Con Law Final - Donoho Quiz Questions - Limits on State Power + Fundamental Rights
A Federal statute requires United States civil service employees to retire at age 75. However, that statute also states that civil service employees of the armed forces must retire at age 65. Prentis, a 65-year-old service employee of the Department of the Army, seeks a declaratory judgment that would forbid his mandatory retirement until age 75. The strongest argument that Prentis can make to invalidate the requirement that he retire at age 65 is that the law... A. Individually discriminates against him on the basis of age in violation of the Fifth Amendment. B. Denies him a privilege or immunity of national citizenship. C. Is not within the scope of any of the enumerated powers of Congress in Article I, '8. D. Deprives him of a property right without just compensation.
A. Individually discriminates against him on the basis of age in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
The State of Aurora requires licenses of persons "who are engaged in the trade of barbering." It will grant such licenses only to those who are graduates of barber schools located in Aurora, who have resided in the state for two years, and who are citizens of the United States. Ignoring the other requirements, which of the following is the strongest ground on which to challenge the requirement that candidates for barber licenses must have been residents of the State for at least two years? A. The Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment B. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment C. The Thirteenth Amendment. D. The obligation of contracts clause
A. The Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment **state discriminates against out-of-staters by benefiting in-staters with statute
The State of Aurora requires licenses of persons "who are engaged in the trade of barbering." It will grant such licenses only to those who are graduates of barber schools located in Aurora, who have resided in the State for two years, and who are citizens of the United States. The requirement that candidates for license must be graduates of barber schools in Aurora is probably... A. Unconstitutional as an undue burden on interstate commerce. B. Constitutional, because the state does not know the quality of out-of-state barber schools. C. Unconstitutional as a violation of The Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. D. Constitutional, because barbering is a privilege and not a right.
A. Unconstitutional as an undue burden on interstate commerce. **Dormant Clause - state law benefits in-staters over out-of-staters
The legislature of State X enacts a statute that it believes reconciles the State's interest in the preservation of human life with a woman's right to reproductive choice. That statute permits a woman to have an abortion on demand during the first trimester of pregnancy but prohibits a woman from having an abortion after that time unless her physician determines that the abortion is necessary to protect the woman's life or health. If challenged on constitutional grounds in an appropriate court, this statute will probably be held... A. Unconstitutional, because the State has, without adequate justification, placed an undue burden on the fundamental right of a woman to reproductive choice prior to fetal viability. B. Unconstitutional, because a statute unqualifiedly permitting abortion at one stage of pregnancy, and denying it at another with only minor exceptions, establishes an arbitrary classification in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. C. Constitutional, because the state has made a rational policy choice that creates an equitable balance between the compelling state interest in protecting fetal life and the fundamental right of a woman to reproductive choice. D. Constitutional, because recent rulings by the United States Supreme Court indicate that after the first trimester a fetus may be characterized as a person whose right to life is protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
A. Unconstitutional, because the State has, without adequate justification, placed an undue burden on the fundamental right of a woman to reproductive choice prior to fetal viability.
Company wanted to expand the size of the building it owned that housed Company's supermarket by adding space for a coffeehouse. Company's building was located in the center of five acres of land owned by Company and devoted wholly to parking for its supermarket customers. City officials refused to grant a required building permit for the coffeehouse addition unless Company established in its store a child care center that would take up space at least equal to the size of the proposed coffeehouse addition, which was to be 20% of the existing building. This action of City officials was authorized by provisions of the applicable zoning ordinance. In a suit filed in State court against appropriate officials of City, Company challenged this child care center requirement solely on constitutional grounds. The lower Court upheld the requirement even though City officials presented no evidence and made no findings to justify it other than a general assertion that there was a shortage of child care facilities in City. Company appealed. The Court hearing the appeal should hold that the requirement imposed by City on the issuance of this building permit is... A. Unconstitutional, because the burden was on City to demonstrate a rough proportionality between this requirement and the impact of Company's proposed action on the community, and City failed to do so. B. Constitutional, because the burden was on Company to demonstrate that this requirement was not necessary to vindicate a compelling governmental interest, and Company could not do so on these facts. C. Constitutional, because the burden was on Company to demonstrate that there was no rational relationship between this requirement and a legitimate governmental interest, and Company could not do so because the requirement is reasonably related to improving the lives of families and children residing in City. D. Unconstitutional, because the burden was on City to demonstrate that this requirement was necessary to vindicate a compelling governmental interest, and City failed to meet its burden under that standard.
A. Unconstitutional, because the burden was on City to demonstrate a rough proportionality between this requirement and the impact of Company's proposed action on the community, and City failed to do so. **rough proportionality = regulation standard to be proven by state/city set under "The Takings Clause"
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 vaccinations 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 this action is within the scope of executive authority vested in the President by the Constitution, and no federal statute prohibits it. B. 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. C. Yes, because the President has plenary authority to provide for the health, safety, and welfare of the United States. D. No, because Congress has not specifically authorize the creation and support of such a new federal agency.
A. Yes, because this action is within the scope of executive authority vested in the President by the Constitution, and no federal statute prohibits it.
Barnes was hired as an assistant professor of mathematics of Reardon State College and is now in his third consecutive one-year contract. Under State law he cannot acquire tenure until after five consecutive annual contracts. In his third year, Barnes was notified that he was not being rehired for the following year. Applicable State law and college rules did not require either a statement of reasons or a hearing, and in fact neither was offered to Barnes. Which of the following, if established, most strongly supports the college in refusing to give Barnes a statement of reasons or an opportunity for a hearing? A. Barnes could be replaced with a more competent teacher. B. Barnes worked at the college for less than five years. C. A speech he made that was critical of administration policies violated a college regulation concerning teacher behavior. D. Barnes' academic performance had been substandard.
B. Barnes worked at the college for less than five years.
The State of Aurora requires licenses of persons "who are engaged in the trade of barbering." It will grant such licenses only to those who are graduates of barber schools located in Aurora, who have resided in the state for two years, and who are citizens of the United States.Assume that a resident of the State of Aurora was denied a license because she had been graduated from an out-of-state barber school. Her suit in Federal court to enjoin denial of the license on this ground would be... A. Decided on the merits, because federal jurisdiction extends to controversies between two states. B. Decided on the merits, because a federal question is involved. C. Dismissed because of the abstention doctrine. D. Dismissed, because there is no diversity of citizenship.
B. Decided on the merits, because a federal question is involved
Small retailers located in the State of Yellow are concerned about the loss of business to certain large retailers located nearby in bordering states. In an effort to deal with this concern, the legislature of Yellow enacted a statute requiring all manufacturers and wholesalers who sell goods to retailers in Yellow to do so at prices that are no higher than the lowest prices at which they sell them to retailers in any of the states that border Yellow. Several manufacturers and wholesalers who are located in states bordering Yellow and who sell their goods to retailers in those states and in Yellow bring an action in Federal court to challenge the constitutionality of this statute. Which of the following arguments offered by these plaintiffs is likely to be most persuasive in light of applicable precedent? The state statute... A. Fails to achieve the state's substantial interests in fair pricing. B. Imposes an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce. C. Deprives them of their property or liberty without due process of law D. Usurps Congressional power to regulate interstate commerce.
B. Imposes an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce **Dormant Commerce Clause - Fed. Gov. rules State law interferes with Interstate Commerce because of "undue burden" placed on citizen - this law gives advantage to in-staters
National statistics revealed a dramatic increase in the number of elementary and secondary school students bringing controlled substances to school for sale. In response, Congress enacted a statute requiring each State legislature to enact a State law making it a crime for any person to sell, within 1,000 feet of any elementary or secondary school, any controlled substance that had previously been transported in interstate commerce. Is the federal statute constitutional? A. No, because the sale of a controlled substance in close proximity to a school does not have a sufficiently close nexus to interstate commerce to justify its regulation by Congress. B. No, because Congress has no authority to require a state legislature to enact any specified legislation. C. Yes, 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. D. Yes, 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.
B. No, because Congress has no authority to require a state legislature to enact any specified legislation.
A statute of the State of Lanape flatly bans the sale or distribution of contraceptive devices to minors. Drugs, Inc., a national retailer of drugs and related items, is charged with violating the Lanape statute. Which of the following is the strongest constitutional argument Drugs, Inc., could make in defending itself against prosecution for violation of this statute? A. The statute constitutes an undue burden on interstate commerce. B. The statute denies minors one of their fundamental rights without due process. C. The statute violates the First Amendment right to freedom of religion because it regulates morals. D. The statute denies Drugs, Inc., a privilege or immunity of state citizenship.
B. The statute denies minors one of their fundamental rights without due process.
Ben was the illegitimate, unacknowledged child of Fred. Fred died intestate, leaving neither spouse nor any children other than Ben. The state's law of intestate succession provides that an unacknowledged illegitimate child may not inherit his father's property. The spouse, all other blood relatives, and the state are preferred as heirs over the unacknowledged illegitimate child. Ben filed suit in an appropriate court alleging that the state statute barring an illegitimate child from sharing in a parent's estate is invalid, and that he should be declared lawful heir to his father's estate. In challenging the validity of the state statute, Ben's strongest argument would be that: A. It is a denial of procedural due process because it does not give the unacknowledged illegitimate child an opportunity to prove paternity. B. There is no important reason for preferring as heirs collateral relatives and even the state over unacknowledged children, and, therefore, the law violates The Equal Protection Clause. C. He has been deprived of property without due process because his fundamental right to inherit has been compromised without a compelling state need D. It violates The Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
B. There is no important reason for preferring as heirs collateral relatives and even the state over unacknowledged children, and, therefore, the law violates The Equal Protection Clause.
The State of Aurora requires licenses of persons "who are engaged in the trade of barbering." It will grant such licenses only to those who are graduates of barber schools located in Aurora, who have resided in the State for two years, and who are citizens of the United States. The requirement that candidates for licenses must be citizens is... A. Constitutional as an effort to ensure that barbers speak English adequately. B. Unconstitutional as a denial of equal protection. C. Unconstitutional as a bill of attainder. D. Unconstitutional as a bill of attainder.
B. Unconstitutional as a denial of equal protection. **EP because it affects ALL people in trade of barbering`
A State requires licenses of persons ''who are engaged in the trade of barbering.'' It will grant such licenses only to those who are graduates of barber schools located in the State, who have resided in the State for two years, and who are citizens of the United States. The requirement that candidates for license must be graduates of barber schools in the State is probably A. Constitutional, because barbering is a privilege and not a right. B. Unconstitutional, as an undue burden on interstate commerce. C. Unconstitutional, as a violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. D. Constitutional, because the State does not know the quality of out-of-state barber schools.
B. Unconstitutional, as an undue burden on interstate commerce. **Dormant Clause - State giving advantage to in-staters vs. out-of-staters
A Federal Criminal Law makes it a crime for any citizen of the United States not specifically authorized by the President to negotiate with a foreign government for the purpose of influencing the foreign government in relation to a dispute with the United States. The strongest constitutional ground for the validity of this law is that... A. The law deals with foreign relations and therefore is not governed by the First Amendment or other personal liberties found in the Constitution. B. Under several of its enumerated powers, Congress may legislate to preserve the monopoly of the national government over the conduct of United States foreign affairs C. The President's inherent power to negotiate for the United States with foreign countries authorizes the President, even in the absence of statutory authorization, to punish citizens who engage in such negotiations without permission D. Federal criminal laws dealing with international affairs need not be as specific as those dealing with domestic affairs.
B. Under several of its enumerated powers, Congress may legislate to preserve the monopoly of the national government over the conduct of United States foreign affairs
Three states, East Winnetka, Midland, and West Hampton, are located next to one another in that order. The states of East Winnetka and West Hampton permit the hunting and trapping of snipe, but the state of Midland strictly forbids it in order to protect snipe, a rare species of animal, from extinction. The state of Midland has a state statute that provides "possession of snipe traps is prohibited. Any game warden finding a snipe trap within the state shall seize and destroy it." Snipe traps cost about $15 each. Prentis is a resident of West Hampton and an ardent snipe trapper. She drove her car to East Winnetka to purchase a new improved snipe trap from a manufacturer there. In the course of her trip back across Midland with the trap in her car, Prentis stopped in a Midland state park to camp for a few nights. While she was in that park, a Midland game warden saw the trap, which was visible in the front seat of her car. The warden seized the trap and destroyed it in accordance with the Midland statute after Prentis admitted that the seized item was a prohibited snipe trap. No federal statutes or federal administrative regulations apply. For this question only, assume that Prentis demonstrates that common carriers are permitted to transport snipe traps as cargo across Midland for delivery to another State and that in practice the Midland statute is enforced only against private individuals transporting those traps in private vehicles. If Prentis challenges the application of the Midland statute to her on the basis only of a denial of Equal Protection, the application of the statute will probably be found... A. Unconstitutional, because interstate travel is a fundamental right that may not be burdened by State law. B. Constitutional, because the traps constitute contraband in which Prentis could have no protected property interest. C. Constitutional, because there is a rational basis for differentiating between the possession of snipe traps as interstate cargo by common carriers and the possession of snipe traps by private individuals. D. Unconstitutional, because the State cannot demonstrate a compelling public purpose for making this differentiation between common carriers and such private individuals.
C. Constitutional, because there is a rational basis for differentiating between the possession of snipe traps as interstate cargo by common carriers and the possession of snipe traps by private individuals.
Ben was the illegitimate, unacknowledged child of Fred. Fred died intestate, leaving neither spouse nor any children other than Ben. The State's law of intestate succession provides that an unacknowledged illegitimate child may not inherit his father's property. The spouse, all other blood relatives, and the State are preferred as heirs over the unacknowledged illegitimate child. Ben filed suit in an appropriate court alleging that the State statute barring an illegitimate child from sharing in a parent's estate is invalid, and that he should be declared lawful heir to his father's estate. The State's strongest defense of the statute would be that... A. The authority of a state over the disposition of decedents' property located in the state is not affected by the Constitution of the United States. B. A statute prescribing the means of disposing of the property of intestate decedents does not constitute invidious discrimination. C. Its interest in promoting family life and in encouraging the formal acknowledgment of paternity gives the law a rational basis. D. Inheritance under intestate succession laws is a privilege, not a right, and therefore is not protected as property under the due process clause.
C. Its interest in promoting family life and in encouraging the formal acknowledgment of paternity gives the law a rational basis.
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 regulate commerce with foreign nations, and therefore the statute is binding on the President. B. Yes, because Congress has no jurisdiction over matters outside the U.S. borders. C. Yes, because the President and his subordinates are the exclusive official representatives of the United States in foreign affairs. D. No, because Congress has the power to implement treaties, and therefore the statute is binding on the President.
C. Yes, because the President and his subordinates are the exclusive official representatives of the United States in foreign affairs.
Three states: East Winnetka, Midland, and West Hampton, are located next to one another in that order. The States of East Winnetka and West Hampton permit the hunting and trapping of snipe, but the State of Midland strictly forbids it in order to protect snipe, a rare species of animal, from extinction. The State of Midland has a state statute that provides "Possession of snipe traps is prohibited. Any game warden finding a snipe trap within the State shall seize and destroy it." Snipe traps cost about $15 each. Prentis is a resident of West Hampton and an ardent snipe trapper. She drove her car to East Winnetka to purchase a new improved snipe trap from a manufacturer there. In the course of her trip back across Midland with the trap in her car, Prentis stopped in a Midland state park to camp for a few nights. While she was in that park, a Midland game warden saw the trap, which was visible in the front seat of her car. The warden seized the trap and destroyed it in accordance with the Midland statute after Prentis admitted that the seized item was a prohibited snipe trap. No Federal statutes or Federal administrative regulations apply. For this question only, assume that a valid Federal administrative rule, adopted under a Federal consumer product safety act, regulates the design of snipe traps. The rule was issued to prevent traps from causing injury to human beings, e.g., by pinching fingers while persons were setting the traps. No other federal law applies. Which of the following best states the effect of the Federal rule on the Midland State statute? A. The Federal rule does not preempt the Midland State statue, because the Midland State statute regulates wild animals, a field of exclusive state power. B. The Federal rule preempts the Midland State statute, because the Federal rule does not contain affirmative authorization for continued State regulation. C. The Federal rule does not preempt the Midland State statute, because the purposes of the Federal rule and the midland State statute are different. D. The Federal rule preempts the Midland State statute, because the Federal rule regulates the same subject matter, snipe traps.
C. The Federal rule does not preempt the Midland State statute, because the purposes of the Federal rule and the midland State statute are different. **different purposes = no law supreme over the other
A State accredits both public and private schools, licenses their teachers and supplies textbooks on secular subjects to all such schools. Country Schoolhouse, a private school that offers elementary and secondary education in the State, denies admission to all Non-Caucasians. In a suit to enjoin as unconstitutional the continued racially exclusionary admissions policy of the Country Schoolhouse, which of the following is the strongest argument AGAINST the school? A. The State is constitutionally obligated to eliminate segregation in all public and private educational institutions within the state. B. Because education is a "public function," the Country Schoolhouse may not discriminate on racial grounds. C. The State is so involved in school regulation and support that The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth amendment is applicable to the school. D. Any school with teachers who are licensed by the state is forbidden to discriminate on racial grounds.
C. The State is so involved in school regulation and support that The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth amendment is applicable to the school. **entanglement = 14th amendment applies to school
A State statute provides that only citizens of the United States may be employed by that State. In an action brought in a Federal court, a resident alien who was prevented from obtaining State employment as a garbage collector solely because of his alien status challenged the statute's constitutionality as applied to his circumstances. Which of the following statements concerning the burden of persuasion applicable to this suit is correct? A. The alien must demonstrate that there is no rational relationship between the citizenship requirement and any legitimate state interest. B. The alien must demonstrate that the citizenship requirement is not necessary to advance an important state interest. C. The State must demonstrate that the citizenship requirement is necessary to advance an important state interest. D. The State must demonstrate that there is a rational relationship between the citizenship requirement and a legitimate state interest.
C. The State must demonstrate that the citizenship requirement is necessary to advance an important state interest. **strict scrutiny = "necessary"
The State of Missoula has enacted a new election code designed to increase voter responsibility in the exercise of the franchise and to enlarge citizen participation in the electoral process. None of its provisions conflicts with Federal statutes. Which of the following is the strongest reason for finding unconstitutional a requirement in the Missoula election code that each voter must be literate in English? A. The requirement violates The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. B. The requirement violates Article I Section 2 of the Constitution, which provides that representatives to Congress be chosen "by the People of the several States." C. The requirement violates The Equal Protection of the laws clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. D. The requirement violates Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to "make or alter" state regulations providing for the "Times" and "Manner" of holding elections for senators and representatives
C. The requirement violates The Equal Protection of the laws clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The State of Yuma provides by statute, "No person may be awarded any State construction contract without agreeing to employ only citizens of the State and of the United States in performance of the contract." If the Yuma statute is attacked as violating The Commerce Clause, which of the following defenses is the WEAKEST? A. The statute will help assure a continuously available and stable work force for the execution of public contracts. B. The statute will help assure that only the most qualified individuals work on public contracts. C. The statute will help protect the workers of the State of Yuma from competition by foreign workers. D. The statute will help assure that workers with jobs directly affecting the performance of public contracts are dedicated to their jobs.
C. The statute will help protect the workers of the State of Yuma from competition by foreign workers.
After several well-publicized deaths caused by fires in products made from highly flammable fabrics, the State of Orange enacted a statute prohibiting the manufacture or assembly of any product in this State which contains any fabric that has not been tested and approved for flame retardancy by the Zetest Testing Company. The Zetest Testing Company is a privately owned and operated business located in Orange. For many years, Fabric Mill, located in the State of Orange, has had its fabric tested for flame retardancy by the Alpha Testing Company, located in the state of Green. Alpha Testing Company is a reliable organization that uses a process for testing and approving fabrics for flame retardancy identical in all respects to that used by the Zetest Testing Company. Because Fabric Mill wishes to continue to have its fabric tested solely by Alpha Testing Company, Fabric Mill files an action in Orange State court challenging the constitutionality of the Orange statute as applied to its circumstances. In this suit, the Court should hold the statute to be: A. Constitutional, because it is reasonably related to the protection of the reputation of the fabric industry located in the state of Orange B. Unconstitutional, because it preempted by Congress' plenary control over interstate commerce. C. Unconstitutional, because it imposes an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce. D. Constitutional, because it is a legitimate means of protecting the safety of the public.
C. Unconstitutional, because it imposes an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce. **Dormant Commerce Clause - Fed. Gov. rules State law interferes with Interstate Commerce because of "undue burden" placed on citizen - this law is keeping someone out
Barnes was hired as an assistant professor of mathematics of Reardon State College and is now in his third consecutive one-year contract. Under State law he cannot acquire tenure until after five consecutive annual contracts. In his third year, Barnes was notified that he was not being rehired for the following year. Applicable State law and college rules did not require either a statement of reasons or a hearing, and in fact neither was offered to Barnes. Which of the following, if established, sets forth the strongest constitutional argument Barnes could make to compel the college to furnish him a statement of reasons for the failure to rehire him and an opportunity for a hearing? A. In the expectation of remaining at the college, he had just moved his elderly parents to the town in which the college is located. B. There is no evidence that tenured teachers are any more qualified than he is. C. He was the only teacher at the college whose contract was not renewed that year. D. He leased a home in reliance on an oral promise of reemployment by the college president.
D. He leased a home in reliance on an oral promise of reemployment by the college president.
A woman is cited for contempt of the House of Representatives after she refused to answer certain questions posed by a House Committee concerning her acts while serving as a U.S. ambassador. A Federal statute authorizes the Attorney General to prosecute contempts of Congress. Pursuant to this law, The House directs the Attorney General to begin criminal proceedings against the woman. A Federal grand jury indicts the woman, but the Attorney General refuses to sign the indictment. Which of the following best describes the constitutionality of the Attorney General's action? A. Legal, because ambassadors are immune from prosecution for acts committed in the course of their duties. B. Illegal, because the attorney general must prosecute those who violate federal law. C. Illegal, because the attorney general must prosecute if the House of Representatives so directs. D. Legal, because the decision to prosecute is an exclusively executive act.
D. Legal, because the decision to prosecute is an exclusively executive act.
In a case in which the constitutionality of the Young Adult Marriage Counseling Act is in issue, the burden of persuasion will probably be on the... A. Person challenging the law, because the Tenth Amendment authorized states to determine the conditions on which they issue marriage licenses. B. Person challenging the law, because there is a strong presumption that elected state legislators acted properly. C. State, because there is a substantial impact in the discrete and insular class of young adults. D. State, because there is a substantial impact on the right to marry, and that right is fundamental.
D. State, because there is a substantial impact on the right to marry, and that right is fundamental.
A State law provides that only U.S. citizens may serve as jurors in the State courts of that State. A woman who is a lawful resident alien and who has resided in the State for many years was summoned for jury duty in a State court. The woman's name was selected from a list of potential jurors that was compiled from a comprehensive list of local residents. She was disqualified from service solely because she is not a U.S. citizen. The woman has filed an action for a declaratory judgment that the State law is unconstitutional. Who should prevail in this action? A. The woman, because the state has not articulated a legitimate reason for prohibiting resident aliens from serving as jurors in the state's courts. B. The State, because jury service is a privilege, not a right, and therefore it is not a liberty interest protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. C. The woman, because the Constitution gives Congress plenary power to make classifications with respect to aliens D. The State, because a State may limit to U.S. citizens functions that are an integral part of the process of self-government
D. The State, because a State may limit to U.S. citizens functions that are an integral part of the process of self-government
According to a statute of the State of Kiowa, a candidate for State office may have his name placed on the official election ballot only if he files with the appropriate State official petition containing a specified number of voter signatures. Roderick failed to get his name placed on the State ballot as an independent candidate for governor, because he failed to file a petition with the number of voter signatures required by State statute. In a suit against the appropriate State officials in Federal district court, Roderick sought an injunction against the petition signature requirement on the ground that it was unconstitutional. Which of the following, if established, constitutes the strongest argument for Roderick? A. The motivation for the statute was a desire to keep candidates off the ballot if they did not have strong support among voters. B. Because of the petition signature requirement, very few independent candidates have ever succeeded in getting on the ballot. C. Compliance with the petition signature requirement is burdensome. D. The objectives of the statute could be satisfactorily achieved by less burdensome means
D. The objectives of the statute could be satisfactorily achieved by less burdensome means
Pine, aged 25, contemplated marrying Ross, aged 25. Both are residents of the state of Champlain. Pine has not yet proposed to Ross because he is offended by the counseling requirement. Pine sues in court seeking a declaratory judgment that the Young Adult Marriage Counseling Act is unconstitutional. Which of the following is the clearest ground for dismissal of this action by the court? A. No substantial federal question is presented. B. The suit presents a non-justifiable political question. C. Pine and Ross are residents of the same state. D. The suit is unripe
D. The suit is unripe **unripe = no dispute for court to decide, this is just a "might" happen situation
A State statute requires that all buses which operate as common carriers on the highways of the States shall be equipped with seat belts for passengers. Transport Lines, an interstate carrier, challenges the validity of the statute and the right of the State to make the requirement. What is the best basis for a constitutional challenge by Transport Lines? A. Violation of the Due Process Clause by the Fourteenth Amendment B. Violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment C. Difficulty of enforcement D. Unreasonable burden on interstate commerce
D. Unreasonable burden on interstate commerce *Dormant Commerce Clause - Fed. Gov. rules State law interferes with Interstate Commerce because of "undue burden" placed on citizen - law keeps them out
A fatal virus recently infected poultry in several nations. Some scientific evidence indicates that the virus can be transmitted from poultry to humans. Poultry farming is a major industry in several U.S. states. In one such state, the legislature has enacted a law imposing a fee of two cents per bird on all poultry farming and processing operations in the state. The purpose of the fee is to pay for a State inspection system to ensure that no poultry raised or processed in the State is infected with the virus. A company that has poultry processing plants both in the State and in other States has sued to challenge the fee. Is the fee constitutional? A. No, because it places an undue burden on interstate commerce in violation of the negative implications of the commerce clause. B. No, because although it attaches only to intrastate activity, in the aggregate, the fee substantially affects interstate commerce. C. Yes, because it was enacted pursuant to the State's police power, which takes precedence over the negative implications of the commerce clause. D. Yes, because it applies only to activities that take place wholly within the State, and it does not unduly burden interstate commerce.
D. Yes, because it applies only to activities that take place wholly within the State, and it does not unduly burden interstate commerce. **burden is not excessive to in relation to public health
Pursuant to a State statute, Clovis applied for tuition assistance to attend the Institute of Liberal Arts. He was qualified for such assistance in every way except that he was a resident alien who did not intend to become a United States citizen. The State's restriction of such grants to United States citizens or resident aliens seeking such citizenship is probably: A. Valid, because aliens are not per se "a discrete and insular minority" specially protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. B. Invalid, because The Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV does not permit such an arbitrary classification. C. Valid, because the line drawn by the State for extending aid was reasonably related to a legitimate state interest. D. Invalid, because the justifications for this restriction are insufficient to overcome the burden imposed on a State when it uses such an alienage classification.
Invalid, because the justifications for this restriction are insufficient to overcome the burden imposed on a State when it uses such an alienage classification.
A State statute requires the permanent removal from parental custody of any child who has suffered "child abuse." That term is defined to include "corporal punishment of any sort." Zeller very gently spanks his six-year old son on the buttocks whenever he believes that spanking is necessary to enforce discipline on him. Such spanking occurs not more than once a month and has never physically harmed the child. The State files suit under the statute to terminate Zeller's parental rights solely because of these spankings. Zeller defends only on the ground that the statute in question is unconstitutional as applied to his admitted conduct. In light of the nature of the rights involved, which of the following is the most probably burden of persuasion on this constitutional issue? A. The State has the burden of persuading the court that the application of this statute to Zeller is necessary to vindicate an important state interest. B. Zeller has the burden of persuading the court that the application of this statute to him is not necessary to vindicate an important state interest. C. The state has the burden of persuading the court that the application of this statute to Zeller is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. D. Zeller has the burden of persuading the court that the application of this statute to him is not rationally related to a legitimate state interest.
The state has the burden of persuading the court that the application of this statute to Zeller is necessary to vindicate an important state interest. **necessary = strict scrutiny
