Posted: October 24th, 2022

AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

EXAM I
AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
FALL 2022

NAME: Lisandra Audett
DATE: October 20, 2022

MULTIPLE CHOICE

1. Within the debate over ratification of the U.S. Structure, the Federalists and Anti-Federalists disagreed on:
I. The power of the federal authorities relative to the states.
II. Inclusion of a invoice of rights.
III. The necessity to declare independence from Britain.
A. I.
B. II.
C. I and II.
D. I, II, and III.

2. In Article III it’s said that:
I. The judicial energy of the US shall be vested in a single supreme court docket and in such inferior courts because the Congress might now and again ordain and set up.
II. The supreme court docket shall have appellate jurisdiction, with such exceptions and below such rules because the Congress shall make.
III. The judicial energy shall prolong to all Instances, in Regulation and Fairness, arising below this Structure, the Legal guidelines of the US, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, below their Authority; to Controversies to which the US shall be a Celebration; to Controversies between two or extra States, between Residents of various States.
A. I.
B. I and II.
C. II and III
D. I, II, and III.

three. Within the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison (1803), the court docket, per Chief Justice John Marshall, wrote: “It’s emphatically the province of the judicial division to say what the regulation is … [A] regulation repugnant to the structure is void …” It thus established which of the next?
I. Judicial evaluate.
II. Jurisdiction.
III. Justiciability.
A. I
B. I and II.
C. II and III
D. I, II, and III.

Four. A statute supplies a habeas corpus process for these individuals alleging violation of a specific constitutional proper. Pursuant to the statute, an individual petitions a federal district court docket for habeas corpus aid. The court docket denies aid. Later, the petitioner information an attraction within the U.S. Supreme Courtroom, which grants certiorari and schedules the case for argument. Within the meantime, Congress repeals the statute offering the habeas corpus process. Underneath Ex parte McCardle (1869), the court docket should:
A. Dismiss the case because the court docket lacks appellate jurisdiction.
B. Hear the case because the court docket has appellate jurisdiction.
C. Dismiss the case because the court docket has appellate jurisdiction.
D. Hear the case because the court docket doesn’t have appellate jurisdiction.

5. The Secretary of State despatched a letter to the U.S. Supreme Courtroom inquiring of rights and duties of the US below a treaty with France. In response, the court docket despatched a letter to the Secretary of State answering all of his questions. Underneath Letter from the Justices to President Washington, August eight, 1793, the court docket’s letter is:
A. Constitutional, as a result of it doesn’t represent an advisory opinion.
B. Unconstitutional, as a result of it does represent an advisory opinion.
C. Constitutional, as a result of it does represent an advisory opinion.
D. Unconstitutional, as a result of it doesn’t represent an advisory opinion.

6. In accord with the Supreme Courtroom’s selections, together with its opinion in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992), standing requires:
I. The plaintiff should have suffered a concrete harm or be in imminent hazard of struggling such a loss.
II. The harm have to be “pretty traceable” to the challenged motion of the defendant.
III. The plaintiff should present favorable court docket resolution is probably going to offer redress.
A. I.
B. I and II.
C. II and III.
D. I, II, and III.

7. A bunch of activists manage and file a lawsuit in federal court docket claiming a violation of the structure as a result of a number of members of Congress are additionally members of the armed forces reserve. The plaintiffs assert citizenship standing. Underneath Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Cease the Struggle (1974), the court docket should:
A. Dismiss the case, because the plaintiffs lack standing.
B. Hear the case, because the plaintiffs have standing.
C. Dismiss the case, because the plaintiffs have standing.
D. Hear the case, because the plaintiffs lack standing.

eight. Congress enacts a statute prohibiting all federal civil servants from working for public workplace. A bunch of civil servants, who haven’t run for public workplace however are considering doing so at a while sooner or later, sue to problem the statute. Underneath United Public Staff v. Mitchell (1947), the court docket should:
A. Hear the case, as a result of it’s ripe.
B. Not hear the case, as a result of it isn’t ripe.
C. Hear the case, as a result of it isn’t ripe.
D. Not hear the case, as a result of it’s ripe.

9. An applicant to a college is denied admission. He sues alleging racial discrimination. The court docket orders him admitted. The college appeals. He matriculates. He meets commencement necessities. The state supreme court docket reverses. He appeals to the U.S. Supreme Courtroom. Underneath Defunis v. Odegaard (1974), the court docket should:
A. Hear the case, as a result of it’s moot.
B. Not hear the case, as a result of it’s moot.
C. Hear the case, as a result of it isn’t moot.
D. Not hear the case, as a result of it isn’t moot.

10. The President terminates a treaty with one other nation. A Senator sues, alleging that the termination of a treaty requires Senate consent, which the President didn’t receive. Underneath Goldwater v. Carter (1979), the court docket should:
A. Hear the case, as a result of it isn’t a political Question Assignment.
B. Not hear the case, as a result of it’s a political Question Assignment.
C. Hear the case, as a result of it’s a political Question Assignment.
D. Not hear the case, as a result of it isn’t a political Question Assignment.

11. In 1791, the Invoice of Rights was relevant to:
A. Solely the federal authorities.
B. Solely the states.
C. Each the federal authorities and the states.
D. Not one of the above.

12. Within the landmark case Palko v. Connecticut (1937), the court docket adopted:
I. The view that the fourteenth modification doesn’t incorporate, or make relevant to the states, any of the rights specified within the Invoice of Rights.
II. Selective incorporation, generally referred to as “ordered liberty-fundamental equity” principle, below which the fourteenth modification is construed as incorporating, or making relevant to the states, solely these rights within the Invoice of Rights with out which there can be no “ordered liberty or elementary equity.”
III. Whole incorporation, below which the fourteenth modification is construed as incorporating, or making relevant to the states, all the rights specified within the Invoice of Rights.
A. I.
B. II.
C. III.
D. Not one of the above.

13. Of the next, which haven’t been integrated, or made relevant to the states?
I. The fifth modification prohibition of felony trials with out grand jury indictment.
II. The seventh modification proper to a jury trial in civil circumstances.
III. The eighth modification extreme bail clause.
A. I and II.
B. II and III.
C. I and III.
D. I, II, and III.

14. In constitutional regulation, the time period “state motion” means:
I. An motion by one of many fifty states.
II. An motion by the federal authorities.
III. An motion by native authorities.
A. I.
B. II.
C. I and III.
D. I, II, and III.

15. An organization builds ships at a corporation-owned dock. The company owns the encompassing land. It founds a city, offering housing and different necessities to its staff. Within the city a Jehovah’s Witness distributes spiritual literature on the road. The city officers order him eliminated. The Jehovah’s Witness sues to problem his being eliminated. On these info, below Marsh v. Alabama (1946), there may be:
A. State motion as a result of the non-public conduct concerned constitutes public perform.
B. No state motion as a result of the non-public conduct concerned doesn’t represent public perform.
C. State motion as a result of the non-public conduct concerned doesn’t represent public perform.
D. No state motion as a result of the non-public conduct concerned constitutes public perform.

16. The Liquor Management Board grants the Moose Lodge No. 107 a liquor license. A Moose invitations a visitor, Irvis, who’s black, to the lodge, which refused to serve them because of the visitor’s shade. Irvis sued. Is there, below Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis (1972), state motion?
A. No, as a result of in distinction to Burton v. Wilmington Storage (1961), Eagle was a public restaurant in a public constructing, Moose Lodge is a non-public social membership in a non-public constructing; thus, the LCB performs completely no half in establishing visitor insurance policies, doesn’t in any means foster or encourage racial discrimination, and doesn’t make the state a associate.
B. Sure, as a result of liquor licensing legal guidelines are pervasive regulatory schemes below which the state dictates and frequently supervises nearly each element of the operation; thus, the licensing lends the state’s authority to the discrimination.
C. Sure, as a result of in distinction to Burton v. Wilmington Storage (1961) Eagle was a public restaurant in a public constructing, Moose Lodge is a non-public social membership in a non-public constructing; thus the LCB performs completely no half in establishing visitor insurance policies, doesn’t in any means foster or encourage racial discrimination, and doesn’t make the state a associate.
D. No, as a result of liquor licensing legal guidelines are pervasive regulatory schemes below which the state dictates and frequently supervises nearly each element of the operation; thus, the licensing lends the state’s authority to the discrimination.

17. In Reynolds v. United States (1879), a difficulty concerned the Mormon observe of polygamy. Congress had outlawed polygamy. Reynolds, a Mormon, married his second spouse. He was charged with violating the regulation. The court docket upheld the regulation. Reynolds stands for the proposition that:
I. The primary modification is to be construed in absolute phrases.
II. Congress was disadvantaged of all legislative energy over mere opinion, however was left free to achieve actions that are in violation of social duties or subversive of the nice order.
III. The extra wives the higher.
A. I.
B. II.
C. I and II.
D. I, II, and III.

18. A regulation mandates youngsters attend college till the age of 16. An Amish youngster stops attending college at age 14. The state cites his mother and father. The mother and father sue to problem the regulation. Underneath Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), the mother and father should:
A. Win, as a result of the state’s curiosity will not be sufficiently compelling to outweigh the free train declare.
B. Lose, as a result of the state’s curiosity is sufficiently compelling to outweigh the free train declare.
C. Win, as a result of the state’s curiosity is sufficiently compelling to outweigh the free train declare.
D. Lose, as a result of the state’s curiosity will not be sufficiently compelling to outweigh the free train declare.

19. Just a few Native American Church members are fired from jobs as drug and alcohol clinic counselors for taking peyote, unlawful of their state. On the bottom that they took peyote, they’re denied employment compensation advantages. Underneath Employment Division, Division of Human Sources of Oregon v. Smith (1990), is the denial of the unemployment compensation a denial of free train?
A. No, as a result of spiritual conduct could also be prohibited so long as the prohibition is “throughout the board” or “usually relevant” to all.
B. Sure, as a result of legal guidelines impartial towards faith can coerce an individual to violate his spiritual conscience or intrude upon his spiritual duties simply as successfully as legal guidelines geared toward faith.
C. Sure, as a result of the federal government can’t assert that an unbending software of a felony prohibition is crucial to meet any compelling curiosity, if it has not enforced that prohibition.
D. Not one of the above.

20. In Everson v. Board of Schooling (1947), there was a New Jersey regulation authorizing native college boards that supplied any transportation for public college youngsters additionally to offer transportation for nonprofit non-public college youngsters. A township decides to make use of tax dollars to reimburse mother and father for transportation prices in sending their youngsters to Catholic faculties. The court docket:
I. Quoted Jefferson’s remark that the institution clause was supposed to construct “a wall of separation between Church and State.”
II. Held, 5-Four, that the New Jersey regulation didn’t violate the institution clause, because the New Jersey regulation did not more than Help mother and father ship their youngsters to high school, no matter their faith.
III. Break up, dissenting Justices agreeing that there have to be a separation of church and state however thought, on these info, there was a violation of the separation of church and state.
A. I.
B. I and II.
C. III.
D. I, II, and III.

21. In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), the U.S. Supreme Courtroom set forth the fashionable institution clause take a look at. The take a look at to find out whether or not state motion violates the institution clause is that the motion:
I. Should have a secular legislative function.
II. Should neither advance nor inhibit faith, i.e. be impartial.
III. Should not foster an extreme entanglement between authorities and faith.
A. I.
B. II.
C. III.
D. I, II, and III.

22. To handle failing Cleveland faculties, Ohio enacted a faculty voucher program that enabled mother and father to decide on to ship their youngsters to taking part non-public faculties, most of which have been spiritual. Choices have been public college as earlier than, public college with funded tutoring, non-public spiritual college with scholarship, non-public nonreligious college with scholarship, public neighborhood college, or public magnet college. Most college students have been at or beneath poverty line. Ohio taxpayers sought an injunction. In Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002), the court docket determined whether or not the varsity voucher program violated the primary modification institution clause. What’s true of the Zelman opinion?
I. Within the majority opinion, the court docket stated the varsity voucher program didn’t violate the institution clause in as a lot as the help to spiritual faculties is because of mother and father’ personal real unbiased non-public alternative and as such, it being impartial, it doesn’t have the imprimatur of presidency endorsement.
II. In a dissent, Justice Souter stated the opinion ignores Everson and begins a brand new section of firm clause jurisprudence during which the substantial character of presidency help is held to be insignificant, changed with a non-public alternative criterion, a type of verbal formalism that “reads away” the institution clause.
III. In one other dissent, Justice Breyer stated the voucher applications direct financing to a core perform of the church, i.e. the educating of faith; thus, parental alternative can’t Help the taxpayer who doesn’t need to finance spiritual training.
A. I.
B. II.
C. III.
D. I, II, and III.
23. Within the well-known case of Schenck v. United States (1919), Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, in oft-quoted language, stated one can’t “cry fireplace! in a crowded theater,” a metaphor used to clarify:
A. The clear and current hazard doctrine.
B. The dangerous tendency doctrine.
C. The chosen rights doctrine.
D. The clear and possible hazard doctrine.

24. In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the court docket stated the primary modification protects advocacy of illegal conduct if:
I. The advocacy is directed to inciting imminent lawless motion.
II. The advocacy is prone to incite lawless motion.
A. I.
B. II.
C. I and II.
D. Not one of the above.

25. An individual stands on a soapbox on a avenue nook to provide a speech. He sees a metropolis official there. In his speech he calls the town official a “damned racketeer” and a “damned fascist.” The town official approaches him. A fistfight ensues. The police storm in and arrest the speaker. At trial he’s convicted. On attraction he challenges his conviction. Underneath Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), he should:
A. Lose, as a result of he used preventing phrases.
B. Win, as a result of he didn’t use preventing phrases.
C. Lose, as a result of he didn’t use preventing phrases.
D. Win, as a result of he used preventing phrases.

26. Within the landmark case of New York Instances Co. v. Sullivan (1964), the U.S. Supreme Courtroom held that:
I. The primary modification protects speech criticizing a public official.
II. Until the speech is fake and made with precise malice, i.e. data that it’s false or reckless disregard of whether or not it was false or not.
III. Besides if the general public official is a decide.
A. I.
B. I and II.
C. I, II, and III.
D. Not one of the above.

27. Within the “speech plus” circumstances the court docket has stated authorities:
I. Could regulate speech associated conduct by content-neutral time, place, and method rules.
II. Could not regulate speech associated conduct by content-neutral time, place, and method rules.
III. Could regulate speech associated conduct by viewpoint biased time, place, and method rules.
A. I.
B. I and II.
C. I, II, and III.
D. Not one of the above.

28. Examples of a public discussion board are:
I. Streets, sidewalks, and parks.
II. Navy bases, jails, and faculties.
III. Procuring malls.
A. I.
B. I and II.
C. I and III.
D. The entire above.

29. A metropolis council enacts a sound ordinance limiting sound emanating from automobiles to 100 decibels from the hours between 9:00 P.M. and eight:00 A.M. A candidate for State Consultant hires a sound truck promoting agency to publicize his run for workplace. The truck makes use of a loud speaker to run a tape asserting the candidate’s credentials and pledges. It emanates a decibel degree of 110 decibels within the hours between 9:00 P.M. and 10:00 P.M. Metropolis police order the sound truck agency to stop its actions from 9:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M. The sound truck agency sues to problem the ordinance. Underneath Ward v. Rock In opposition to Racism (1989), the plaintiff should:
A. Lose, as a result of the ordinance is a content-neutral time, place, method regulation.
B. Win, as a result of the ordinance will not be a content-neutral time, place, method regulation.
C. Lose, as a result of the ordinance regulates political speech.
D. Win, as a result of the ordinance doesn’t regulate political speech.

30. Within the well-known case of New York Instances Co. v. United States (1971), also referred to as the Pentagon Papers Case, the U.S. Supreme Courtroom refused to enjoin publication of leaked labeled authorities paperwork addressing Viet Nam struggle insurance policies. The Pentagon Papers Case stands for the proposition that:
A. The federal government should present that if there is no such thing as a prior restraint, there will probably be some particular societal hurt.
B. The federal government should present that if there is no such thing as a prior restraint, there will probably be some inconvenience to administration officers.
C. The federal government should present that if there is no such thing as a prior restraint, there will probably be publication of some disputed truth.
D. Not one of the above.

31. A reporter was current when two people synthesized cannabis on the market. He printed an article detailing the occasions. He was subpoenaed by a grand jury, however he refused to reply questions as to the names of those that synthesized and offered the cannabis. He claimed a reporter’s privilege, since he had promised to vary their names if these concerned allowed him to see the occasions in Question Assignment. In asserting his declare of reporter’s privilege, he should, below Branzburg v. Hayes (1972):
A. Lose, as a result of the primary modification implies no reporter’s privilege that protects a reporter from being required to testify earlier than grand juries, trials, or different felony proceedings.
B. Win, as a result of the primary modification implies a reporter’s privilege that protects a reporter from being required to testify earlier than grand juries, trials, or different felony proceedings.
C. Lose, as a result of the primary modification implies a reporter’s privilege that protects a reporter from being required to testify earlier than grand juries, trials, or different felony proceedings.
D. Win, as a result of the primary modification implies no reporter’s privilege that protects a reporter from being required to testify earlier than grand juries, trials, or different felony proceedings.

32. A gentleman transports an unregistered sawed-off shotgun throughout state traces. On a visitors cease, police see the shotgun and arrest him. A federal statute makes it unlawful to move unregistered firearms throughout state traces. In difficult the prosecution, the defendant sues alleging the federal statute violates the second modification. Underneath United States v. Miller (1939), the defendant will:
A. Lose, as a result of the second modification supplies a collective proper to the “militia,” not a person proper to the person.
B. Win, as a result of the second modification supplies a person proper to the person, not a collective proper to the “militia.”
C. Lose, as a result of the interstate commerce clause permits violation of any of the precise limits the Structure locations on authorities.
D. Not one of the above.

33. Within the District of Columbia, there’s a regulation banning handguns and requiring different firearms be disassembled or trigger-locked. A gentleman applies for a allow to personal a handgun. The town refuses. He introduced swimsuit in opposition to the town, claiming the regulation violated his second modification proper to maintain and bear arms. Underneath District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the plaintiff will:
A. Lose, as a result of the second modification supplies a collective proper to the “militia,” not a person proper to the person.
B. Win, as a result of the second modification supplies a person proper to the person, not a collective proper to the “militia.”
C. Lose, as a result of regulation of interstate commerce can violate any of the precise limits the Structure locations on authorities.
D. Not one of the above.

SHORT ANSWER
(counts as two a number of alternative)

Within the landmark first modification case of Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the court docket issued an opinion relating to advocacy of illegal conduct and incitement. What did the court docket say the rule is? Clarify it. Why did the court docket suppose it’s crucial?
Incitement

EXTRA CREDIT SHORT ANSWER
(counts as two a number of alternative)

Within the landmark first modification case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the court docket enunciated the idea of excessive worth versus low worth speech. Was Chaplinsky’s speech excessive worth or low worth? What are the classes of low worth speech?

ESSAY
(counts as fifteen a number of alternative)

An Amish man, Abram, removes his son, Isaac, age 13, from college. He dwelling faculties Isaac. He teaches him agricultural abilities, corresponding to constructing barns, tending crops, and elevating livestock. As a substitute of stressing mental studying, self-distinction, and competitiveness, as public faculties do, Abram emphasizes studying by doing, neighborhood welfare, and cooperation. The varsity notifies police, who cite Abram with violating a state statute requiring college attendance till age sixteen.

Incensed, Abram goes to the varsity. He screams on the Helpant principal that he’s a “God damned racketeer” and a “damned fascist” and to return out from behind the glassed in service counter and “battle like a person.” He storms out however not earlier than safety calls the police. Police arrive, examine, and attain an arrest warrant on expenses of disorderly conduct.

Police proceed to Abram’s home. They knock and announce. He solutions the door. The police enter. They see on the espresso desk a handgun, a 9 millimeter Gen Four Glock 19 with “RTF” (tough textured body), weighing in at 20.99 ounces unloaded and 29.98 ounces loaded. There may be an ordinance that bans possession of handguns utterly and likewise bans rifles and shotguns, except the rifle or shotgun is locked in a secure, set off locked, or disassembled. They cost Abram with illegal possession of a firearm.

Within the college attendance case, Abram defends in opposition to the cost that he eliminated his son from college. Within the quotation case, Abram defends in opposition to the cost of disorderly conduct. Within the felony case, Abram defends in opposition to the cost of individuals to not possess a firearm. Utilizing the CIRAC methodology, write a quick essay deciding the problems of constitutional regulation.

Order | Check Discount

Tags: essay generator free, type my essay for me free, website that writes essays for you, write essays online for free, write my essay for me for free, write my essay for me online