On what grounds did the Court rule against the presidential power to take over an
industry (even during war time) in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer?
Answer:
*A. Varies
Scholars argue that the Free Exercise Clause and the Religious Establishment Clause
are often at odds with each other and that, at a minimum, there is tension between them.
Do you agree with this statement? Why or why not?Be sure to cite examples and cases
you have read to justify your answer.
Answer:
*A. Varies
How did Marshall’s view of the contract clause parallel his views of federal authority in
other areas of the law?
Answer:
*A. Varies
In federalism cases the Rehnquist Court is best known for focusing on what type of
federalism?
A. Cooperative federalism.
B. Dual federalism.
What does the Court mean by “public use“?
Answer:
*A. Varies
How did the Smith test differ from the Sherbert test?
Answer:
*A. Varies
Explain the three prongs of the Hicklin test for discerning if material is obscene. Is this
a strict or lenient test? Why?
Answer:
*A. Varies
Assume for purposes of this question that the federal government has adopted the
Organic Foods Act to regulate the production and distribution of organic goods. While
this act is controversial in many aspects, one section in particular has received national
attention. According to Section 193, “Congress, in conjunction with the FDA and the
Department of Agriculture, will set standards for all organic foods served in the nation’s
elementary, middle, and secondary schools.” The states, however, in conjunction with
local school boards, are directed “to certify that any agricultural commodity, regardless
of its point of origin, meets two requirements. First, the producer or distributor must
submit documentation of the methods used to produce it. Second, samples of the
commodity must pass certain tests for the presence of chemicals, synthetic hormones,
genetic alterations, and other nonorganic substances.” The states and school districts are
directed to provide testing services, which are often quite expensive.
Minnesota School District No. 720 challenges the law, arguing that it is up to the states
and local school districts to regulate the food served in their own states. The district
files suit, alleging that the regulations violate the “dormant” Commerce Clause. As a
justice on the Supreme Court, how would you rule in this case?
Answer:
*A. Varies
Despite the Court’s seemingly unlimited power of judicial review, there are limits to this
power. How does the Court’s jurisdiction constrain its power?
Answer:
*A. Varies
What is the exclusionary rule?
Answer:
*A. Varies
Why did the framers believe that freedom of press was so fundamental to the new
nation?
Answer:
*A. Varies
What rationale did Brandeis provide to support the right to privacy in his Olmstead
dissent?
Answer:
*A. Varies
The case of Terri Schiavo, a woman in a persistent vegetative state, riveted the nation
during the first half of 2005. The case centered on the decision of Michael Schiavo,
Terri’s husband, to remove her feeding tube and her parents’ fight to keep her alive. One
side of the argument suggests that Terri possessed a fundamental right to die, while the
other suggests she had a fundamental right to be given food and water. Both arguments
find support in the concept of substantive due process. The former points to the concept
that there is a fundamental right to privacy under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments,
while the latter argues that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee that citizens
will not be denied life without due process of law. Assume that a case similar to the
Schiavo case reaches the U.S. Supreme Court and that you are a justice. How will you
rule if both parties argue that their side is supported by the concept of substantive due
process? Does one side hold more legal weight than the other? Why or why not? If you
find that substantive due process is not implicated in this case, how will you rule? Why?
Answer:
*A. Varies
What rationale did Marshall use in McCulloch to justify the argument that states may
not tax national banks?
In late 2004, as the war on terrorism rages on, Americans are growing unhappy with the
toll it is taking on the country. U.S. soldiers die every day in combat, and the cost of
fighting the war has now reached the $100 billion mark. Congress, too, is deeply
concerned about the war. While it initially supported military efforts, it now believes
that, in conducting the war, the administration has violated the War Powers Act of 1973.
This legislation acknowledges the right of the president to undertake limited military
action without first obtaining formal approval from Congress. However, the statute
requires the president to file a formal report with Congress within forty-eight hours of
initiating hostilities. Military action under this act is limited to sixty days with a
possible thirty-day extension. If the president wishes to pursue military activity beyond
these limits, prior congressional consent is required.
Since President George W. Bush has not obtained congressional approval for military
action since 2003, but he nonetheless continues to conduct military operations in Iraq
and Afghanistan, Democrats in Congress charge that the president and his
administration are violating the law. Accordingly, they begin impeachment proceedings
against several cabinet secretaries and the president himself. They believe these actions
are warranted in light of the administration’s unwillingness to follow the War Powers
Act. They also believe that the president will not pay heed to a public increasingly
opposed to his military efforts. After all, he has just been reelected for a second term
and can”t stand for reelection in 2008, so public opinion is of little concern to him.
But, recognizing that impeachment proceedings against Bush and the others could take
some time, congressional Democrats devise a stopgap measure. They decide that the
Department of Defense will now be run by Congress rather than the executive branch.
They justify this plan on a number of grounds, not the least of which is that, because
Congress created the department, it can now take it back. They add that because the
president has, in conducting the war on against terrorism, violated the separation of
powers doctrine, they have no choice but to run the Department of Defense as a
legislative operation. Needless to say, the Bush administration is furious. The president
immediately brings suit against the Democratic leaders in Congress, asking a federal
court to strike down the War Powers Act of 1973 and to stop Congress from taking over
the Defense Department.
Suppose you were the judge in this case. Would you rule in favor of the Bush
administration (in part or in full) or Congress (in part or in full)? Why?
Be sure to (1) justify your response with reference to relevant Supreme Court
precedent, and (2) consider, incorporate, or at least acknowledge arguments that may
not support your response.
Answer:
*A. Varies
According to the Supreme Court in Escobedo v. Illinois, when does the right to counsel
begin?
Answer:
*A. Varies
How is the standard for proving libel different between public figures and private
citizens?
Answer:
*A. Varies
What response options does a justice have once an opinion is circulated?
Answer:
*A. Varies
According to the “loss of liberty rule” established in Argersinger v. Hamlin, what
indigent defendants are eligible for counsel at the government’s expense?
Answer:
*A. Varies
What is the preferred freedoms doctrine and how does it relate to the freedom of
speech?
Answer:
*A. Varies