C) Yes, because the supremacy clause does not permit a state to create rights greater than those conferred by the federal Constitution. (D) Yes, because the U.S. Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction extends to cases arising under federal law.
(B) No, because the judgment of the state supreme court rests upon an adequate and independent state-law ground. B is the best response, because even if the Supreme Court were to find that the state law violates the federal First Amendment, this ruling would not change the outcome since the law would still be unenforceable as a violation of state law.
Question #34, p. 157 (organizational standing) Congress recently enacted a statute imposing severe criminal penalties on anyone engaged in trading in the stock market who, in the course of that trading, takes "unfair advantage" of other investors who are also trading in the stock market. The statute does not define the term "unfair advantage." There have been no prosecutions under this new statute. The members of an association of law school professors that is dedicated to increasing the clarity of the language used in criminal statutes believe that this statute is unconstitutionally vague. Neither the association nor any of its members is currently engaged in, or intends in the future to engage in, trading in the stock market. The association and its members bring suit against the Attorney General of the United States in a federal district court, seeking an injunction against the enforcement of this statute on the ground that it is unconstitutional. May the federal court determine the merits of this suit? (A) Yes, because the suit involves a dispute over the constitutionality of a federal statute. (B) Yes, because the plaintiffs seek real relief of a conclusive nature--an injunction against enforcement of this statute. (C) No, because the plaintiffs do not have an interest in the invalidation of this statute that is adequate to ensure that the suit presents an Article III controversy. (D) No, because a suit for an injunction against enforcement of a criminal statute may not be brought in federal court at any time prior to a bona fide effort to enforce that statute.
(C) No, because the plaintiffs do not have an interest in the invalidation of this statute that is adequate to ensure that the suit presents an Article III controversy. C is the best response, because none of the members of the association has been injured or will be injured, meaning the organization lacks standing.
· Question #23, p. 665 (tax and spending power) A federal statute imposes an excise tax of $100 on each new computer sold in the United States. It also appropriates the entire proceeds of that tax to a special fund, which is required to be used to purchase licenses for computer software that will be made available for use, free of charge, to any resident of the United States. Is this statute constitutional? (A) No, because the federal government may not impose any direct taxes on citizens of the United States. (B) No, because this statute takes without just compensation the property of persons who hold patents or copyrights on computer software. (C) Yes, because it is a reasonable exercise of the power of Congress to tax and spend for the general welfare. (D) Yes, because the patent power authorizes Congress to impose reasonable charges on the sale of technology and to spend the proceeds of those charges to advance the use of technology in the United States.
(C) Yes, because it is a reasonable exercise of the power of Congress to tax and spend for the general welfare.
Question #68, p. 678 (appointment power, executive power) The Federal Automobile Safety Act established certain safety and performance standards for all automobiles manufactured in the United States. The Act creates a five member "Automobile Commission" to investigate automotive safety, to make recommendations to Congress for new laws, to make further rules establishing safety and performance standards, and to prosecute violations of the act. The chairman is appointed by the President, two members are appointed by the President pro tempore of the Senate, and two members are appointed by the Speaker of the House. A minor U.S. car manufacturer seeks to enjoin enforcement of the Commission's rules. The best argument that the car manufacturer can make is that .... (a) legislative power may not be delegated by Congress to an agency in the absence of clear guidelines; (b) The Commerce Power does not extend to the manufacture of automobiles not used in interstate commerce; (c) the manufacturer is denied due process because it is not represented on the Commission; (d) the Commission lacks authority to enforce its standards because not all of its members were appointed by the President of the United States
(d) the Commission lacks authority to enforce its standards because not all of its members were appointed by the President of the United States
Question 1 p. 876(Ex Post Facto) A federal civil statute prohibited fishing in any body of water that was located within a national park and contained a particular endangered species of fish. The statute authorized federal district courts to enjoin knowing violators of the statute from the use of all national park facilities for up to two years. After a vacationer was found by a federal district court to have knowingly violated the statute, the court issued an injunction against his use of all national park facilities for two years. The vacationer appealed. Before the appeals court heard the vacationer's case, Congress repealed the statute by a law that expressly made the repeal effective retroactive to a date one month before the vacationer's violation of the statute. The law also directly cited the vacationer's case and stated that it was intended to "repeal all the statutory prohibitions that formed the basis for decisions" such as that rendered against the vacationer. On the basis of this law, the vacationer has asked the appeals court to vacate the injunction issued against him. Counsel for the United States has objected, contending that, as applied to the specific case pending in the appeals court, the law is unconstitutional. How should the appeals court rule? (A) For the United States, because Congress defied the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws by retroactively changing the consequences for violating the statute after the violation was proved in a trial court. (B) For the United States, because the law's citation to the vacationer's case demonstrates that Congress intended to compel the appeals court to reach a particular result and, therefore, sought to exercise judicial powers vested exclusively in the courts by Article III. (C) For the vacationer, because Congress has the power to determine the laws to be applied by the federal courts and to require retroactive application of those laws to any specifically identified case that it chooses. (D) For the vacationer, because Congress is authorized to make substantive changes to federal civil statutes and to direct that those changes be applied by the courts to all actions in which a final judgment has not yet been rendered.
(D) For the vacationer, because Congress is authorized to make substantive changes to federal civil statutes and to direct that those changes be applied by the courts to all actions in which a final judgment has not yet been rendered.
Question #91, p. 684 (ripeness) In response to the need for additional toxic waste landfills in a state, the state's legislature enacted a law authorizing a state agency to establish five new state-owned and state-operated toxic waste landfills. The law provided that the agency would decide the locations and sizes of the landfills after an investigation of all potential sites and a determination that the particular sites chosen would not endanger public health and would be consistent with the public welfare. A community in the state was scheduled for inspection by the agency as a potential toxic waste landfill site. Because the community's residents obtained most of their drinking water from an aquifer that ran under the entire community, a citizens' group, made up of residents of that community, sued the appropriate officials of the agency in federal court. The group sought a declaratory judgment that the selection of the community as the site of a toxic waste landfill would be unconstitutional and an injunction preventing the agency from selecting the community as a site for such a landfill. The agency officials moved to dismiss. Which of the following is the most appropriate basis for the court to dismiss this suit? (A) The case presents a nonjusticiable political question. (B) The interest of the state in obtaining suitable sites for toxic waste landfills is sufficiently compelling to justify the selection of the community as a location for such a facility. (C) The Eleventh Amendment bars suits of this kind in the federal courts. (D) The case is not ripe for a decision on the merits.
(D) The case is not ripe for a decision on the merits.
Question #5, p. 877 (political question) The United States had long recognized the ruling faction in a foreign country as that country's government, despite an ongoing civil war. Throughout the civil war, the ruling faction controlled the majority of the government's territory and the United States offered diplomatic immunity to the ambassador representing the ruling faction. A newly elected President of the United States decided to recognize a rebel group as the government of the foreign country and notify the ambassador for the ruling faction that she must leave the United States within 10 days. The ambassador sues in federal district court for a declaratory judgment that the ruling faction was the true government of the foreign country and for injunctive relief against enforcement of the President's order that the ambassador leave the United States. The United States have moved to dismiss the lawsuit. If the court dismisses the action, what would be the most likely reason?(a) the action is a non-justiable political question;(b) the action is not ripe;(c) the action is within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court;(d) the ambassador does not have standing.
(a) the action is a nonjustiable political question;
Question #194, p. 714 (field preemption) Lee contracted with Mover, an interstate carrier, to ship household goods from the state of Green to his new home in the state of Pink. A federal statute provides that all liability of an interstate mover to a shipper for loss of or damage to the shipper's goods in transit is governed exclusively by the contract between them. The statute also requires the mover to offer a shipper at least two contracts with different levels of liability. In a full compliance with that federal statute, Mover offered Lee a choice between two shipping agreements that provided different levels of liability on the part of the Mover. The more expensive contract provided that Mover was fully liable in case of loss or damage. The less expensive contract limited Mover's liability in case of loss or damage to less than full value. Lee voluntarily signed the less expensive contract with Mover, fixing Mover's liability at less than the full value of the shipment. Mover's truck was involved in an accident in the state of Pink. The accident was entirely a product of the negligence of Mover's driver. Lee's household goods were totally destroyed. In accordance with the contract, Mover reimbursed Lee for less than the full value of the goods. Lee then brought suit against Mover under the tort law of the state of Pink claiming that he was entitled to be reimbursed for the full value of the goods. Mover filed a motion to dismiss. In this suit, the court should A. dismiss the case, because the federal statute governing liability of interstate carriers is the supreme law of the land and preempts state tort law. B. Dismiss the case, because the contractual relationship between Lee and Mover is governed by the Obligation of Contracts Clause of the Constitution. C. Deny the motion to dismiss, because the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution requires that state tort law be given effect. D. Deny the motion to dismiss, because it is unconstitutional for a federal statute to authorize Mover to contract out of any degree of liability for its own negligence
A. Dismiss the case, because the federal statute governing liability of interstate carriers is the supreme law of the land and preempts state tort law.
Question 6, p. 151 (commandeering) A federal statute authorizes a federal agency to issue rules requiring that state legislatures adopt laws of limited duration to reduce water pollution from gasoline-powered boat motors. The purpose of these rules is to assist the agency in attaining the clean water standards required by the statute. After the agency issued such rules, several states filed an action challenging the rules on the sole ground that they are unconstitutional. Should the court uphold the constitutionality of the agency's rules? A. No, because the federal government may not compel a state legislature to enact into state law a federally mandated regulatory program. B. No, because the Tenth Amendment grants states immunity from all direct federal regulation. C. Yes, because the rules serve an important purpose and the requirements they impose on the states are only temporary and do not excessively interfere with the functioning of the state governments. D. Yes, because the supremacy clause of Article VI requires states to enforce federal law.
A. No, because the federal government may not compel a state legislature to enact into state law a federally mandated regulatory program. A is the best response because the concept of state sovereignty embedded in the Tenth Amendment prevents the federal government from requiring a state to enact into law a federally-mandated regime.
Question #65, p. 167 (Commerce power) A federal statute required that any individual or entity owning more than 100 cars had to ensure that at least 10 percent of those cars were electric powered. A city filed suit in federal district court against the federal official who enforced this requirement. The city sought an injunction prohibiting enforcement of the statute on the ground that it was unconstitutional. Should the Court grant the injunction? A. No, because the statute is valid under the Commerce Clause and does not violate the Tenth Amendment. B. No, because the federal government has sovereign immunity and cannot be sued without its explicit consent. C. Yes, because the statute violates the reserved rights of the states under the Tenth Amendment. D. Yes, because as applied to state and local governments, the statute exceeds Congress's power under the Commerce Clause.
A. No, because the statute is valid under the Commerce Clause and does not violate the Tenth Amendment. A is the best response because the purchase of cars is a commercial activity.
Question #22, p. 155 (appointment power) A recently enacted federal statute requires the President to make each appointment of a United States ambassador to a foreign country from a list of three individuals. The list is to be compiled by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and approved by the full Senate in advance of the appointment. The statute also provides that Senate confirmation of the appointment is deemed to occur automatically 30 days after the time the President names an appointee from the list unless the full Senate determines otherwise within the 30-day period. Is this statute constitutional? A. No, because the statute violates the constitutional requirements for appointment of principal officers of the United States B. No, because the statute impermissibly restricts the plenary foreign affairs powers of the president. C. Yes, because the statute is consistent with the constitutional requirement that the presidential appointment of ambassadors be with the advice and consent of the Senate. D. Yes, because the statute is a necessary and proper measure in furtherance of Congress's power to regulate commerce with foreign states.
A. No, because the statute violates the constitutional requirements for appointment of principal officers of the United States A is the best response because both the listing requirement and the automatic confirmation requirement violate the Appointments Clause.
Question #50, p. 163 (commandeering) Current national statistics show a dramatic increase in the number of elementary and secondary school students bringing controlled substances (drugs) to school for personal use or distribution to others. In response, Cong enacted a statute requiring each state legislature to enact a state law that makes it a state crime for any person to possess, use, or distribute, within 1000 feet of any elementary or secondary school, any controlled substance that has previously been transported in interstate commerce and that is not possessed, used, or distributed pursuant to a proper physician's prescription. This fed statute is: A. unconstitutional, because Congress has no authority to require a state legislature to enact any specified legislation. B. unconstitutional, because the possession, use, or distribution, in close proximity to a school, of a controlled substance that has previously been transported in interstate commerce does not have a sufficiently close nexus to such commerce to justify its regulation by Congress C. constitutional, because it contains a jurisdictional provision that will ensure, on a case-by-case basis, that any particular controlled substance subject to the terms of this statute will, in fact, affect interstate commerce D. Constitutional, because congress possesses broad authority under both the General Welfare Clause and the Commerce Clause to regulate any activities affecting education that also have, in inseverable aggregates, a substantial effect on interstate commerce
A. Unconstitutional, because Congress has no authority to require a state legislature to enact any specified legislation. A is the best response because any attempt by Congress to force a state to enact particular legislation would violate the Tenth Amendment.
Question #29, p. 156 (limiting Supreme Court jurisdiction) Congress passed a statute providing that parties could no longer seek review in the US Supreme Court of final judgments in criminal matters made by the highest court in each state. What is the best argument supporting the constitutionality of the statute? A: Congress has the power to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. B: Criminal matters are traditionally governed by state law. C: The proper means of federal judicial review of state criminal matters is by habeas corpus D: The review of state court judgments is not within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
A: Congress has the power to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. A is the best response because it correctly reflects Congress's power to modify the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction.
Question 19 p. 154 (Bill of Attainder) An unconstrued state law prohibited the distribution within the state of "seditious propaganda." The state prosecuted United States Post Office letter carriers under this law for delivering propaganda from a foreign country to state residents. Which of the following statements is an INACCURATE description of the state's law as applied to the letter carriers? A: It is an unconstitutional bill of attainder B: It is void for vagueness C: It may not be applied to letter carriers, because they are employees of a federal instrumentality carrying out an authorized function. D: It unconstitutionally abridges rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
A: It is an unconstitutional bill of attainder A is the best response because the bill does not single out a named person or easily ascertained group.
Question #161, p. 706 (independent and adequate state ground) A state law that restricted abortion was challenged in state court as a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution and as a violation of a similar due (though not identical) process provision of the state constitution. The case made its way to the state's highest court, which ruled that the law violated the due process provisions of both the US and the state constitutions. If petitioned to do so, may the US Supreme Court exercise jurisdiction to review the state court decision? A: No, because the state court's decision in this case rests on adequate and independent state law grounds. B: No, because the US Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction only over state court decisions that determine the constitutionality of federal laws. C: Yes, because the US Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over any ruling of state's highest court based on an interpretation of federal law. D: Yes, because the US Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over decisions that find state laws in violation of the federal Constitution.
A: No, because the state court's decision in this case rests on adequate and independent state law grounds. A is the best response because it explains why the US Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to review the decision.
Question #76, p. 680 (bill of attainder) A report released by a Senate investigating committee named three US citizens as helping to organize support for terrorist activities. All three were employed by the US government as park rangers. Congress enacted a statute naming the three individuals identified in the report and providing that they could not hold any position of employment with the federal government. Which of the following constitutional provisions provides the best means for challenging the constitutionality of the statute? A: The Bill of Attainder Clause B: The Due Process Clause C: The Ex Post Facto Clause D: The Takings Clause
A: The Bill of Attainder Clause A is the best response because the statute singled out the three park rangers.
Question #177, p. 710 (Congress power over federal property) national regulation of predatory wild animals on federal land is most likely A. Constitutional, because the protection of wild animals is important to the general welfare B. Constitutional, because congress has authority to make regulations respecting federal property C. Unconstitutional, because wild animals as defined by state common law are not federal property D. Unconstitutional, because regulation and control of wild animals is retained by the states under the Tenth Amendment
B. Constitutional, because congress has authority to make regulations respecting federal property
Question #2, p. 150 (11thAmendment Immunity) A federal statute provides states with funds for child welfare programs, subject to the condition that such programs be administered in accordance with federal standards. The United States sued a state in federal court for injunctive relief, arguing that the state's child welfare programs, which were funded in part by federal funds disbursed under his statute, failed to comply with federal standards. The state as moved to dismiss the action. Is the court likely to dismiss the action? A. No, because congress can place any condition on the receipt of federal funds. B. No, because the Eleventh Amendment does not bar actions brought by the United States C. Yes, because the Eleventh Amendment bars actions against a state in federal court D. yes, because the protection of child welfare is reserved to the states
B. No, because the Eleventh Amendment does not bar actions brought by the United States B is the best response because the Eleventh Amendment only bars federal-court suits against a state brought by private citizens, not federal-court suits brought against a state by the federal government.
Question #26, p. 882 (Executive Power -Take Care) Congress enacted a statute that authorized the construction of a monument commemorating the role of the United States in liberating a particular foreign nation during World War II. Another statute appropriated $3 million for the construction. When the United States became involved in a bitter trade dispute with the foreign nation, the President announced that he was canceling the monument's construction and that he would not spend the appropriated funds. Although the actual reason for the President's decision was the trade dispute, the announcement stated that the reason was an unexpected rise in the federal deficit. Assume that no other statutes apply. Is the President's decision constitutional? A. No, because the President failed to invoke his foreign affairs powers in his announcement. B. No, because the President is obligated to spend funds in accordance with congressional directions. C. Yes, because the President is vested with inherent executive power to control federal expenditures. D. Yes, because the President's decision is a valid exercise of his foreign affairs powers.
B. No, because the President is obligated to spend funds in accordance with congressional directions.
Question #52, p. 163 (Executive power) the vaccination of children against childhood contagious diseases (such as measles, diphtheria, and whooping cough) has traditionally been a function of private doctors and local and state health departments. Because vaccination rates have declined in recent years, especially in urban areas, the President proposes to appoint a Presidential Advisory Commission on Vaccination, which would be charged with conducting a national publicity campaign to encourage vaccination as a public health measure. No federal statute authorizes or prohibits this action by the president. The activities of the presidential advisory commission on vaccination would be financed entirely from funds appropriated by Congress to the office of the president for "such other purposes as the President may think appropriate." May the president constitutionally create such a commission for this purpose? A. Yes, because the president has plenary authority to provide for the health, safety, and welfare of the people of the United States. B. Yes, because this action is within the scope of executive authority vested in the President by the Constitution, and no federal statute prohibits it. C. No, because the protection of children against common diseases by vaccination is a traditional state function and, therefore, is reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment. D. No, because Congress has not specifically authorized the creation and support of such a new federal agency.
B. Yes, because this action is within the scope of executive authority vested in the President by the Constitution, and no federal statute prohibits it. B is the best response because the Commission is a temporary agency set up for a specific purpose.
Question #34, p. 669 (limiting Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction) An act of Congress provides that "no federal court shall order the implementation of a public school desegregation plan that would require the transportation of any student to a school other than the school closest or next closest to his place of residence." Which of the following is the strongest argument for the constitutionality of the act? A: The Fourteenth Amendment authorizes Congress to define governmental conduct that violates the Equal Protection Clause B: Under Article III, Congress may restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts. C: Transportation of students is subject to regulation by Congress because commerce is involved. D: Congress provides partial support for public education and is therefore entitled to establish conditions upon the expenditure of federal grants.
B: Under Article III, Congress may restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts. B is the best response because it represents a valid means by which the statute could be considered constitutional.
Question 60 p. 165 (Speech & Debate Clause) A senator makes a speech on the floor of the US Senate in which she asserts that a federal civil servant with minor responsibilities was twice convicted of fraud by the courts in his home state. In making this assertion, the senator relied wholly on research done by her chief legislative assistant. In fact, it was a different man of the same name, and not the civil servant, who was convicted of these crimes in the state court proceedings. This mistake was the result of carelessness on the legislative assistant's part. No legislation affecting the appointment or discipline of civil servants or the program of the federal agency for which the civil servant works was under consideration at the time the senator made her speech about him on the floor of the senate. The civil servant sues the senator and his legislative assistant for defamation. Both defendants move to dismiss the complaint. As a mater of constitutional law, the court hearing this motion should A: grant it as to the legislative assistant, because he is protected by the freedom of speech guarantee against defamation actions by government officials based on his mere carelessness; but deny it as to the senator, because, as an officer of the united state, she is a constituent part of the government and, therefore, has no freedom of speech rights in that capacity B: grant it as to both defendants, because the senator is immune to suit for any speech she makes in the Senate under the speech or Debate Clause of Article I, Section 6, and his legislative assistant may assert the senator's immunity for his assistance to her in preparing the speech C: deny it as to both defendants, because any immunity of the senator under the Speech and Debate Clause does not attach to a speech that is not germane to pending legislative business, and the legislative assistant is entitled to no greater immunity than the legislator he was assisting D: Deny it as to the legislative assistant, because he is not a legislator protected by the Speech or Debate Clause; but grant it as to the senator, because she immune from suit for her speech by virtue of that clause.
B: grant it as to both defendants, because the senator is immune to suit for any speech she makes in the Senate under the speech or Debate Clause of Article I, Section 6, and his legislative assistant may assert the senator's immunity for his assistance to her in preparing the speech B is the best response because the statements were made during the legislative process.
Question #35, p. 884 (full faith and credit) A motorist who resided in State A was severely injured in a traffic accident that occurred in State B. The other vehicle involved in the accident was a truck owned by a furniture manufacturer and driven by one of its employees. The manufacturer's headquarters are in State B. Its products are sold by retailers in State A, but it has no office, plant, or agent for service of process there. The motorist brought an action against the manufacturer in a state court in State A. The manufacturer appeared specially to contest that court's jurisdiction over it. The court ruled that it had jurisdiction over the manufacturer by virtue of State A's long-arm statute. At trial, the court instructed the jury to apply State A law, under which a plaintiff's contributory negligence is a basis for reducing an award of damages but not for denying recovery altogether. Under State B law, contributory negligence is a complete defense. The jury found that the manufacturer was negligent and that its negligence was a causse of the motorist's injuries. It also found that the motorist was negligent, though to a lesser degree than the manufacturer, and that the motorist's negligence contributed to the accident. It returned a verdict in favor of the motorist and awarded her $1 million in damages. The manufacturer appealed the judgment entered on this verdict, asserting error in the court's ruling on jurisdiction and in its application of State A law instead of State B law. The manufacturer raised all federal constitutional claims pertinent to these claims of error. The highest court in State A affirmed the trial court's judgement, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied the manufacturer's petition for a writ of certiorari. The motorist has brought an action against the manufacturer in a state court in State B to collect on the judgment. The manufacturer has defended on all relevant federal constitutional grounds. How should the State B court rule? a. For the manufacturer, because a judgement entered by a court lacks jurisdiction over one of the parties is not entitled to full faith and credit, and the state A court could not constitutionally assert jurisdiction over the manufacturer because of the manufacturer's lack of a presence in that state. b. For the manufacturer, because the State A court was bound by the full faith and credit clause to apply State B law to an accident that occurred in State B and in which a State B company was involved. c. For the motorist, because of the manufacturer litigated the issues of jurisdiction and choice of law in the State A court, and the final judgement of that court is entitled to full faith and credit in the State B court. d. For the motorist, because the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari to review the judgment of the highest court in State A conclusively establishes that the manufacturer's federal constitutional claims are invalid.
C. For the motorist, because of the manufacturer litigated the issues of jurisdiction and choice of law in the State A court, and the final judgement of that court is entitled to full faith and credit in the State B court.
Question #47, p. 161 (mootness) An attorney contracted for expensive cable television service for a period of six months solely to view the televised trial of a suspect, who was on trial for murder in a state court. In the midst of the trial, the judge prohibited any further televising of the suspect's trial because he concluded that the presence of television cameras was disruptive. The attorney brought an action in a federal district court against the judge in the suspect's case, asking only for an injunction that would require the judge to resume the televising of the suspect's trial. The attorney alleged that the judge's order to stop the televising of the suspect's trial deprived him of property - his investment in cable television service - without due process of law. Before the attorney's case came to trial, the suspect's criminal trial concluded in a conviction and sentencing. There do not appear to be any obvious errors in the proceeding that led to the result in the suspect's case. After the suspect's conviction and sentencing, the defendant in the attorney's case moved to dismiss that suit. The most proper disposition of this motion by the federal court would be to A. Defer action on the motion until after any appellate proceedings in the suspect's case have concluded, because the suspect might appeal, his conviction might be set aside, he might be tried again, and television cameras might be barred from the new trial. B. Defer action on the motion until after the state supreme court expresses a view on its proper disposition, because the state law of mootness governs suits in federal court when the federal case inexorably intertwined with a state proceeding. C. Grant the motion, because the subject matter of the controversy between the attorney and the suspect has ceased to exist and these is no strong likelihood that it will be revived D. Deny the motion, because the attorney has raised an important constitutional question: whether his investment in cable service solely to view the suspect's trial is properly protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
C. Grant the motion, because the subject matter of the controversy between the attorney and the suspect has ceased to exist and these is no strong likelihood that it will be revived C is the best response because the case is now moot.
Question #57, p. 164 (political question) The President of the United States recognizes a new country and undertakes diplomatic relations with its government through the Secretary of State. The Country is governed by a repressive totalitarian government. In an appropriate federal court, a researcher brings a suit against the President and Secretary of State to set aside this action on the ground that it is inconsistent with the principles of our constitutional form of government. The researcher has a lucrative contract with the United States Department of Commerce to provide commercial information about the new country. The contract expressly terminates, however, "When the President recognizes the new country and undertakes diplomatic relations with its government." Which of the following is the most proper disposition of the researcher's suit by federal court? A. Suit dismissed, because the researcher does not have standing to bring this action. B. Suit dismissed, because there is no adversity between the researcher and the defendants. C. Suit dismissed, because it presents a non-justiciable political question. D. Suit decided on the merits.
C. Suit dismissed, because it presents a non-justiciable political question. C is the best response because it recognizes the central reason for dismissing the suit; it involves a non-justiciable issue.
Question #199, p. 715 (Commerce power) congress decided that the application of the uniform consumer credit code (UCCC) should be the same throughout the United States. To that end, it enacts the UCCC as a federal law directly applicable to all consumer credit, small loans, and retail installment sales. The law is intended to protect borrowers and buyers against unfair practices by suppliers of consumer credit. Which of the following constitutional provisions may be most easily used to justify federal enactment of this statute? A. The obligation of Contracts Clause B. The Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment C. The Commerce Clause D. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
C. The Commerce Clause
Question #17, p. 154 (the federal legislative power) Congress enacted a statute prohibiting discrimination in the rental of residential property anywhere in the United States on the basis of sexual orientation or preference by any person or entity, public or private. Which of the following provisions provides the strongest basis of sexual orientation or preference by any person or entity, public or private. A. The Enforcement Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment B. The Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV C. The Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8 D. The General Welfare Clause of Article I, Section 8
C. The Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8 C is the best response because rental activities have a substantial effect on interstate commerce
Question #53, p. 163 (Congressional power under 13thAmendment) Congress enacts a criminal statute punishing "each and every conspiracy entered into by any two or more persons housing, employment, or education, solely because of their race." Under which of the following constitutional provisions is the authority of Congress to pass such a statute most clearly and easily justifiable? A. The obligation of Contracts Clause B. The General Welfare Clause of Article I, Section 8 C. The Thirteenth Amendment D. The Fourteenth Amendment
C. The Thirteenth Amendment C is the best response because the Thirteenth Amendment addresses private acts.
Question #147, p. 702 (pardon power) congress passed a bill prohibiting the president from granting a pardon to any person who had not served at least one-third of the sentence imposed by the court which convicted that person. The president vetoed the bill, claiming that it was unconstitutional. Nevertheless, Congress passed it over his veto by a two-thirds vote of each house. This act of Congress is a. Constitutional, because it was enacted over the President's veto by a two-thirds vote of each House. b. Constitutional, because it is a necessary and proper means of carrying out the powers of Congress. c. Unconstitutional because it interferes with the plenary power of the President to grant pardons d. Unconstitutional, because a Presidential veto based upon constitutional grounds may be overridden only with the concurrence of three-fourths of the state legislatures.
C. Unconstitutional because it interferes with the plenary power of the President to grant pardons
Question #12, p. 152 (Congress requiring state courts to hear cases -we don't cover this!) a plaintiff sued a defendant in a court of the state in which both parties reside. the plaintiff alleges only a cause of action arising under a federal statute, although state law provides a similar cause of action. The federal statute provides that claims under the statute can be brought in any court of competent jurisdiction. The statute has not yet been interpreted by any federal court. Should the state court hear the case? A. no, because cases arising under federal law must be decided in federal court B. No, because state courts must abstain in cases arising under federal law until a federal court has decided the federal issue C. Yes, because state courts may not discriminate against cases arising under federal law D. Yes, because the parties cannot proceed in federal court since there is no diversity of citizenship
C. Yes, because state courts may not discriminate against cases arising under federal law C is the best response because the Supremacy Clause allows Congress to require that state courts enforce federally-created rights
Question #48, p. 162 (intergovernmental immunity) A state imposes a tax on the "income" of each of its residents. As defined in the taxing statute, "income" includes the fair rental value of the use of any automobile provided by the taxpayer's employer for the taxpayer's personal use. The federal government supplies automobiles to some of its employees who are resident in the state so that they may perform their jobs properly. A federal government employee supplied with an automobile for this purpose may also use it for the employee's own personal business. Assume there is no federal legislation on this subject. May the state collect this tax on the fair rental value of the personal use of the automobiles furnished by the federal government to these employees? A. No, because such a tax would be a tax on the United States. B. No, because such a tax would be a tax upon activities performed on behalf of the United States, since the automobiles are primarily used by these federal employees in the discharge of their official duties. C. Yes, because the tax is imposed on the employees rather than on the United States and the tax does not discriminate against persons who are employed by the United States. D. Yes, because an exemption from such sate taxes for federal employees would be a denial to others of the equal protection of the laws.
C. Yes, because the tax is imposed on the employees rather than on the United States and the tax does not discriminate against persons who are employed by the United States. C is the best response because employees of the federal government are not immune from state taxes.
Question 18 p. 154 (Ex Post Facto) A state law made it a criminal offense for any state employee to "knowingly provide educational services or extend welfare benefits" to a foreign national who was in the United States in violation of U.S. immigration laws. The principal of a public elementary school was prosecuted under the law for enrolling and providing education to several foreign nationals he knew to be in the country illegally. All of these actions took place before the new law was adopted. No federal statute applied to the principal's actions. What constitutional provision would be most helpful to the principal's defense? A: The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment B: The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment C: The Ex Post Facto Clause of Article I, Section 10 D: The Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
C: The Ex Post Facto Clause of Article I, Section 10 C is the best response because the statute criminalized conduct that took place before the statute's enactment.
Question #59, p. 165 (delegation of duty) A federal statute appropriated $7 million for a nationwide essay contest on "How the United States Can Best Stop Drug Abuse." The statute indicates that its purpose is to generate new, practical ideas for eliminating drug abuse in the United States. Contest rules set forth in the state provide that winning essays are to be selected on the basis of the "originality, aptness, and feasibility of their ideas." The statute expressly authorizes a first prize of $1 million, 50 second prizes of $100,000 each, and 100 third prizes of $10,000 each. It also states that judges for the contest are to be appointed by the president of the United States with the advice and consent of the Senate, and that all residents of the United States who are not employees of the federal government are eligible to enter and win the contest. A Provision of the statute authorizes any taxpayer of the United States to challenge its constitutionality. In a suit by a federal taxpayer to challenge the constitutionality of the statute, the court should A. refuse to decide its merits, because the suit involves policy questions that are inherently political and, therefore, non-justiciable. B. Hold the statute unconstitutional, because it does not provide sufficient guidelines for awarding the prize money appropriated by congress, and, therefore, unconstitutionally delegates legislative power to the contest judges. C. Hold the statute unconstitutional, because its relationship to legitimate purposes of the spending power of Congress is too tenuous and conjectural to satisfy the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I. D. Hold the statute unconstitutional because it is reasonably related to the general welfare, it states concrete objectives, and it provides adequate criteria for conducting the essay contest and awarding the prize money.
D. Hold the statute unconstitutional because it is reasonably related to the general welfare, it states concrete objectives, and it provides adequate criteria for conducting the essay contest and awarding the prize money. D is the best response because Congress provided clear standards for the contest.
Question #26, p. 156 (Legislative Veto) Congress enacted a statute establishing a program to protect areas in the United States that are rich in biological diversity. The program is consistent with the terms of an environmental treaty that the President objected to and did not sign. The statute creates an executive agency and authorizes it to designate parts of federal lands for inclusion in the program in accordance with criteria taken from the treaty. In an inseverable provision, the statute further provides that the agency must report each designation to a committee of Congress and that the committee may overturn the agency's designation by a majority vote. Why is the statute unconstitutional? A. It constitutes an invalid delegation of legislative authority to an executive agency. B. It interferes with the exercise of the President's paramount authority in foreign affairs. C. It requires an executive agency to report its decisions to Congress. D. It authorizes a committee of Congress to overturn an executive decision
D. It authorizes a committee of Congress to overturn an executive decision D is the best response because Congress may overturn an executive action only by passing a statute.
Question #56, p. 164 (increasing federal court jurisdiction) Congress enacts a law providing that all disagreements between the United States and a State over Federal grant-in-aids funds shall be settled by the filing of a suit in the Federal District Court in the affected State. The judgment of that 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. This law is... A. Unconstitutional, because it vests authority in the federal court to determine a matter prohibited to it by the Eleventh Amendment. B. Constitutional, because disagreements over federal grant-in-aid funds necessarily involve federal questions within the judicial power of the United States. C. Constitutional, because the spending of federal monies necessarily includes the authority to provide for the effective settlement of disputes involving them. D. Unconstitutional, because it vests authority in a federal court to render an advisory opinion.
D. Unconstitutional, because it vests authority in a federal court to render an advisory opinion. D is the best response because it correctly identifies a flaw in the statute. Congress cannot enlarge federal jurisdiction to include advisory opinions.
Question #22, p. 881 (Presidential power in foreign affairs) Congress enacted a statute directing U.S. ambassadors to send formal letters to the governments of their host countries, protesting any violations by those governments of international treaties on weapons sales. The President prefers to handle violations by certain countries in a less formal manner and has directed ambassadors not to comply with the statute.Is the President's action constitutional? A. No, because Congress has the power to implement treaties, and therefore the statute is binding on the President. B. No, because Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and therefore the statute is binding on the President. C. Yes, because Congress has no jurisdiction over matters outside the U.S. borders. D. Yes, because the President and his subordinates are the exclusive official representatives of the United States in foreign affairs.
D. Yes, because the President and his subordinates are the exclusive official representatives of the United States in foreign affairs.
Question #8, p. 151 (Presidential power) Because of a sudden and unanticipated severe shortage of heating fuel, the President has ordered all offices of federal executive agencies to be open only four days per week. The President's order allows an exception to the extent that emergency circumstances require different hours of operation (as in the case of federal hospitals). When Congress enacted the appropriations statute for operating all federal executive agencies, its members assumed that the offices of those agencies would be open five days per week, but congress did not include such a requirement in its appropriations statute or in any other statute. Is the President's order constitutional? A. No, because the heads of the various executive agencies have final responsibility for the operation of those agencies' offices. B. No, because when they passed the statute appropriating monies for the operation of executive agencies, members of Congress assumed that those agencies' offices would be open five days per week. C. Yes, because the Constitution vests the President with plenary authority to direct the administration of all federal agencies in any manner the President deems expedient. D. Yes, because the order relates to the management of the executive branch and is not prohibited by any statute.
D. Yes, because the order relates to the management of the executive branch and is not prohibited by any statute. D is the best response because the Constitution gives the President authority to manage the executive branch, and that authority is at its maximum where, as here, the President is acting pursuant to Congress's implied authorization of his action.
Question #35, p. 158 (taxing power) A certain mineral is added to bodies of fresh water to prevent the spread of certain freshwater parasites. The presence of those parasites threatens the health of organisms living in rivers and streams throughout the country and imperils the freshwater commercial fishing industry. The mineral is currently mined only in one state. In order to raise needed revenue, Congress recently enacted a statute providing for the imposition of a $100 tax on each ton of the mineral that is mined in the United States. Because it will raise the cost of the mineral, this tax is likely to reduce the amount of the mineral that is added to freshwater rivers and streams and, therefore, is likely to have an adverse effect on the interstate freshwater commercial fishing industry. The mineral producers in the state have filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging this tax solely on constitutional grounds. Is this tax constitutional? A. No, because procedures in only one state will pay the tax and, therefore, it is not uniform among the states and denies the producers of the mineral the equal protection of the laws. B. No, because it is likely to have an adverse effect on the freshwater commercial fishing industry and congress has a responsibility under the Commerce Clause to protect, foster, and advance such interstate industries. C. Yes, because the tax is a necessary and proper means of exercising federal authority over the navigable waters of the United States D. Yes, because the power of Congress to impose taxes is plenary, this tax does not contain any provisions extraneous to tax needs or purposes, and it is not barred by any prohibitory language in the constitution
D. Yes, because the power of Congress to impose taxes is plenary, this tax does not contain any provisions extraneous to tax needs or purposes, and it is not barred by any prohibitory language in the constitution D is the best response because the purpose of the tax is to raise revenue.
Question 14 p. 153 (Speech & Debate Clause) A U.S. senator made a speech on the floor of the Senate accusing a low-level purchasing officer employed by a federal agency of wasting millions of dollars of taxpayer money by purchasing many more office supplies than the agency needed. The accusation was demonstrably false, and the senator was negligent in making it. The purchasing officer has sued the senator for defamation, alleging only that the accusation was false and that the senator was negligent. What is the most appropriate ground for the court to dismiss the purchasing officer's complaint? A: The federal government is constitutionally immune from suit without its consent, and it has not consented to suits of this kind. B: The First Amendment guarantees members of Congress an unqualified right to speak on matters of public concern at any place and time without having to fear adverse legal consequences. C: The First Amendment protects public officials from defamation liability for statements made in their official capacity, unless the plaintiff alleges and proves that the statement was false and uttered with actual malice. D: The Speech and Debate Clause of Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution wholly insulates members of Congress from tort liability for statements made on the floor of Congress
D: The Speech and Debate Clause of Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution wholly insulates members of Congress from tort liability for statements made on the floor of Congress D is the best response because the Speech and Debate Clause grants absolute immunity from civil liability to members of Congress for statements they make on the floor of the House or Senate, even if those statements would otherwise constitute libel or slander. (p. 184)
Question #37, p. 158 (political question) A recently enacted state law forbids aliens from owning more than 100 acres of land within the state and directs the state attorney general to bring an action of ejectment whenever an alien owns such land. A farmer, who was a resident alien, located and purchased 200 acres of land In the state after passage of that law. He brings an action in federal court to enjoin the state attorney general from enforcing the statute against him. The defendant moves to dismiss the complaint. The federal court should A: dismiss the action, because under the Constitution aliens may not sue in federal court. B: dismiss the action, because a state has unlimited power to determine the qualifications for landholding within its boundaries. C: hear the action, because the United Nations Charter forbids such discrimination D: hear the action, because a federal question is presented.
D: hear the action, because a federal question is presented. D is the best response because it correctly identifies the basis of the federal court's jurisdiction.
Question #40, p. 159 (ripeness) A federal statute required a federal agency to establish minimum quality standards for all beer sold in the United States. The statute also provided that public proceedings must precede adoption of the standards, and that once they were adopted, the standards would be subject to judicial review. No standards have yet been adopted. Several officials of the agency have indicated their personal preference for beer produced by a special brewing process commonly referred to as pasteurization. However, these officials have not indicated whether they intend to include a requirement for pasteurization in the minimum beer quality standards to be adopted by the agency. A brewery that produces an unpasteurized beer believes that its brewing process is as safe as pasteurization. The brewery is concerned that, after the appropriate proceedings, the agency may adopt quality standards that will prohibit the sale of any unpasteurized beer. As a result, the brewery sued in federal district court to enjoin the agency from adopting any standards that would prohibit the sale of unpasteurized beer in this country. How should the district court dispose of the suit? A: determine whether the agency could reasonably believe that pasteurization is the safest process by which to brew beer, and if the agency could reasonably believe that, refuse to issue the injunction against the agency. B: determine whether the process used by the brewery is as safe as pasteurization and, if it is, issue the injunction against the agency. C: refuse to adjudicate the merits of the suit as this time and state the action until the agency has actually issued beer quality standards. D: refuse to adjudicate the merits of the sit, because it does not involve a justiciable case or controversy.
D: refuse to adjudicate the merits of the sit, because it does not involve a justiciable case or controversy. D is the best response because the case is not ripe for adjudication.
