Con Law MBE's

The Founders were very much influenced by this natural law thinker: A. All answers are correct B. Emmerich de Vattel C. Samuel von Pufendorf D. Huge Grotius

A. All answers are correct

Chief Justice John Marshall also wrote the opinion in Gibbons v. Ogden. A. True B. False

A. True

The term "substantial effects" originated in United States v. Darby. A. True term-88 B. False

A. True

The scope of the federal courts' jurisdiction includes: A. Controversies between two or more states B. All answers are correct C. The laws of the United States D. Controversies to which the United States shall be a party E. Admiralty and maritime

B. All answers are correct

Diversity jurisdiction and federal question jurisdiction are the two primary sources of federal jurisdiction under Article III. A. True B. False

B. False

However, the Court in Trump v. Hawaii agreed with plaintiffs' argument that Congress had conditioned the President's exercise of executive of authority pursuant to Section 1182(f) on the President's finding of an exigency or crisis. A. True B. False

B. False

In Fletcher v. Peck, the Supreme Court asserted the power to review and reverse state supreme court decisions. A. True B. False

B. False

Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid held that the the access regulation (agricultural employers must allow union organizers onto their property for up to three hours per day, 120 days per year) did not constitute a per se physical taking under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. A. True B. False

B. False False. "Whenever a regulation results in a physical appropriation of property, a per se taking has occurred, and Penn Central has no place."

There is a Separation of Powers Clause in the Constitution. A. True B. False

B. False False. The Constitution does not have a "Separation of Powers" Clause. Still, by 1787, there was a deeply rooted understanding that the powers of government should be separated.

Walter Nixon v. United States concerned former President Richard Nixon. A. True B. False

B. False False. Walter Nixon v. United States (1993) involved a former judge named Walter Nixon, not the former President Richard Nixon.

The concept of state sovereign immunity is found in which Amendment to the Constitution? A. Tenth B. Twelfth C. Eleventh D. Thirteenth

C. Eleventh

As discussed in the textbook, this individual introduced amendments to the Constitution on June 8, 1789: A. Alexander Hamilton B. Josiah Smith C. James Madison D. George Washington

C. James Madison

Baker v. Carr identified _______ factors that should be considered in political question cases. A. Seven B. Four C. Six D. Five

C. Six

Thomas Quill calls the White House switchboard and threatens to kill the President of the United States. After an investigation by the Secret Service, Quill is charged with and convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 871(a), which prohibits "knowingly and willfully . . . mak[ing] [a] threat against the President . . . ." Facing a fine and up to five years' imprisonment, Quill appeals his conviction, claiming that Congress lacks the authority to criminalize threats against the President. Having read the Court's disposition of Robin Weathers's case, Quill points out that there is no power in Article I, § 8 to which criminalizing threats to the life of the President could be considered "necessary and proper." How should a reviewing court rule? A. Affirm Quill's conviction because criminalizing threats against the President is necessary and proper to allow the President to, as Article II, § 3 states, "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed . . . ." B. Affirm Quill's conviction because criminalizing threats against the President is necessary and proper to Congress's power to provide for the general welfare found in Article I, § 8, clause 1. C. Reverse Quill's conviction because criminal

A. Affirm Quill's conviction because criminalizing threats against the President is necessary and proper to allow the President to, as Article II, § 3 states, "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed . . . ." This is the best answer because Congress might think it helpful or useful to criminalize threats against the life of the President so as to ensure that she is able to carry out her executive duties. The Necessary and Proper Clause gives Congress implied powers to furnish means to other officials to discharge the ends of their offices, just as it furnishes Congress itself with the power to choose means to achieve its legislative ends.

U.S. military commitments have taxed the armed forces to the point that Congress revives the draft. Now men 18 to 25 are chosen by lottery to serve for at least two years in the armed forces. Under the lottery system, lower numbers are called up first; higher numbers, if needed, will be called up in the future. Which of the following plaintiffs would likely be found to have standing if any files suit challenging the legality of the draft? A. An 18-year-old male who drew a low lottery number and has received instructions to report for a physical. B. A 19-year-old female who argues that the draft violates the Thirteenth Amendment's ban on involuntary servitude. C. All answers are correct. D. Parents of a 17-year-old male alleging that the draft is unconstitutional in the absence of a congressional declaration of war.

A. An 18-year-old male who drew a low lottery number and has received instructions to report for a physical. By process of elimination, this answer choice is the only one left and also presents someone whose injury could be described as concrete and particularized—has not only gone through the lottery but has actually been ordered to report.

A city entered into a contract with a cable and Internet provider allowing the provider to be the exclusive cable and Internet provider in the city in exchange for certain rights. To facilitate installation of the provider's fiber optic cables for all of the city's residents, the city passed an ordinance requiring all apartment owners to allow the provider to install cables in their buildings. Installation of the cables involved drilling a hole in one exterior wall of the building and running the cables between the interior walls of the buildings. The owner of an apartment building within the city did not want to allow new cables to be installed in his building, as he had gone through a similar process with another company three years earlier and he believed that the other company had damaged his property. To deter the installation, the owner filed suit against the city, claiming that the ordinance amounts to a t

A. For the owner, because the ordinance amounts to a taking without just compensation. The court should rule for the owner. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. Where there is a physical appropriation of property, there is a per se taking. Here, the ordinance requires apartment owners to relinquish their right to exclude the cable company from their property. Moreover, the ordinance requires the owners to cede space between the walls of their buildings to the cable company. Although the amount of property taken is small and might not have much value, the physical appropriation here still amounts to a taking. The de minimis doctrine does not apply.

A 15-year-old sophomore high school student became pregnant, and the school board required her to attend a special program for pregnant students instead of her regular classes. The girl did not want to attend a special program; rather, she wanted to attend her regular classes. She sued the school district in federal district court, demanding that she be allowed to attend her regular classes. Before her case came to trial, the girl gave birth to the child. Subsequently, the district reinstated her in her regular classes. When her suit comes before the federal district court, what should the court do? A. Hear the case on the merits, because she may get pregnant again before she graduates from the high school. B. Dismiss the action, because she is no longer required to attend the special classes. C. Dismiss the action, because she is no longer pregnant. D. Hear the case on the merits, because it impacts the right to

A. Hear the case on the merits, because she may get pregnant again before she graduates from the high school. The court should hear the case on the merits. A real, live controversy must exist at all stages of review, not merely when the complaint is filed. If a true controversy no longer exists, the court will dismiss the complaint as moot. A case becomes moot, for example, when a party can no longer be affected by the challenged statute. Here, even though the girl is no longer pregnant, she can get pregnant again, at which time she will be affected by the policy once again. Thus, the harm to the girl (being taken out of regular classes) is capable of repetition but evading review because by the time the case comes to trial, the girl may have given birth, miscarried, or had an abortion.

The majority opinion in West Virginia v. EPA discusses this doctrine of statutory interpretation when analyzing whether Congress had delegated this specific authority to the EPA to regulate under the Clean Air Act. A. Major Questions Doctrine B. Big Deal Doctrine C. Focus Doctrine D. Impactful Doctrine

A. Major Questions Doctrine

18 U.S.C. § 922(o) makes it unlawful to "transfer or possess" a machine gun "in or affecting interstate commerce." Kelly, an accomplished gunsmith, was charged with possession of a machine gun that he had made himself. He was convicted and appealed on the ground that his intrastate possession of the machine gun could not substantially affect interstate commerce. Which of the following would be most helpful to Kelly's attempt to overturn his conviction? A. Mere possession of the machine gun was not "economic" or "commercial" activity. B. The connection between individual possession and the interstate machine gun market was too attenuated to support regulation. C. The statute contained no jurisdictional nexus. D. The findings accompanying the statute mentioned the need to combat interstate and international arms sales by regulating possession

A. Mere possession of the machine gun was not "economic" or "commercial" activity. This is the best answer because the Morrison opinion called the inquiry into the economic nature of the regulated activity "central" to Lopez. Further, Lopez itself declined to hold that simple possession was, in any sense of the word, "economic" activity; and Morrison strongly hinted that Wickard aggregation was unavailable for noneconomic activity.

A new federal law prohibited the use of various pesticides in areas with a certain population density near navigable waters. A city located in the southeastern United States was plagued by a sharp increase in disease-carrying mosquitoes. The city's board of health recommended that all residential areas be sprayed with a pesticide proven to be highly effective against mosquitoes. Despite the fact that the federal law would prohibit use of that pesticide in these areas, the city council passed an ordinance adopting the board of health plan, relying on the opinions of several independent experts that the health benefits of reducing the mosquito population outweighed the risks of spraying. An environmentally minded citizen of the city brought an action in federal court challenging the ordinance. Assuming that the citizen has standing, is the court likely to find the ordinance valid? A. No, because it conflicts with a federal law that Congress had the power to make under the Commerce Clause. B. Yes, because pursuant to the police power, cities have a compelling interest in laws designed to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens. C. No, because it is superseded by the pow

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

State X permits its citizens to engage in "direct democracy," that is, to use the initiative and referendum to bypass the legislative process. (An initiative permits the people to enact legislation through a vote with no involvement of the legislature. A referendum allows the people to vote on a question that has been referred to them by the legislature.) Using the initiative process, the people of State X increase taxes on people who buy SUVs. A would-be SUV purchaser sues to enjoin the tax, arguing that the initiative process violates Congress's constitutional obligation to "guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." May a federal court decide such a claim? A. No, because the matter is to be determined by Congress, and not the courts. B. No, because taxpayers lack standing. C. Yes, because the judiciary must provide a forum to adjudicate constitutional claims where necessa

A. No, because the matter is to be determined by Congress, and not the courts. If the courts did hear those cases, it is not clear how much direct democracy is compatible with a "Republican Form of Government," so there may not be judicially manageable standards for deciding the question. Thus, this choice is incorrect.

A state statute provided that only residents of the state can be granted a license to practice medicine within the state. The statute was passed after a series of well-publicized mistakes by a nonresident physician led to a public consensus that nonresidents were less likely to be familiar with the medical standards followed in the state, making them more likely to commit malpractice. A respected surgeon who lived and was licensed in a neighboring state was offered and accepted the position of chief surgeon at a hospital in the state with the residency statute. Because he lived only 20 minutes away from the hospital, he did not wish to move. He filed an action in federal court challenging the residency requirement, alleging that the statute discriminated against nonresidents in violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV. Is the federal court likely to find that the statute is constitutional? A. No, because the statute is not necessary to achieve an important government purpose. B. No, because the statute is not necessary to achieve a compelling state interest. C. Yes, because a license to practice medicine is not a "privilege" under the Privileges and Immunities C

A. No, because the statute is not necessary to achieve an important government purpose. The statute is likely unconstitutional because the statute is not necessary to achieve an important government purpose (put another way, state does not have a substantial justification for the statute). The Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV protects against discrimination by a state in favor of its own citizens when it affects a fundamental right, such as the pursuit of a livelihood. Any statute that results in such discrimination violates the Clause unless the state shows that it has a substantial justification for the discriminatory treatment. In effect, it must show that nonresidents either cause or are part of the problem it is attempting to solve, and that there are no less restrictive means to solve the problem. Here, the state statute clearly discriminates against nonresidents in favor of residents.

According to the majority opinion in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, to determine whether a use restriction effects a taking, the Supreme Court has generally applied the flexible test developed in which case, balancing factors such as the economic impact of the regulation, its interference with reasonable investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action" A. Penn Central B. St. Pancras C. Union Station D. Grand Central

A. Penn Central

To reduce deer overpopulation in state forests, state Blue adopted a statute allowing anyone with a valid deer hunting license from any state to hunt deer within state Blue. The act also imposed a $0.25 per pound tax on each deer killed within the state. Funds from the tax were earmarked to support state forest land. State Red is adjacent to state Blue and also has an overabundance of deer. To encourage hunting, state Red does not impose a tax on deer taken from its forests. A hunter who is a resident of state Red and who is licensed to hunt there earns his living by supplying wild game to several high-end restaurants in state Red. While legally hunting deer within state Red, the hunter inadvertently crossed the state line and killed a deer in state Blue. Upon hearing the hunter's shot, a state Blue game warden arrived at the scene, approximated the weight of the kill, and handed the hunter a tax bill based on the approximation. The bill provided a method for challenging the approximated weight of the deer, but the hunter refused to pay any tax on his kill. He instead filed suit in federal court to enjoin collection of the state Blue tax on constitutional grounds. Which of the following

A. State Blue will prevail because the tax is valid under the Commerce Clause. State Blue will prevail because the tax is valid under the Commerce Clause. A tax is valid under the Commerce Clause if: (i) the tax does not discriminate against interstate commerce; (ii) there is a substantial nexus between the activity taxed and the taxing state; (iii) the tax is fairly apportioned; and (iv) the tax fairly relates to services or benefits provided by the state. The state of Blue tax is applicable equally to residents of Blue and nonresidents. Thus, there is no discrimination against interstate commerce. Because the taxed deer are taken from within the state, there is a substantial nexus between the activity taxed and the taxing state. There is fair apportionment if a tax is based on the extent of the taxable activity or property in the state. Here, the killing of a deer within state Blue obviously occurs entirely within the state. Thus, the state tax is fairly apportioned. Also, there is a fair relationship between the tax and any benefits provided by the taxing state, because the state is permitting those engaged in hunting to take deer from its forest lands, in return for a rather modest amount of $0.25 per pound. That revenue, in turn, is used to support state Blue forest land, which provides hunters with a place to hunt. Thus, the state tax meets all of the requirements for validity under the Commerce Clause.

Concerned about the health risks associated with smoking, and the attendant costs to the state providing care to smokers, Connecticut has taken the extraordinary step of prohibiting the sale of all tobacco products in the state. Connecticut has a tiny cigar industry but otherwise produces no tobacco products. Out-of-state tobacco companies sue, claiming the law violates the Dormant Commerce Clause Doctrine (DCCD). They note that, as a result of the law, they potentially stand to lose "millions" of dollars in revenue each year from tobacco sales. The state argues that it spends $1.2 million per year on "tobacco-caused" health care. Other costs include losses in productivity and absenteeism caused by smoking and smoking-related illnesses, which the state estimates at $1.5 million per year. What should a reviewing court do? A. Sustain the law, because the burden on interstate commerce does not clearly exceed the benefits to the state. B. Invalidate the law, because it discriminates against interstate commerce. C. Sustain the law, because it is facially neutral. D. Invalidate the law, because the burden on interstate commerce exceeds the putative local benefits.

A. Sustain the law, because the burden on interstate commerce does not clearly exceed the benefits to the state. This is the best answer. The benefits to Connecticut are not zero; the state will likely save money by banning the sale of tobacco products. The companies argue they stand to lose "millions," but they don't specify an amount. Because the facts do not give evidence suggesting that costs "clearly exceed" the (real) benefits to Connecticut, a reviewing court would likely uphold the law.

State Green passed a statute requiring all commercial trucks passing through the state to use Type A tires, even though all other states permit the use of either Type A or Type B tires on commercial vehicles. The United States Supreme Court struck down the state Green statute and stated in its opinion that Type A and Type B tires are equally safe. Subsequent to the Supreme Court decision, the legislature of state Yellow enacted a statute requiring the use of Type B tires by commercial vehicles and banning the use of Type A tires by commercial vehicles. The statute states that the reason for the prohibition is that Type A tires are dangerous. Which of the following would be the basis for the best argument for striking down the state Yellow statute as unconstitutional? A. The Commerce Clause. B. The Supremacy Clause. C. Res judicata. D. The fact that Type A and Type B tires are equally safe

A. The Commerce Clause. The best argument for striking down the statute as unconstitutional is the Commerce Clause. Under the Commerce Clause, states may regulate local aspects of interstate commerce as long as the regulation does not discriminate against interstate commerce or unduly burden interstate commerce. The statute here does not discriminate against interstate commerce because it treats all trucks alike. To determine whether the statute unduly burdens interstate commerce, the court will balance the incidental burden on interstate commerce from the statute against the benefits produced by the legislation. Here, the burden on commerce is great, because the statute will force everyone who wants to travel through state Yellow to have Type B tires. The Supreme Court, in its opinion on the benefit produced by the statute from the previous case, found Type A tires and Type B tires equally safe. Thus, the statute provides little, if any, benefit. Because the burden on interstate commerce outweighs the benefits of the statute, the statute will be struck down.

A group of doctors filed suit in federal court against the United States government to challenge a new statute that places caps on the amount that doctors, hospitals, clinics, and other medical facilities may charge patients to perform specifically enumerated procedures. The government filed a motion to dismiss the doctors' suit, arguing that the doctors lack standing to pursue their case. Which of the following is LEAST relevant in determining whether the doctors have standing? A. The statute placing the caps on the enumerated procedures provides that doctors shall have standing to challenge the price caps. B. Eighty percent of all doctors charged more for the specified procedures than the price caps allow. C. Enforcement of the price caps would reduce the doctors' profits by an average of 4%. D. A ruling in the doctors' favor would result in removal of the price caps.

A. The statute placing the caps on the enumerated procedures provides that doctors shall have standing to challenge the price caps. One of the requirements to establish standing is redressability. An argument that a ruling in a party's favor will eliminate the party's injury is the essence of redressability.

After the release of various news stories about the President's possible violation of political campaign funding laws, a federal grand jury investigation and an investigation by a special Senate subcommittee were initiated. The Senate subcommittee subpoenaed personal records of the President from several top officers of the executive branch. Learning of the subpoenas, the President ordered all executive officials to refuse to turn over the materials. Which of the following statements is most accurate? A. The subpoena must advance a legitimate legislative purpose. B. The subpoena violates the constitutional principle of separation of powers. C. Congress's right to the records is absolute. D. The President's executive immunity bars the issuance of the subpoena.

A. The subpoena must advance a legitimate legislative purpose. Congress can subpoena the President's personal records, as long as it can be established that the subpoena advances a legitimate legislative purpose based on certain factors.

Justice Kennedy's majority opinion in Murr v. Wisconsin articulated a complicated, multi-factor test for determining whether there has been a regulatory taking. At a minimum, how many factors are part of this test? A. Three B. Eight C. Nine D. Two

A. Three Justice Kennedy's analysis is really complex. He looks to state law to define the "parcel as a whole" and identifies three factors: "First, the treatment of the property under state and local law indicates petitioners' property should be treated as one when considering the effects of the restrictions." "Second, the physical characteristics of the property support its treatment as a unified parcel." "Third, the prospective value that Lot E brings to Lot F supports considering the two as one parcel for purposes of determining if there is a regulatory taking." Arguably, this could be a fourth factor: "The inquiry is objective, and the reasonable expectations at issue derive from background customs and the whole of our legal tradition"

Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution reads, "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." The phrase "herein granted" qualifies the "legislative powers" of Congress. A. True B. False

A. True

As opposed to executive agreements or orders, the President's power to make treaties requires the advice and consent of the Senate provided 2/3 of the Senators present concur. A. True B. False

A. True

Because abortion cases are seldom resolved during the nine months of pregnancy the Supreme Court developed an exception to the mootness doctrine called "capable of repetition, yet evading review." A. True B. False

A. True

Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the opinion in Marbury v. Madison. A. True B. False

A. True

Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland dealt with the Necessary and Proper Clause. A. True B. False

A. True

Collins v. Yellen declared unconstitutional the Fair Housing Finance Administration, which had a single director with tenure protections. A. True B. False

A. True

Dames & Moore v. Regan discussed that Congress has implicitly approved the practice of claim settlement by executive agreement. A. True B. False

A. True

DeFunis v. Odegaard held that the petitioner's case was moot as he had registered for his final semester at the same law school he was suing for alleged race discrimination encountered as part of the admission process. A. True B. False

A. True

Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam held that respondent's Suspension Clause argument failed because it would extend the writ of habeas corpus far beyond its scope "when the Constitution was drafted and ratified" as he desired to invoke the writ to obtain additional administrative review of his asylum claim and ultimately to obtain authorization to stay in this country. A. True B. False

A. True

Even though the Marbury v. Madison case has become associated with the "power of judicial review," the opinion never uses that term. A. True B. False

A. True

Federal Election Commission v. Akins held that there was an injury in fact - related to voting - that was sufficiently concrete and particular. A. True B. False

A. True

Federal courts do not give advisory opinions. This means that the federal courts would only resolve legal issues when deciding an actual "case" or "controversy." A. True B. False

A. True

Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services considered another exception to the mootness doctrine: voluntary cessation of the offending behavior, which could be resumed in the future. A. True B. False

A. True

Gonzales v. Raich held that the Controlled Substances Act did not exceed Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. A. True B. False

A. True

Gundy v. United States examined whether 34 U.S.C. §20913(d), enacted as part of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), violated the nondelegation doctrine. A. True B. False

A. True

HIcklin v. Orbeck refers to "the mutually reinforcing relationship between the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Art. IV, §2, and the Commerce Clause as the relationship stems from their common origin in the Fourth Article of the Articles of Confederation 5 and their shared vision of federalism. . . ." A. True B. False

A. True

Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission held that when discrimination against commerce is demonstrated, the burden falls on the State to justify it both in terms of the local benefits flowing from the statute and the unavailability of nondiscriminatory alternatives adequate to preserve the local interests at stake. A. True B. False

A. True

In 2017, the first "special counsel" was appointed; the deputy attorney general was supposed to supervise the special counsel, could remove him, and could limit the scope of his investigation. Under DOJ regulations, the special counsel was also required to report his findings to his superior. A. True B. False

A. True

In Alexander Hamilton's Federalist No. 78, he speaks, not of judicial power, but of the judicial duty to follow the law and, where two laws may conflict, to follow the law of the superior rather than of the subordinate authority. A. True B. False

A. True

In Boerne v. Flores, the Court established a new standard for Section 5 legislation, under which Congress must find that the state committed constitutional abuses and may not impose a more stringent remedy than that which preexisted A. True B. False

A. True

In Boerne v. Flores, the Court held that RFRA is not a proper exercise of Congress's Section 5 enforcement power as RFRA is a congressional intrusion into the states' normal domain, and thus violates the separation of powers. A. True B. False

A. True

In California v. Texas, the Court held that the individual plaintiffs lacked standing because the statutory provision, while it told them to obtain that coverage, had no means of enforcement. With the penalty zeroed out, the IRS could no longer seek a penalty from those who failed to comply. A. True B. False

A. True

In Chiafalo v. Washington, the Court held that a State may penalize an elector for breaking his pledge and voting for someone other than the presidential candidate who won his State's populate vote. A. True B. False

A. True

In Chisholm v. Georgia, Chisholm alleged that Georgia had failed to pay Farquhar (the South Carolina businessman) for goods that Farquhar had supplied Georgia during the Revolutionary War. In a suit for damages, the State's attorney general claimed immunity from the suit because of the State's sovereign status. A. True B. False

A. True

In Dames & Moore v. Regan, the Court acknowledged that much relevant analysis was contained in Youngstown. A. True B. False

A. True

In Ex parte Merryman, the most obvious issue raised by the debate between Chief Justice Taney and President Lincoln was whether the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus resides exclusively with Congress. A. True B. False

A. True

In Federalist No. 51, James Madison discusses the importance of appropriate checks and balances as well as separation of powers within the national government. A. True B. False

A. True

In Federalist No. 70, Alexander Hamilton defended the Framer's decision to create a single—as distinct from a divided—executive. He based his defense on two factors: energy and accountability. A. True B. False

A. True

In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton authored the most well-known endorsement of the duty of judges to declare unconstitutional laws void. A. True B. False

A. True

In Hans v. Louisiana, the Court reaffirmed the doctrine of state sovereign immunity that had been repudiated in Chisholm v. Georgia. A. True B. False

A. True

In Hepburn v. Griswold, Chief Justice Chase wrote the majority opinion holding the Legal Tender Act was beyond Congress's enumerated powers and unconstitutional. A. True B. False

A. True

In Hirabayashi v. United States, the Court cites the history of discrimination against Japanese Americans as a basis for upholding the curfew. A. True B. False

A. True

In Hirabayashi v. United States, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed Hirabayashi's conviction for knowingly disregarding a curfew order imposed by a military commander, because the curfew order was an appropriate exercise of war powers by the government, and did not unconstitutionally discriminate against persons of Japanese ancestry. A. True B. False

A. True

In Knick v. Township of Scott, the Court held that state-litigation requirement imposes an unjustifiable burden on takings plaintiffs, conflicts with the rest of our takings jurisprudence, and must be overruled. A. True B. False

A. True

In Morrison v. Olson, the Court held that the role of independent counsel is an "inferior" officer. A. True B. False

A. True

In Murphy v. NCAA, the Court held that the PASPA provision at issue here — prohibiting state authorization of sports gambling — violates the anticommandeering rule. A. True B. False

A. True

In NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., the Supreme Court held that the National Labor Relations Act was a proper exercise of Congress's power and applied to respondent's employees. A. True B. False

A. True

In New York v. United States, the Court held that the federal government cannot commandeer, or force state legislatures to take action. A. True B. False

A. True

In New York v. United States. Justice Stevens argued in his opinion (concurring in part and dissenting in part) that the Tenth Amendment does not impose any limit on Congress' exercise of the powers delegated to it by the Article I. A. True B. False

A. True

In Prigg v. Pennsylvania, a woman and her children escaped from slavery and resided in Pennsylvania. The woman gave birth to another child more than a year after her escape. Defendant forcibly seized the woman and all her children and took them to Maryland in violation of Pennsylvania law. The trial court convicted defendant, and the state supreme court affirmed. A. True B. False

A. True

In Printz v. United States, the Court held that the provisions of the Brady Act violated dual sovereignty because they compelled states to administer a federal regulatory scheme. A. True B. False

A. True

In Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, defendant challenged the federal regulations of the poultry industry as an invalid exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. A. True B. False

A. True

In Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the Court unanimously decided the CFPB's single director removable only for inefficiency, neglect, or malfeasance violated the separation of powers. A. True B. False

A. True

In Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, the Supreme Court held that the Eleventh Amendment prohibited Congress from making the State capable of being sued in federal court. A. True B. False

A. True

In Trump v. Hawaii, the Court held that, by its plain language, §1182(f) grants the President broad discretion to suspend the entry of aliens into the United States. The President lawfully exercised that discretion based on his findings — following a worldwide, multi-agency review — that entry of the covered aliens would be detrimental to the national interest. A. True B. False

A. True

In Trump v. Hawaii, the Supreme Court examined, in part, whether the President had authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act) to issue a Proclamation imposing entry restrictions on nationals of countries that do not share adequate information for an informed entry determination, or that otherwise present national security risks. A. True B. False

A. True

In United States v. Lopez, the Supreme Court held that the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 was invalid as it was not a regulation of activity arising out of or connected with a commercial transaction which substantially affected interstate commerce, and was thus beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause. A. True B. False

A. True

In United States v. Nixon, the Court held that the President's general privilege of confidentiality did not extend to an absolute privilege of immunity from all judicial process. A. True B. False

A. True

In Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, on the eve of a strike against certain companies, an executive order was issued directing the Secretary of Commerce to take possession of most of the nation's cereal mills. A. True B. False

A. True

In determining whether a delegation was appropriate, the constitutional question is whether Congress has supplied an intelligible principle to guide the delegee's use of discretion. A. True B. False

A. True

Justice Scalia's sole dissent in Morrison v. Olson stressed the practical consequences of the majority's opinion that undermined the formal separation of powers. Yet, in 1999, both Democrats and Republicans allowed the independent counsel statute to expire. A. True B. False

A. True

Korematsu (1944) is far more famous than Hirabayashi (1943). But the 1944 decision relies on the Court's legal analysis from the 1943 unanimous judgment. A. True B. False

A. True

New York v. United States implicitly stands for two important propositions: (1) the take title provision may be a "necessary" means to regulate the interstate waste market; (2) however, such an intrusion into state sovereignty is not a "proper" exercise of federal power because the law requires a state legislature to legislate. A. True B. False

A. True

Only the concurring opinion of Justice Thomas is published in the textbook for United Haulers Association v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority. A. True B. False

A. True

Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon articulates the so-called regulatory takings doctrine. A. True B. False

A. True

President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed the so-called court-packing scheme, which would have had the effect of increasing the number of Supreme Court Justices, thus creating new vacancies that could be filled with Justices sympathetic to the New Deal. A. True B. False

A. True

Prigg v. Pennsylvania held that the Constitution gave Congress the authority to enforce the Fugitive Slave Clause. A. True B. False

A. True

Taylor v. United States required the Court to decide what the Government must prove to satisfy the Hobbs Act's commerce element when a defendant commits a robbery that targets a marijuana dealer's drugs or drug proceeds. A. True B. False

A. True

Tennessee Wine and Spirit Retailers Association v. Thomas acknowledged that §2 [of the Twenty-first Amendment] grants States latitude with respect to the regulation of alcohol, but the Court has repeatedly declined to read §2 as allowing the States to violate the "nondiscrimination principle" that was a central feature of the regulatory regime that the provision was meant to constitutionalize. A. True B. False

A. True

Tennessee Wine and Spirit Retailers Association v. Thomas concerned a durational-residency requirement imposed on all individuals and businesses seeking to obtain or renew a license to operate a liquor store in Tennessee. A. True B. False

A. True

Tennessee Wine and Spirit Retailers Association v. Thomas held that under the dormant Commerce Clause, if a state law discriminates against out-of-state goods or nonresident economic actors, the law can be sustained only on a showing that it is narrowly tailored to "advanc[e] a legitimate local purpose." A. True B. False

A. True

The Constitution gives Congress the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." This authority is known as the taxing power. However, this provision is also known as the Spending Clause, even though the text affords Congress no explicit authority to spend money. A. True B. False

A. True

The Constitution's Appointments Clause says that the President "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States...." A. True B. False

A. True

The Court in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid drew this distinction when analyzing whether the access regulation constituted a per se taking: Rather than restraining the growers' use of their own property, the regulation appropriates for the enjoyment of third parties the owners' right to exclude. A. True B. False

A. True

The Court in Taylor v. United States held: In order to obtain a conviction under the Hobbs Act for the robbery or attempted robbery of a drug dealer, the Government need not show that the drugs that a defendant stole or attempted to steal either traveled or were destined for transport across state lines. Rather, to satisfy the Act's commerce element, it is enough that a defendant knowingly stole or attempted to steal drugs or drug proceeds, for, as a matter of law, the market for illegal drugs is "commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction." A. True B. False

A. True

The Court in Trump v. Vance held that Article II and the Supremacy Clause do not prevent the issuance of a state criminal subpoena to a sitting President. A. True B. False

A. True

The Court in United States v. Arthrex concluded that, because Congress has vested the Director with the "power and duties" of the Patent and Trademark Office, the Director has the authority to provide for a means of reviewing Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decisions. The Director accordingly may review final PTAB decisions and, upon review, may issue decisions himself on behalf of the PTAB. A. True B. False

A. True

The Court in United States v. Arthrex held that the Appointments Clause was violated because Congress has assigned administrative patent judges "significant authority" in adjudicating the public rights of private parties, while also insulating their decisions from review and their offices from removal. A. True B. False

A. True

The Eleventh Amendment was ratified in 1795, two years after Chisholm was decided. A. True B. False

A. True

The Necessary and Proper Clause refers to executing the "foregoing" powers that are "enumerated" in Article I, Section 8. A. True B. False

A. True

The Supreme Court opinion in Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States was unanimous. A. True B. False

A. True

The United States Constitution, ratified in 1788, effectively afforded only "three fifths" representations to slaves, who were categorized as "other persons." A. True B. False

A. True

The dissenting opinion of Justice Vinson (joined by Justices Reed & Minton) in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer said Congress had not limited the President's inherent authority to seize property under extreme circumstances simply by providing for certain procedures that could be used under less extreme circumstances. A. True B. False

A. True

The first ten amendments, which are today called the Bill of Rights, enumerate, or list, specific rights that are commonly thought to constrain Congress's exercise of legislative powers. These constraints are "external" to the enumeration of Congress's authorities. A. True B. False

A. True

The independent counsel law at issue in Morrison v. Olson was enacted by Congress in the wake of the Watergate scandal as part of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. A. True B. False

A. True

The issue in Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety is whether the Constitution allows Congress to enforce these federal reemployment protections by authorizing private litigation against noncompliant state employers that do not wish to consent to suit. A. True B. False

A. True

The majority opinion in United States v. Lopez faulted the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 for having no jurisdictional element which would ensure, through case-by-case inquiry, that the firearm possession in question affects interstate commerce. A. True B. False

A. True

The plaintiffs in Federal Election Commission v. Akins challenged the federal government's determination that a group was not a "political committee." A. True B. False

A. True

The primary holding to come from Hamdi v. Rumsfeld was that U.S. citizens may be designated as enemy combatants, but due process rights still apply to any U.S. citizens in detention. They also have the right to a hearing on enemy combatant status before a neutral tribunal. A. True B. False

A. True

Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety held that States agreed that their sovereignty would "yield . . . so far as is necessary" to national policy to raise and maintain the military. As a result, States accepted upon ratification that their "consent," including to suit, could "never be a condition precedent to" Congress' chosen exercise of its authority. The States simply "have no immunity left to waive or abrogate." A. True B. False

A. True

Trump v. Mazars concerned President Trump's information being sought not by prosecutors or private parties in connection with a particular judicial proceeding, but by committees of Congress that set forth broad legislative objectives. A. True B. False

A. True

Trump v. Mazars held that in assessing whether a subpoena directed at the President's personal information is "related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of the Congress," courts must perform a careful analysis that takes adequate account of the separation of powers principles at stake, including both the significant legislative interests of Congress and the "unique position" of the President. A. True B. False

A. True

Ultimately, in NFIB v. Sebelius, Chief Justice Roberts saved the rest of the Affordable Care Act by allowing the states to retain their funding as a remedy for the coercion of the statute rather than invalidate the entire Act. A. True B. False

A. True

Under modern sovereign immunity doctrine, states can waive their sovereign immunity, and consent to citizen-suits in federal court. A. True B. False

A. True

United States v. Windsor held that the Government of the United States had a valid legal argument that it was injured even if the Executive disagreed with §3 of DOMA, which resulted in Windsor's liability for the tax. Windsor's ongoing claim for funds that the United States refused to pay thus established a controversy sufficient for Article III jurisdiction. A. True B. False

A. True

Walter Nixon v. United States held that the Impeachment Clause grants sole authority over impeachments to the Senate, and does not require or provide a means of judicial review. As a result, the controversy was a non-justiciable political question. A. True B. False

A. True

When Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson took office as President in the "Revolution of 1800," Federalist John Marshall was Chief Justice of the United States. A. True B. False

A. True

When federal and state law conflict, federal law prevails and state law is preempted. A. True B. False

A. True

When the state "take[s]" private property, it must provide "just compensation." When the state uses its police power to regulate property, however, the government does not need to provide "just compensation." A. True B. False

A. True

Wickard gives a broad reading of Congress's authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause. A. True B. False

A. True

Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution identifies that there shall be a Senate and House of Representatives. A. True B. False

A. True All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution is the source of federal judicial power. A. True B. False

A. True Article III, Section 1: "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

Willie Paul brings an action in federal court for damages against a state highway patrolman who allegedly violated his Fourth Amendment rights by conducting an illegal search of the clothes in his hotel room. The patrolman claims this suit is invalid because of the Eleventh Amendment, which prohibits a citizen from suing a state without the state's permission. Willie's suit will be allowed. A. True B. False

A. True The suit would be allowed (although, of course, Willie Paul may not win it). Note that the Eleventh Amendment only forbids damages actions in federal court against states—it allows federal court actions against individual public officials of a state, if the claim is that the official violated the plaintiff's federal constitutional rights. Here, the patrolman stepped outside his official duty, so the suit will be allowed.

In April 1787, James Madison summarized what he and others perceived as the deficiencies or "vices" in the form of government defined by the Articles. He expressed these views in an unpublished working paper he entitled, "Vices of the Political System of the United States," which he prepared in advance of the Philadelphia Convention A. True B. False

A. True This is taken directly from the assigned reading.

A state with a number of automobile manufacturing facilities within its borders and a high unemployment rate because of declining sales of automobiles, especially ones built domestically, enacted a statute calling for a $100-per-car tax on all foreign-built automobiles sold within the state. The tax revenues were to be placed into a state fund to be used to retrain the state's unemployed automobile workers. A major automobile importer and dealership owner brings suit in federal district court seeking to halt the enforcement of the statute on constitutional grounds. Should the court find the statute to be constitutional? A. Yes, if consented to by Congress. B. No, because the statute violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV. C. No, unless the state can show that the statute is necessary to promote a compelling state interest. D. Yes, because it is a proper exercise of a state's rights under the Import-Export Clause.

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

The President of the United States and the king of a foreign nation entered into a treaty agreeing that citizens of the foreign nation who reside in the United States would not be taxed by the United States and that United States citizens who reside in the foreign nation would not be taxed by it. The treaty was ratified by the United States Senate and the royal council of the foreign nation. One year after the treaty became effective, the foreign nation began to tax United States citizens within its borders. The President immediately declared the tax treaty to be void and ordered the Internal Revenue Service to tax citizens of the foreign nation living in the United States. Is the President's action constitutional? A. Yes, under the foreign policy powers of the President. B. No, unless the President receives the advice and consent of the United States Senate. C. No, because the treaty is the supreme law of the land, on par with federal legislation, and the President is not free to ignore it. D. Yes, because the President has emergency powers to protect United States citizens.

A. Yes, under the foreign policy powers of the President. The President's action is constitutional pursuant to his power over treaties and foreign relations. The power to enter into treaties is vested in the President, and his power to act for the United States in day-to-day foreign affairs is paramount. Even as to foreign relations that require congressional consent, the President's powers are much broader than in the realm of internal affairs. No significant judicial control has been exercised over such declarations. Thus, this action is allowable under these broad powers.

The North Carolina Department of Agriculture issued a regulation banning the use of state grades on closed containers of apples sold in the state. The regulation specified that the only grade that could be used was the grade approved by the United States Department of Agriculture. Apple growers in Washington objected to this regulation, noting that they had spent a considerable amount of money developing a grading system acknowledged by those in the industry as being superior to the federal grading system. North Carolina, which also produces apples for sale, has no state grading system. In their lawsuit, the Washington apple growers allege the regulation was motivated by a discriminatory purpose. Which of the following would not be helpful in demonstrating discriminatory purpose? A. A letter from a member of the North Carolina apple growers' association to the state agriculture commissioner complaining of competition from out-of-state apples, specifically mentioning Washington, and asking for "help." B. A preamble to the legislation reciting that the purpose of the bill was to ensure consumers were not confused by a proliferation of grading systems. C. The fact that the law does not i

B. A preamble to the legislation reciting that the purpose of the bill was to ensure consumers were not confused by a proliferation of grading systems. To the extent that purpose makes a difference in constitutional doctrine, the Court usually permits evidence from which one might infer an improper purpose, as it is often difficult to demonstrate directly. In the Dormant Commerce Clause Doctrine, the improper purpose would be anything that smacked of protectionism or discrimination against out-of-state commerce. Thus, this answer would be useful information, because it suggests that the regulation was prompted by concerns of local apple growers that they were having difficulty competing against their out-of-state competitors.

The Manzanar Relocation Center was located in which state: A. Oregon B. California C. Texas D. Arizona

B. California

Concerned that the "advice" part of the Senate's advice and consent power has atrophied, Congress passes a law requiring the President to notify the Senate of all vacancies requiring Senate confirmation and prohibiting the President from naming any person to one of those vacancies until the President, or the President's representative, has consulted with the Senate majority leader and the Chair of the Senate committee with jurisdiction over the nominee's department. When the President acts to fill a recent vacancy on the Supreme Court without the consultation required by the Act, Senators sue, seeking an injunction requiring presidential compliance. A reviewing court would probably do what? A. Grant the injunction, because the Senate has the power to offer "advice and consent" to presidential nominees. B. Deny the injunction, because Congress has usurped the President's constitutional power to appoi

B. Deny the injunction, because Congress has usurped the President's constitutional power to appoint, granted in Article II, § 2. Congressional acquiescence becomes relevant only in the "zone of twilight" where the challenged act does not fall solely within the presidential authority and where Congress is silent.

In NFIB v. Sebelius, Chief Justice Roberts concluded that the individual mandate could be sustained under the Necessary and Proper Clause as an essential component of insurance reforms. A. True B. False

B. False

In Printz v. United States, the Court held that the federal government can commandeer state executive-branch officials to take action. A. True B. False

B. False

National League of Cities, which held that the federal minimum wage unconstitutionally interfered with the State's power to determine the wages and hours of its employees, is still good law today. A. True B. False

B. False

The Court in Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam examined whether, under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), asylum seeks should be able to obtain review under the federal habeas statute. A. True B. False

B. False

The Court in Korematsu struck down the executive order authorizing the Japanese relocation camps after holding that "all legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect." A. True B. False

B. False

The Court issued its opinion in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer while U.S. military forces were engaged in armed conflict in Vietnam. A. True B. False

B. False

The Supreme Court held in South Dakota v. Dole that a federal statute directing reduction of highway funds to states with drinking age below 21 was not a valid exercise of Congress's spending powers under Federal Constitution. A. True B. False

B. False

There was no majority opinion in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. A. True B. False

B. False

According to James Madison in Federalist No. 10, there are three methods of removing the causes of faction. A. True B. False

B. False "There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests."

Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution provides that the President shall be elected by popular vote of the people. A. True B. False

B. False Article II, Section 1: The "President of the United States of America . . . together with the Vice President, [are] elected, as follows: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress..."

Article II of the Constitution provides for the judicial power of the Supreme Court. A. True B. False

B. False Article III, not Article II.

The Court in Hollingsworth v. Perry held that the petitioners, who were opposed to same-sex marriage and proponents of California's Proposition 8, had standing to defend the constitutionality of Proposition 8. A. True B. False

B. False False. "We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to."

Gundy v. United States held that §20913(d) violated the nondelegation doctrine. A. True B. False

B. False False. "We hold it does not. Under §20913(d), the Attorney General must apply SORNA's registration requirements as soon as feasible to offenders convicted before the statute's enactment. That delegation easily passes constitutional muster..."

According to the Appointments Clause, inferior officers must be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, while principal officers may be appointed by the President alone, the head of an executive department, or a court. A. True B. False

B. False False. According to the Appointments Clause, principal officers must be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, while inferior officers may be appointed by the President alone, the head of an executive department, or a court.

Kelo v. City of New London held that there must be a "reasonable certainty" that the expected public benefits will actually accrue. A. True B. False

B. False False. Alternatively, petitioners maintain that for takings of this kind we should require a "reasonable certainty" that the expected public benefits will actually accrue. Such a rule, however, would represent an even greater departure from our precedent.

Congress has an enumerated power allowing it to issue direct orders to the governments of the States. A. True B. False

B. False False. Conspicuously absent from the list of powers given to Congress is the power to issue direct orders to the governments of the States. The anticommandeering doctrine simply represents the recognition of this limit on congressional authority.

Allen v. Wright held that parents of public school children had standing to challenge the procedures of the Internal Revenue Service regarding the tax-exempt status of racially discriminatory private schools. A. True B. False

B. False False. Court found that respondents did not have standing to sue because their first basis for standing (racial stigmatization) did not constitute a judicially cognizable injury and their second basis (diminishment of child's right to be educated in an integrated school) failed as the alleged injury was not fairly traceable to government conduct that respondents challenged as unlawful.

Inverse condemnation and direct condemnation are synonymous. A. True B. False

B. False False. Inverse condemnation is "a cause of action against a governmental defendant to recover the value of property which has been taken in fact by the governmental defendant." Inverse condemnation stands in contrast to direct condemnation, in which the government initiates proceedings to acquire title under its eminent domain authority. Pennsylvania, like every other State besides Ohio, provides a state inverse condemnation action.

The jurisdictional requirements of Article III are the same as the prudential limits on exercising jurisdiction. A. True B. False

B. False False. Re the two principles: the jurisdictional requirements of Article III and the prudential limits on its exercise, the latter are "essentially matters of judicial self-governance." The Court has kept these two strands separate: "Article III standing, which enforces the Constitution's case-or-controversy requirement, see Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992); and prudential standing, which embodies 'judicially self-imposed limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction,' Allen v. Wright (1984)." Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow (2004).

In Fin. Oversight and Management Bd. for Puerto Rico v. Aurelius Investment, LLC, the Court held that the Presidential appointment of seven members to the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA) without "the advise and consent of the Senate" violated the Appointments Clause. A. True B. False

B. False False. The Clause's term "Officers of the United States" has never been understood to cover those whose powers and duties are primarily local in nature and derive from these two constitutional provisions. The Board's statutory responsibilities consist of primarily local duties, namely, representing Puerto Rico in bankruptcy proceedings and supervising aspects of Puerto Rico's fiscal and budgetary policies. We therefore find that the Board members are not "Officers of the United States." For that reason, the Appointments Clause does not dictate how the Board's members must be selected.

However, the state plaintiffs in California v. Texas were able to demonstrate that they had alleged an "injury fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct." A. True B. False

B. False False. The Court concluded that Texas and the other state plaintiffs have similarly failed to show that they have alleged an "injury fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct."

The Court in United States v. Nixon held that the President could not be subjected to the subpoena as part of the criminal prosecution. A. True B. False

B. False False. The Court held that the President could be subjected to the subpoena as part of the criminal prosecution.

Clapper v. Amnesty International USA held that these private citizens had standing to challenge a government surveillance program. A. True B. False

B. False False. The Court held that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate the injury they feared was certainly impending. They also failed to show the future injury was traceable to the FISA provision. Finally, the plaintiffs could not "manufacture" standing by incurring costs to avoid surveillance.

Rucho v. Common Cause held that partisan gerrymandering cases are justiciable. A. True B. False

B. False False. The Court holds that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions that are beyond the reach of the federal courts. "There are no legal standards discernible in the Constitution for making such judgments. And it is only after determining how to define fairness that one can even begin to answer the determinative question: "How much is too much? ... None of the proposed "tests" for evaluating partisan gerrymandering claims meets the need for a limited and precise standard that is judicially discernible and manageable."

The text of the Eleventh Amendment denies federal courts jurisdiction to hear a suit filed by a Louisiana citizen against the State of Louisiana. A. True B. False

B. False False. The Eleventh Amendment does not refer to suits by citizens against their own states, but refers only to suits against a state by citizens of another state, or citizens or subjects of another state.

The Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV is the same as the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. A. True B. False

B. False False. The Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV reads (emphasis added): "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." (Don't confuse it with the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.)

In Hirabayashi v. United States, the Court resolved the challenge to the exclusion zone scheme for Japanese Americans. A. True B. False

B. False False. The opinion does not resolve the challenge to the exclusion zone scheme; the Court addressed this other component of the order fifteen months later in Korematsu.

The Constitutional text speaking to suspending the writ of habeas corpus explicitly states that the writ may be suspended by the President. A. True B. False

B. False False. This clause does not specify whether the writ may be suspended by the President, by Congress, or by both acting in concert. However, it appears in Article I, which broadly concerns Congress's powers, and in Section 9 of that Article, which specifically limits the legislature's authority.

Article V is known as the Supremacy Clause: "The Laws of the United States . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby." A. True B. False

B. False False. This is Article VI.

Doe v. Bush was a Supreme Court decision which held that there was a dispute between two branches ripe for review. A. True B. False

B. False False. United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, not Supreme Court. In part, the Court found that judicial interference was not warranted because 1) the act itself is insufficient evidence for collusion, and 2) the claim that the two powers are merely headed for collision doesn't present a dispute between branches that is ripe for review.

United States v. Arthrex examined whether the authority of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to issue decisions on behalf of the Executive Branch was consistent with Commerce Clause. A. True B. False

B. False False. United States v. Arthrex examined whether the authority of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to issue decisions on behalf of the Executive Branch was consistent with The Take Care Clause and the Appointments Clause.

The Court in Korematsu struck down the executive order authorizing the Japanese relocation camps after holding that "all legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect." A. True B. False

B. False False. While the Court in Korematsu held that "all legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect," the Court still upheld the exclusion order under which Korematsu was convicted.

Knox v. Lee affirmed the holding in Hepburn v. Griswold. A. True B. False

B. False In Hepburn v. Griswold, Chief Justice Chase wrote the majority opinion holding the Legal Tender Act was beyond Congress's enumerated powers and unconstitutional. Then, less than two years later, with the addition of two new Justices, the Court reversed itself in Knox v. Lee.

The Supreme Court recognized in United States v. Morrison that, if Congress issued findings articulating a substantial effect on interstate commerce, it would defer to those findings and uphold the law. A. True B. False

B. False In this case, the Court struck down the statute despite the existence of voluminous findings."As we stated in Lopez, '[S]imply because Congress may conclude that a particular activity substantially affects interstate commerce does not necessarily make it so.'Rather, '[w]hether particular operations affect interstate commerce sufficiently to come under the constitutional power of Congress to regulate them is ultimately a judicial rather than a legislative question, and can be settled finally only by this Court.'"

Marbury v. Madison arose from Congress's chartering of the second national bank in 1816. A. True B. False

B. False It was the case of McCulloch v. Maryland, not Marbury v. Madison.

The Declaration of Independence was adopted on September 1, 1776. A. True B. False

B. False July 4, 1776.

Even though he previously served in the Nixon administration, Justice Rehnquist joined the majority opinion in United States v. Nixon. A. True B. False

B. False Mr. Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases. [Rehnquist, the junior Justice at the time, had previously served in the Nixon administration.]

The United States Constitution, ratified in 1788, mentions the words "slave" and "slavery." A. True B. False

B. False Slavery is only referred to indirectly in the Constitution but neither "slave" nor "slavery" are explicitly mentioned.

Textual support for the anti-commandeering doctrine can be found in the Commerce Clause. A. True B. False

B. False Textual support for the anti-commandeering doctrine can be found in the Necessary and Proper Clause.

The Supreme Court's decision in Wickard v. Filburn restricted the powers afforded to Congress to regulate commerce. A. True B. False

B. False The Court's decision was expansive in nature: The Court held that even if an activity is local and not regarded as commerce, "it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'"

According to the textbook authors, the enumerated power most commonly combined with the Necessary and Proper Clause to justify national regulations is often the Taxing Power. A. True B. False

B. False The enumerated power most commonly combined with the Necessary and Proper Clause to justify national regulations is often the power of Congress "[t]o regulate commerce . . . among the several States."

The Supreme Court's decision in Wickard v. Filburn was not controversial. A. True B. False

B. False The opposite is true; it was so controversial that it was held over for re-argument in the next term.

The powers of the state governments are listed in the Constitution just as Congress' are. A. True B. False

B. False The powers of the state governments are not enumerated like the congressional powers are. According to the Tenth Amendment, "[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." NOTE: The federal government doesn't have general police powers but the states do.

Article II, Section 1, which defines "executive power," and Article III, Section 1, which defines "judicial power," contain the same limiting language of "herein granted" as is found in Article I, Section 1. A. True B. False

B. False They do not contain this limiting language.

The Takings Clause is found in which Amendment? A. Sixth B. Fifth C. Eighth D. Seventh

B. Fifth

In Gibbons v. Ogden, the Court found that the act of Congress gave full authority to defendants' vessels to navigate the waters of the United States and that the law of the state of New York prohibiting navigation in the waters of the state was repugnant to the Constitution and void. A. Tenth B. Fourteenth C. Sixteenth D. Fifteenth

B. Fourteenth

"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish" is found in which Article of the Constitution: A. I B. III C. II

B. III

Dames & Moore v. Regan concerned the petitioner's claims being nullified against which country: A. Afghanistan B. Iran C. Pakistan D. Iraq

B. Iran

Congress enacted a statute imposing an additional 2% national retail sales tax on all goods sold in the United States. The purpose of the tax was to fund unemployment payments during the recession. An association of newspaper and book publishers sued to remove the tax from newspaper and book publications, claiming that the tax placed an unconstitutional burden on the freedom of speech and press. Assuming that the association has standing, will it win the lawsuit? A. Yes, because Congress may not impose taxes that chill the freedom of expression. B. No, because Congress has plenary power to tax. C. No, because a tax imposed to fund unemployment payments during a recession serves a compelling interest of the federal government. D. Yes, because only states have the taxing authority over retail sales.

B. No, because Congress has plenary power to tax. The association will lose the lawsuit because Congress has plenary power to tax. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the "plenary" or exclusive power to raise revenue through the imposition of taxes. A tax measure will be upheld if it bears some reasonable relationship to revenue production or if Congress has the power to regulate the taxed activity.

Assume that a congressional statute authorizes the federal government to exercise eminent domain to acquire property for new post offices. That is, the statute enables the government to force private land owners to sell their land to the federal government if it cannot acquire it through negotiated agreement. The government wants land owned by Farmer Filburn, and begins eminent domain proceedings against the parcel on which the government wishes to place the postal facility. Filburn claims that the statute is unconstitutional. He points out that nothing in Article I gives to Congress the power of eminent domain. Will Farmer Filburn likely prevail on his claim? A. No, because eminent domain is indispensable to the power to establish post offices. B. No, because eminent domain would be helpful to the government in exercising its constitutional power to "establish Post Offices," given in Article I, § 8. C. Yes, because Congress may exercise only enumerated powers given in Article I, § 8. D. Yes, because eminent domain is not a power expressly given to Congress by Article I.

B. No, because eminent domain would be helpful to the government in exercising its constitutional power to "establish Post Offices," given in Article I, § 8.

A toy makers' union, angry about poor working conditions and low wages, staged a nationwide strike just weeks before the holiday season. Larger toy sellers immediately hired independent toy makers to fulfill the traditionally increased demand for toys during the holidays. Enraged, striking toy makers committed acts of violence against independent toy makers and attempted to destroy shipments of independently made toys as they were being loaded off trucks at toy sellers' receiving docks. In response to the increasing violence, Congress met in emergency session and enacted a measure directing the President to send military troops to the affected areas to preserve order and to ensure the continued flow of commerce. Is this enactment constitutional? A. Yes, under Congress's power to raise and support the armed forces. B. No, because it infringes on the President's authority as Commander in Chief of the armed fo

B. No, because it infringes on the President's authority as Commander in Chief of the armed forces. The enactment appears to be an unconstitutional infringement on the President's authority as Commander in Chief. The President's role as Commander in Chief of the armed forces includes extensive power to deploy the military against any enemy, foreign or domestic. Congress lacks such power. Therefore, this enactment directly infringes on the President's authority as Commander in Chief to make such orders as he deems proper with respect to the armed forces, and thus violates the doctrine of separation of powers.

Congress approved an act that contained an appropriation of $1 million for a professor at a state university to study the effects of volcanic eruptions on the temperature of sea water. The bill contained a second appropriation of $1 million for a professor at another state university to study the effects of oil drilling on the population of bears in a national forest. The President drew a line through the first appropriation, with the intent of canceling the provision, and then signed the bill. The professor studying volcanic eruptions brought suit alleging that the action of the President was unconstitutional and therefore the striking of his appropriation was invalid.Was the President's action constitutional? A. Yes, because the President has the power to refuse to spend funds that have been appropriated unless the spending is specifically mandated. B. No, because the President has no line item veto power. C.

B. No, because the President has no line item veto power. The veto power allows the President only to approve or reject a bill in toto; he cannot cancel part (through a line item veto) and approve other parts. The rationale is that the President's veto power does not authorize him to amend or repeal laws passed by Congress. Here, the President cannot draw a line through the first appropriation with the intent of canceling the provision and enacting the remainder of the bill. The line item veto is unconstitutional as a disruption of the balance of powers among the three branches of government.

In Dames & Moore v. Regan, the Court cites another case called United States v. _____, for the proposition that outstanding claims by nationals of one country against the government of another country are "sources of friction" between the two sovereigns. A. Blue B. Pink C. Red D. Purple

B. Pink

Eager to accommodate CarCo, a large employer that plans to build an enormous assembly plant, Motor City condemns an entire neighborhood, displacing its residents, and turns the property over to CarCo to build its facility. In its decision to condemn the neighborhood, Motor City found that it is "blighted" and that redevelopment will bring jobs and other economic benefits—not only to the soon-to-be former residents of the neighborhood, but to all residents of Motor City. David, a resident, sues to stop the condemnation, claiming that it is not for public use. After Kelo, a federal district court would likely: A. Rule for David, because the benefits of the plant will not be shared by the public. B. Rule for Motor City, because questions of public use are nonjusticiable. C. Rule for Motor City, because economic redevelopment is a permissible public purpose. D. Rule for David, because the condemnation is for th

B. Rule for Motor City, because questions of public use are nonjusticiable. Therefore, this is the best choice, and it mirrors the Court's deferential treatment. Economic redevelopment is an accepted public purpose, and redeveloping a neighborhood to facilitate that redevelopment is a rational means of achieving it. According to the Court, that is all that need be proven.

A state that is subject to severe winters generally allows the use of studded tires between October 1 and March 31. However, the legislation allows counties to opt out and prohibit the use of studded tires year round, because studded tires tend to tear up pavement more than nonstudded tires, thus necessitating more frequent road repairs. No other state in the region allows use of studded snow tires at all. The state law contains one exception: it excludes "doctors" from any county ban on the use of snow tires because they might have to cross county lines in emergencies. After the passage of the legislation, only one county in the state invoked its right to ban the use of studded snow tires.A lawyer who lives in the state was angered that the legislature had given special privileges to doctors but not to lawyers. One January day, with studded tires on his car, he drove from his home county, which allowed use of studded tires, into the county that banned them. A sheriff's officer noticed the lawyer's studded tires and cited him. After being convicted and fined, the lawyer appealed.What is the lawyer's best argument for getting the ban invalidated? A. The statute interferes with his fundam

B. The ban on studded snow tires is not rationally related to a legitimate state interest because it will likely result in an increased loss of life. The best argument for getting the law invalidated is that it is not rationally related to a legitimate state interest. The lawyer would argue that the statute violates equal protection because it singles out one class of citizens for special treatment. Because neither a fundamental right nor a suspect nor quasi-suspect class is involved here, the case would be decided under the rational basis standard. For a law to be held invalid under the rational basis standard, the plaintiff must show that the law is not rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Toward this end, the lawyer might argue that the law will really cost more money than it will save, perhaps because the resulting number of injuries due to the absence of studded tires will more than offset the money saved in road repair. (This argument will likely fail, however, because courts give legislatures broad discretion in making such determinations, and the statute does appear to be rational. Nevertheless, this is the lawyer's best argument.)

Certain states (notably New York) permit rental car agencies to be sued for negligence committed by a person to whom the agency rented a car. Recently, Congress enacted the so-called Graves Amendment as part of a larger transportation bill. The Graves Amendment reads, in relevant part: a) In general.—An owner of a motor vehicle that rents or leases the vehicle to a person (or an affiliate of the owner) shall not be liable under the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, by reason of being the owner of the vehicle (or an affiliate of the owner), for harm to persons or property that results or arises out of the use, operation, or possession of the vehicle during the period of the rental or lease, if— the owner (or an affiliate of the owner) is engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles; and there is no negligence or criminal wrongdoing on the part of the owner (or an affiliate of the owner). 49 U.S.C. § 30106. The practical effect of the Graves Amendment is to preempt causes of action for negligent entrustment against or imposing vicarious liability on car rental agencies. Several suits have been filed alleging that the Graves Amendment exceeds Congre

B. The effect of the amendment is to regulate cars rented in a national rental market OR the effect of the amendment is to regulate the economic activity between rental agencies and their customers. Because these two answer choices would be useful in defending the Amendment, this is the correct answer.

A husband and wife were both professors at the United States Naval Academy. The husband made a speech criticizing United States foreign policy with respect to a Middle Eastern country and was dismissed from his teaching position soon thereafter. Six months later, he accepted new employment in another state. The man's wife has commenced suit in federal court claiming that the Naval Academy violated her husband's right to due process and his right of free speech when it fired him. What is the most likely ground on which the court will dismiss the suit? A. The case is moot, because the husband has a new job. B. The plaintiff has no standing. C. There is no federal question presented. D. The political question doctrine, because foreign policy is in the domain of the executive branch.

B. The plaintiff has no standing. The most likely ground for dismissal is lack of standing. Except for very limited exceptions, the traditional rule is that a person has standing only to raise constitutional issues which affect her personally. She cannot claim that a third person's constitutional rights were violated. The husband is the injured party and must assert his own rights.

A state statute provides: "Any merchant desiring to sell within this state any product or goods manufactured outside of the United States must (i) obtain a special license from the state for $50 and (ii) clearly mark the goods as to specify their country of origin." The statute makes it a misdemeanor for any merchant to willfully sell goods without complying with these statutory requirements. Which of the following statements is correct regarding the constitutionality of the statute? A. The portion of the statute requiring the license fee can be sustained on the ground that reasonable inspection fees are proper; but the balance of the statute is invalid. B. The statute is unconstitutional in its entirety. C. The statute is constitutionally valid as long as the burden on foreign commerce is minimal and is justified by legitimate state interests. D. The portion of the statute requiring that the goods be labeled as to country of origin can be sustained because it only requires disclosure; but the balance of the statute is invalid.

B. The statute is unconstitutional in its entirety. The statute is an unconstitutional violation of the Commerce Clause. Regulation of foreign commerce is exclusively a federal power because of the need for the federal government to speak with one voice when regulating commercial relations with foreign governments. The existence of legitimate state interests underlying state legislation will not justify state regulation of foreign commerce. The state statute, in imposing requirements for a license costing $50 and for a clear marking of goods as being from a foreign country, clearly is an attempt by the state to restrict or even eliminate the flow of such goods in foreign commerce. Thus, the statute is unconstitutional.

A federal statute states that "anyone who crosses state lines for the purpose of selling a controlled substance" shall be subject to five years imprisonment, large fines, or both. Freddie crosses from New Jersey into New York to sell a small amount of marijuana to an undercover police officer. He is arrested and convicted of violating the federal statute. He appeals his conviction claiming that Congress lacked authority to pass the statute under its commerce power. Freddie's conviction should be: A. Reversed, because crime cannot be a "commercial" or an "economic" activity. B. Upheld, because Congress can close the channels of interstate commerce to particular uses. C. Reversed, because the statute failed to require that the sale have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. D. Upheld, because sales, even of contraband, constitute economic activity under Lopez.

B. Upheld, because Congress can close the channels of interstate commerce to particular uses. Congress may regulate the channels of interstate commerce, closing them off to particular uses or harmful activities.

To stabilize state corn prices, a state purchased large quantities of corn from resident farmers and converted the corn into biodegradable plastics. The state then sold the plastics to state residents at cost and to out-of-state residents at cost plus 25%. An out-of-state corporation purchased biodegradable plastics from the state at a cost substantially below the price other companies charge. Nevertheless, the corporation believes that it is unconstitutional for the state to charge out-of-state purchasers more than resident purchasers. The out-of-state corporation, therefore, brings suit in federal court challenging the state pricing scheme. Assuming that the court has jurisdiction, should it uphold the constitutionality of the pricing scheme? A. Yes, because the state is selling plastics to nonresidents at prices substantially below that of other companies. B. Yes, because as a market participant the state is free to charge nonresidents more than residents. C. No, because the scheme discriminates against nonresidents in violation of the Commerce Clause. D. No, because charging nonresidents more for plastics than residents pay violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause guaranteei

B. Yes, because as a market participant the state is free to charge nonresidents more than residents. The court will likely reject the company's challenge to the state pricing scheme. Although the Commerce Clause generally prohibits states from discriminating against out-of-state businesses to benefit local economic interests, the market participant exception applies here. The Commerce Clause does not prevent a state from preferring its own citizens when the state is acting as a market participant (e.g., buying or selling products, hiring labor, giving subsidies, etc.). Because the pricing scheme here involves the sale of goods, the state can constitutionally charge whatever prices it desires to whomever it desires.

In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the petitioners petitioned for a writ of _______ under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2241. A. corpus delicti B. habeus corpus C. imprimatur D. in limine

B. habeus corpus

The textbook discusses this/these Plan(s) as part of the Constitutional Convention: A. The New Jersey Plan B. Hamilton's Plan C. All answers are correct D. The Virginia Plan

C. All answers are correct The textbook discusses all three Plans.

As an aide to a member of the Congress of the United States, you are expected to provide an analysis of the constitutionality of proposed legislation that your employer is called to vote on. A bill has been proposed that would create a mandatory price schedule for every motor vehicle sold in the United States. Which of the following should you tell your employer is the strongest constitutional basis for the proposed legislation? A. Congress has the power to legislate for the general welfare of the people of the United States. B. Congress has the power to regulate transportation in the United States. C. All motor vehicle transactions in the United States, taken as a whole, have a significant impact upon interstate commerce. D. Because the purchase or sale of a motor vehicle, by definition, involves commerce, the federal government may regulate such transactions under the commerce power.

C. All motor vehicle transactions in the United States, taken as a whole, have a significant impact upon interstate commerce. As part of its power to regulate interstate commerce, Congress may regulate any activity, local or interstate, which either in itself or in combination with other activities has a substantial economic effect upon, or effect on movement in, interstate commerce. Because all motor vehicle transactions in the United States, in the aggregate, have a significant impact upon interstate commerce, Congress is constitutionally empowered to regulate such transactions by, e.g., enacting a mandatory price schedule.

A state operates a nuclear power plant on a river. The plant uses river water for cooling and discharges water back into the river 10 degrees warmer than when it was taken in. While the discharged water quickly cools, it has adversely affected the business of a downstream ice cutting operator, located in a neighboring state. The ice cutter successfully urged his state to bring suit in the United States Supreme Court against the state operating the power plant, alleging damage to its environment and seeking an injunction against the thermal discharge. What should the United States Supreme Court do? A. Dismiss the action, because the suit is really one by the ice cutter against the state operating the power plant and is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. B. Remand the case to the district court for trial, because it does not have the time to function as a trial court. C. Hear the matter on the merits, because the ice

C. Hear the matter on the merits, because the ice cutter's state is suing in its own right and jurisdiction is proper. The Court should hear the case on the merits. A state can sue another state to protect its natural resources for the benefit of its own citizens. [Pennsylvania v. West Virginia (1923)] The ice cutter's state is suing the state operating the power plant under this doctrine. Under Article III, the Supreme Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over controversies between two states. Because this is a controversy between two states, Supreme Court jurisdiction is proper.

Following Lopez, Congress reenacted the GFSZA, which now reads that "[i]t shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce, at a place the individual knows or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone." Jeremy is charged with violating the statute by bringing a gun to school to sell to another student. At trial, the U.S. Attorney presents evidence that the gun Jeremy possessed was manufactured out of state and crossed state lines before being purchased by Jeremy's father, from whom Jeremy had stolen it. Jeremy is convicted. He appeals his conviction, arguing that under Lopez, Congress lacks authority to criminalize mere possession. Would a reviewing court likely reverse his conviction? A. Yes, because permitting Congress to regulate things simply because they travel in interstate commerce would mean no practical limit on its commerce power. B. Yes, because possession is not economic activity. C. No, because Congress may regulate things that move in interstate commerce. D. No, because his possession substantially affects interstate commerce.

C. No, because Congress may regulate things that move in interstate commerce. This is the best answer and the one that lower courts have given in similar situations. Five years later, the Court returned to the issue in United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), in which it again struck down a federal statute on Commerce Clause grounds. A part of the omnibus Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) provided a federal civil remedy for victims of violence motivated by gender. The majority opinion reaffirmed Lopez's framework, stressing that a characterization of regulated activity as "economic" or "noneconomic" was "central" to the Lopez decision. 529 U.S. at 610. VAWA's civil-suit provision regulating "[g]ender-motivated crimes of violence," it noted, did not regulate "in any sense of the phrase, economic activity." Id. at 613. The Court expressed considerable skepticism that noneconomic activity could ever be aggregated à la Wickard. Further, the Court stressed the importance of a jurisdictional statement, which the civil-suit provision lacked, tying regulated activity to interstate commerce. Although VAWA was accompanied with numerous findings purporting to document the effects of gender-motivated violence on the economy, the Court found that these findings merely recited the kind of "inference upon inference" type of reasoning it rejected in Lopez. According to the Court, the "findings [were] substantially weakened by the fact that they rely so heavily on a method of reasoning that we have already rejected as unworkable if we are to maintain the Constitution's enumeration of powers." Id. at 615.

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

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

Small, prolific mussels called zebra mussels were first introduced into the Great Lakes by a foreign cargo ship. They became a serious problem because they attached themselves to smooth, hard surfaces, and often clogged water intake pipes. Congress determined that zebra mussels posed a great threat to the economic welfare of the Great Lakes region and passed a statute requiring all Great Lakes water intakes to be coated with a special chemical compound that repels zebra mussels. Studies by biologists at a major state university showed that while the special chemical compound that the federal government has required was effective, it also was toxic to other aquatic life. The biologists recommended that Great Lakes intake pipes be coated with a less toxic and less expensive copper-based paint. On the basis of those studies and the recommendation, three Great Lakes states adopted laws permitting municipal water districts to coat their intake pipes with copper paint. Can municipalities using copper-based paint on their intake pipes successfully be prosecuted for violating the federal law? A. Yes, because Congress may adopt laws regulating navigable waters. B. No, because the Tenth Amendmen

C. No, because the municipalities are taking effective steps to combat zebra mussels in compliance with the spirit and purpose of the federal law. The best argument is that the requirement is not unduly coercive and is related to making travel on highways safer. Congress may "regulate" states through the spending power by imposing conditions on the grant of money to state or local governments. Such conditions will not violate the Tenth Amendment merely because Congress lacked the power to directly regulate the activity that is the subject of the spending program if the conditions (i) are clearly stated; (ii) relate to the purpose of the program; and (iii) are not unduly coercive. Here, the condition is clearly stated and appears to be related to a goal of the highway program-safer highway travel. While there is not a brightline test for when a condition is unduly coercive, withholding just one-tenth of a state's federal highway funds would likely be considered reasonable. Hence, this choice states the best argument in support of the statute.

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

C. No, because there is a live controversy. There is a live controversy and the case is not moot. A federal court will not hear a case unless there is a real, live controversy at all stages of the proceeding, not merely when the case is filed. Because the student is no longer required to pay nonresident tuition, there is arguably no controversy and the case may seem moot. However, a class action is not moot, and the class representative may continue to pursue it—even if the representative's own controversy has become moot—because the claims of others in the class are still viable. Here, the student filed his suit as a class action for university students with less than three years' residency; undoubtedly some of those students will still have a real controversy at this time. Thus, the case is not moot.

Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission involved a dispute over apple advertising between Washington and what other state? A. South Carolina B. North Dakota C. North Carolina D. New York

C. North Carolina

In his concurring opinion in Kelo v. City of New London, Justice Kennedy asserts which is the proper judicial review test to be applied under the Public Use Clause? A. Strict Scrutiny B. Intermediate Scrutiny C. Rational Basis

C. Rational Basis

The text of the Constitution contains the following provision: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of __________ or invasion the public safety may require it." A. Economic Depression B. War C. Rebellion D. Elections

C. Rebellion

Eager to accommodate CarCo, a large employer that plans to build an enormous assembly plant, Motor City condemns an entire neighborhood, displacing its residents, and turns the property over to CarCo to build its facility. In its decision to condemn the neighborhood, Motor City found that it is "blighted" and that redevelopment will bring jobs and other economic benefits—not only to the soon-to-be former residents of the neighborhood, but to all residents of Motor City. David, a resident, sues to stop the condemnation, claiming that it is not for public use. After Kelo, a federal district court would likely: A. Rule for David, because the benefits of the plant will not be shared by the public. B. Rule for Motor City, because questions of public use are nonjusticiable. C. Rule for Motor City, because economic redevelopment is a permissible public purpose. D. Rule for David, because the condemnation is for th

C. Rule for Motor City, because economic redevelopment is a permissible public purpose. Therefore, this is the best choice, and it mirrors the Court's deferential treatment. Economic redevelopment is an accepted public purpose, and redeveloping a neighborhood to facilitate that redevelopment is a rational means of achieving it. According to the Court, that is all that need be proven.

The United States was involved in a dispute with a small island nation over the ownership of an archipelago. On discovering that the archipelago was rich in oil, the President announced that he would appoint an ambassador to negotiate a treaty with the island nation to jointly exploit the oil reserve. A majority of Senators believed that the island clearly belonged to the United States and did not want to negotiate with the island nation. They passed a resolution requiring the President to include a Senator in his diplomatic mission to ensure that the Senate's view was presented in any negotiation with the island nation. What is the strongest constitutional ground for the President's refusal to do so? A. The Senate, if it does not like the President's actions, can refuse to appropriate the necessary monies for the President to implement his policies. B. The resolution is unreasonable because it includes a Sen

C. The President has the exclusive power to select diplomatic representatives of the United States. The President's strongest argument is that the power to select ambassadors is vested by the Constitution in the President, and the Senate's only power in this respect is to advise and give (or withhold) its consent. The Senate is not given the power to force ambassadors on the President.

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl deals with the federal Indian Welfare Child Act. In his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas focuses on what: A. Necessary and Proper Clause B. Emoluments Clause C. The scope of the Indian Commerce Clause D. Taxing Clause

C. The scope of the Indian Commerce Clause

A federal statute makes it a crime to "take[] a motor vehicle that has been transported, shipped, or received in interstate or foreign commerce from the person or presence of another by force and violence or by intimidation," with "the intent to cause death or serious bodily harm." Jack is convicted of violating this statute, but, having heard about Lopez, appeals his conviction on the grounds that it exceeds Congress's constitutional authority. Jack's conviction should be: A. Overturned, because violent crimes such as carjacking are areas of traditional state activity. B. Overturned, unless the government can prove that carjacking has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. C. Upheld, because cars are instrumentalities of interstate commerce. D. Upheld, because crimes like carjacking represent a kind of forced wealth transfer that is economic, albeit illegal, activity.

C. Upheld, because cars are instrumentalities of interstate commerce. Punishing carjacking either seeks to protect cars in interstate commerce (note the jurisdictional nexus) or their drivers, both of which could be characterized as instrumentalities of interstate commerce. In analyzing Commerce Clause questions, it's important not to assume that you have to jump into an extended discussion of the Lopez and Morrison factors that determine whether intrastate activity substantially effects interstate commerce and thus is subject to congressional regulation. Recall that the Court recognized two other broad areas of regulatory authority over (1) channels of interstate commerce and (2) instrumentalities of interstate commerce, including persons and things in interstate commerce.

State biologists in Maine have learned that parasites have been diminishing fish stocks in other states. To preserve its native fish population, which has so far avoided contamination, the legislature passes a law banning the importation of baitfish into the state from other states. Biologists testify that the ban is the only way to ensure that the parasites won't infect native fish stocks because there is no efficient way to test incoming baitfish for the parasite. Out-of-state baitfish suppliers sue, claiming the Maine law violates the Dormant Commerce Clause Doctrine (DCCD). A reviewing court should: A. Uphold the law as a valid exercise of Maine's police power. B. Invalidate the law, because it is facially discriminatory. C. Uphold the law, because there is no other effective means for the state to protect its wildlife. D. Invalidate the law, because it is motivated by simple economic protectionism.

C. Uphold the law, because there is no other effective means for the state to protect its wildlife. Remember that although facially discriminatory laws are presumptively invalid, they may survive scrutiny if there is a legitimate interest and no less discriminatory means available to the state to effect that interest. According to the facts, Maine wanted to protect its fish from these harmful parasites, clearly a legitimate state interest; moreover, the facts indicate that there is no efficient way to test for the presence of parasites in any incoming fish, so the state claims that it must bar their importation completely. If that is true, then such a law would likely overcome the presumptive unconstitutionality of facially discriminatory measures.

In NFIB v. Sebelius, Chief Justice Roberts rejected the argument that had been offered by the government and academic defenders of the insurance mandate. He argued that the Government's justification for mandating health insurance was akin to mandating the purchase of what to solve the lack of a balanced diet problem for many Americans? A. Gym Memberships B. Vitamins C. Vegetables D. Fruit

C. Vegetables

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

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

Title 18 of the U.S. Code, § 2115, reads: Whoever forcibly breaks into or attempts to break into any post office, or any building used in whole or in part as a post office, with intent to commit in such post office, or building or part thereof, so used, any larceny or other depredation, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. Robin Weathers was arrested and convicted for violating § 2115 after he was caught inside the Monteagle, Tennessee, post office with fistfuls of mail and assorted packages. He has challenged the constitutionality of this statute, arguing that while Article I, § 8 gives to Congress the power to "establish Post Offices and post Roads," nothing in Article I gives Congress the power to pass criminal laws. How should a court rule on his appeal? A. Reverse the conviction, because state law could adequately deal with mail thefts. B. Affirm the conviction, because Congress was acting pursuant to its police powers. C. Reverse the conviction, because Congress has no Article I power to create criminal offenses, other than its power to "define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of

D. Affirm the conviction because punishing theft of the mail is "necessary and proper" way to carry out the "establish[ment] of Post Offices." This answer is correct because Congress could think that criminalizing mail theft is "necessary and proper," which is to say expedient and useful, to the establishment of post offices in the first place.

The Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") requires enforcement of a "written provision in . . . a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract . . . shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable." 9 U.S.C. § 2. Prior case law has interpreted "involving commerce" to mean "affecting commerce." Jerry lives in a state with laws that disfavor arbitration clauses, and defaults on a loan to a state bank whose loan officer Jerry claims defrauded him. When the bank secures an order requiring arbitration, Jerry cries foul. Congress, he argues, has exceeded its commerce power in ordering intrastate disputes arbitrated, contrary to the declared public policy of the state. Which of the following argument(s) is/are helpful to the bank seeking enforcement? A. The FAA has a jurisdictional nexus. B. In the aggregate, all contracts containing arbitration clauses substantially affect interstate commerce. C. The FAA regulates economic activity. D. All answers are correct.

D. All answers are correct. Each of the statements would be helpful to the bank seeking to defend the FAA under Lopez and Morrison. Despite the limited clarification provided by the Court in Morrison, questions still remained as to how far the Court intended to go to limit congressional power under the Commerce Clause. Critics of the Court's attempts noted the similarities between the Lopez/Morrison inquiry into an activity's economic or noneconomic nature and earlier Courts' insistence that activities like production and agriculture were not part of the commerce Congress was entitled to regulate. In 2005, the Court gave at least a partial answer in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), in which the Court upheld the application of the federal Controlled Substances Act to individuals who acquired marijuana locally for medicinal purposes, as permitted under California's compassionate use law. The defendant had argued that because she had been given the locally produced marijuana, the activity wasn't, in any sense of the word, "economic"; and that even if aggregated, all compassionate use of marijuana pursuant to state law would have a negligible effect on interstate commerce. Writing for a majority of the Court, Justice Stevens instead saw the case as on all fours with Wickard. Because Congress could eliminate the entire interstate market in marijuana through the Controlled Substances Act, it could eliminate all use, possession, and growth of the same, no matter how "local" or "noncommercial" it might be. Reverting to the deference the Court had shown Congress pre-Lopez, Stevens wrote that "[w]e need not determine whether respondents' activities, taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce in fact, but only whether a 'rational basis' exists for so concluding." 545 U.S. at 22. The decision was made possible by the fact that two members of the Lopez/Morrison majority—Justices Scalia and Kennedy—concurred with the Lopez/Morrison dissenters—Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer—to produce the Raich decision. The majority recognized, though, that Lopez and Morrison remained good law. For example, Justice Stevens stressed that growing marijuana—although perhaps noncommercial—was neverth

New York v. United States and Printz v. United States established which doctrine? A. States' Rights Doctrine B. Supremacy Doctrine C. Parallel Doctrine D. Anti-commandeering Doctrine

D. Anti-commandeering Doctrine

The Appointments Clause can be found in which Article of the U.S. Constitution: A. Article III B. No answers are correct. C. Article I D. Article II

D. Article II

Congress enacted a statute that gives individuals the right to view any file that the government has assembled concerning that individual. The President was considering the appointment of a candidate as an ambassador and requested that appropriate government agencies conduct a background investigation. The investigation revealed some derogatory information, and the President declined to appoint the candidate. After his attempts to view the file were refused by White House staff, the candidate brought an action to inspect his personnel file under the aforementioned act.Which of the following presents the strongest argument that the statute is unconstitutional? A. The doctrine of sovereign immunity prevents the suit of the candidate. B. The statute interferes with the right of privacy of the informants. C. Congress does not have the power to give the public access to private information. D. As applied in this case,

D. As applied in this case, the statute restricts the President's right to frank and unfettered confidential advice. The question addresses the issue of executive privilege. In United States v. Nixon, the United States Supreme Court held that the President has a qualified privilege to refuse to disclose any confidential information that aids him in the performance of his duties. None of the requirements to overcome this privilege are present in this fact pattern, e.g., a court's need for the information to properly adjudicate a criminal matter. Therefore, this statute may be unconstitutional to the extent that it interferes with the executive privilege.

This is the holding for which case: Since lottery tickets were subjects of interstate commerce, it was within Congress's plenary power to enact the Federal Anti-Lottery Act (Act), and appellant was properly prohibited under the Act from using a freight company to transport the tickets from state to state. A. Knox v. Lee B. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States C. Gibbons v. Ogden D. Champion v. Ames

D. Champion v. Ames

Scientific studies indicate that emissions from gasoline combustion engines contribute to a reduction in the health and growth rate of trees. To protect trees in the national forests, the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"), a federal agency, enacted stringent new fuel emission standards that apply to motor vehicles operating inside or within a 10-mile radius of all federal parks. The EPA regulations expressly preempt any conflicting state or local regulations, unless the state or local regulations require an even greater reduction in automobile emissions.A shuttle service operator transports tourists from hotels to the front entrance of a federal park. If the EPA regulation applies to her shuttle service, the operator will have to spend several thousand dollars for each shuttle to modify the engine exhaust system. The operator brings suit to challenge the validity of the federal regulation as applied to her.How will the court likely rule on the shuttle operator's challenge? A. Find the statute unconstitutional, because Congress cannot regulate activities occurring outside a federal park. B. Find the statute unconstitutional, because this is an area reserved to the states under the

D. Find the statute constitutional, as a proper exercise of Congress's power to regulate federal property. The Constitution gives Congress the power to "make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States." This property power, combined with the Necessary and Proper Clause, which grants Congress the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution any power granted to any branch of the federal government, allows Congress to enact any laws necessary and proper to protect trees on federal land, including placing restrictions on vehicles operating outside of federal property but near enough to have an impact on the federal property.

In Baker v. Carr, the Court considered whether Tennessee's alleged violation of which Constitutional Clause was justiciable: A. Commerce B. Taxing C. Necessary and Proper D. Guarantee

D. Guarantee

Frustrated by a lack of cooperation from the Senate, which seems intent on denying him most of his nominees for important cabinet and judicial posts by not holding hearings and not scheduling votes on them, the President has decided to take matters into his own hands. Claiming authority under his constitutional duty to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed," the President begins handing out "temporary" commissions to scores of persons whose offices require the Senate to advise and consent to their nominations. The President had considered making numerous "recess appointments" under the authority given to him in Article II, § 2, clause 3, but decided against it because (1) he would have to wait until the Senate went into recess, which it is unlikely to do in anticipation of such a move on the part of the President; and (2) he is afraid that if the Senate does recess and he makes a massive number

D. Invalidate his appointments, because he is acting contrary to the Vacancies Act and because the Senate must otherwise confirm all nominees. Here, the President is not only acting contrary to the Vacancies Act, but his unilateral appointments violate Article II's assignment of a confirmation role to the Senate as well. Therefore, this is the best answer.

Champion v. Ames was known as The ______ Case. A. Child Labor B. Motor C. Manufacturing D. Lottery

D. Lottery

This doctrine provides that federal courts will not decide certain questions that are "entrusted" to the "political" branches: A. Ripeness B. Mootness C. Standing D. Political Question Doctrine

D. Political Question Doctrine

A contractor employed by the state was owed $10,000 in back wages by a real estate developer for remodeling work he had completed six months earlier. Pursuant to a state law regulating delinquent payment of wages, the contractor filed an action in state court to resolve the claim within 21 days.In response, the real estate developer filed a voluntary bankruptcy petition in federal bankruptcy court and sought a stay of further proceedings on the unpaid claim. Federal law provided for an automatic stay in both federal and state courts for persons filing federal bankruptcy claims.If the contractor opposes imposition of the stay as applied to his state court claim, what is the proper resolution of the issue? A. The stay cannot be applied in the case, because state law requires claims dealing with delinquent payment of wages to be adjudicated by state substantive law. B. The stay cannot be applied in the case, because the state court claim was already filed at the time of the federal bankruptcy petition. C. The stay can be applied in the case, because Article I gives Congress power to regulate the jurisdiction and procedures of both federal and state courts. D. The stay can be applied in

D. The stay can be applied in the case, because the Supremacy Clause gives Congress the power to supersede state law with proper legislation. The stay can be justified under the Supremacy Clause and under the federal bankruptcy power.

The case of Chiafalo v. Washington concerns which Constitutional amendment: A. Tenth B. Eleventh C. Thirteenth D. Twelfth

D. Twelfth

Tennessee Wine and Spirit Retailers Association v. Thomas also discusses Section 2 of which Amendment to the Constitution? A. Eighteenth B. Twentieth C. Twenty-second D. Twenty-first

D. Twenty-first

A state enacted a law banning the use within the state of computerized telephone solicitation devices, and requiring that all telephone solicitation calls within the state to in-state numbers be dialed by human beings. Federal legislation and administrative regulations control only the rates to be charged for telephone calls. Is the legislation valid? A. No, because the statute is preempted by federal legislation under the Supremacy Clause. B. Yes, because it involves wholly intrastate commerce that is not subject to federal regulation. C. No, because the statute is an unconstitutional attempt by a state to regulate interstate commerce. D. Yes, because the statute does not conflict with federal legislation or the negative implications of the Commerce Clause.

D. Yes, because the statute does not conflict with federal legislation or the negative implications of the Commerce Clause. he legislation is valid because the statute does not conflict with federal legislation or violate the Commerce Clause. The states may regulate local aspects of interstate commerce as long as Congress has not adopted regulations concerning the subject matter or preempting the entire area of regulation. Even absent federal legislation, under the negative implications of the Commerce Clause the state regulation must not discriminate against interstate commerce or unduly burden it. Here, there is no federal legislation directly conflicting with the state law, as the facts state that the federal government only regulates the rates that may be charged by phone companies. Neither has Congress preempted the field. Field preemption occurs when Congress shows an intent to occupy an entire field, thus precluding any state regulation. If the law does not state whether state law is to be preempted, the Court will look to the comprehensiveness of the scheme and whether Congress has created an agency to administer over the area. Here, the legislative scheme does not seem comprehensive, and although the facts indirectly mention the existence of an agency (since there are relevant administrative rules), the Court will presume that historic state police powers are not superseded unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress. Finally, nothing in the facts indicates that the state law discriminates against out-of-state competition, and the law does not unduly burden interstate commerce, because the incidental burden on interstate commerce does not appear to outweigh the legitimate local benefits produced by the regulation.

Dames & Moore v. Regan considers the President's power to conduct foreign affairs. This authority is the same as the President's war powers. A. True B. False

False. Dames & Moore v. Regan considers the President's power to conduct foreign affairs. This authority is separate from the President's war powers.

States are permitted to regulate foreign commerce. A. True B. False

False. Regulating foreign commerce is exclusively a federal power.

In Murphy v. NCAA, while addressing the argument of the respondents and the United States that PASPA constitutes a valid preemption provision, the Court explained that the Supremacy Clause is an independent grant of legislative power to Congress. A. True B. False

False. Respondents and the United States defend the anti-authorization prohibition on the ground that it constitutes a valid preemption provision, but it is no such thing. Preemption is based on the Supremacy Clause, and that Clause is not an independent grant of legislative power to Congress. Instead, it simply provides "a rule of decision." It specifies that federal law is supreme in case of a conflict with state law.

Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment merely reiterates a power of Congress enumerated in Article I, Section 8. A. True B. False

False. Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides Congress with a new enumerated power that is not in Article I, Section 8.

HIcklin v. Orbeck dealt with Texas legislation which preferred Texas residents over non-residents for the refineries operating within the State. A. True B. False

False. This case dealt with nonresidents seeking work on Alaska pipelines, who sought review of a judgment of the Supreme Court of Alaska, which held that an Alaska statute dictating a general preference for the hiring of Alaska residents for work on such pipelines was constitutionally permissible.

Congress enacted the comprehensive Guns Bill aimed at regulating the flow of guns in interstate commerce. The Bill authorizes the creation of a national computer registry containing background information on potential gun purchasers. Because the national registry will take some time to develop, however, the legislation orders local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on all gun purchasers in their states until the national registry is ready. Sheriff objects to collecting the information and challenges the constitutionality of the requirement. The Sheriff will win his lawsuit. A. True B. False

True. The Court held in Printz v. U.S., 521 U.S. 898 (1997) that the anti-commandeering rule in New York extended to the executive branch. Congress may not order state executive branch officials to enforce federal regulations.

The Town of Weinerschnitzel is a tiny resort. Its one attraction is its annual five-month-long Oktoberfest, where tourists flock to the town to enjoy drinking beer, wearing long stockings, drinking beer, folk dancing, and drinking beer. Most of the town's payroll consists of Oktoberfest employees. They are paid the federal minimum wage; however, during the Oktoberfest season, when they work seven ten-hour days every week, they are not paid anything in addition to their regular wage. Under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), they would have to be paid time-and-a-half for overtime. The federal government demands that Weinerschnitzel comply with the overtime pay provision. Weinerschnitzel calculates that, if it does so, it may have to bankrupt itself, and it challenges the statute on Tenth Amendment grounds. A court will enforce the overtime provision against Weinerschnitzel. A. True B. False

True. The FLSA is an exercise of Congress's commerce power. The issue here is whether Congress's regulation of the workers' salaries violates the Tenth Amendment. Because regulating pay and working hours is a valid exercise of the commerce power, and because the Tenth Amendment provides little practical limitation to the scope of the commerce power, Weinerschnitzel will have to comply with the provision regardless of the consequences. Garcia v. San Antonio, 469 U.S. 528 (1985).