Q&A Hero

Q: Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge (1837) was _______.A. the last of the Marshall Court opinions strongly supporting the enforcement of the Contract ClauseB. the first of the Taney Court opinions elevating the importance of the public good in considering Contract Clause cases

Q: The state power to tax is inextricably intertwined with the federal government's power to control interstate commerce. Using examples from cases you read in this chapter, explain how the U.S. Supreme Court has reconciled Congress's commerce power with states' power to tax goods and services within their borders. What is the current state of this relationship?

Q: Explain why the Southern states supported the requirement that taxes be apportioned on the basis of population. What did the three-fifths compromise have to do with this debate?

Q: What key factor of the Water Resources Development Act's Harbor Maintenance Tax made it a tax on exports rather than a user fee according to the decision in United States v. United States Shoe Corp. (1998)?

Q: In National Federation of Independent Business v. Selbelius the Court _______.A. Upheld congressional power to justify laws under its commerce powerB. Upheld congressional power to justify laws under its taxing powerC. Neither A nor BD. Both A and B

Q: Hylton v. United .States. defines a direct tax as a tax on _______.A. landB. capitationC. individualsD. A and BE. A and C.

Q: Congress has passed a law that prohibits shipment across state lines of lager, licorice, and lawn furniture produced by left-handed Americans of Lithuanian descent. Congress feels that employers in these particular industries had historically discriminated against this subgroup of the population. Members believe that they could pass such legislation based on a power that could be implied from various enumerated powers (e.g., the powers to lay and collect taxes, to borrow money, and to regulate commerce among the several states). The state of Missouri disagrees, arguing that such legislation may be appropriate to remedy discrimination against federal employees, but it does not pertain to the states. In its view, this is not an issue involving interstate commerce but rather solely an attempt by the government to interfere with intrastate commercea thinly veiled attempt by Congress to impose its own moral views on the state. How would Chief Justice Marshall decide this case? Whose argument would he support? How might his view on this case differ from that of Chief Justice Taney? How would Taney decide the case? The question presented here is not asking whether the law is constitutional per se; rather, it is requesting that you evaluate and analyze the approaches Marshall and Taney would take in their opinions. If you were a justice on the Court, whose approach would you support? Marshall's? Taney's? Neither justice's?

Q: The Supreme Court has gone through a long and cyclical relationship concerning the federal government's use of the Commerce Clause. In other words, at some points in history the federal government has been granted wide discretion in its use of the commerce power, while at others it has been "reined in" by the Court. Using the major cases that we have discussed, explain how the federal government's power to control commerce has changed from Gibbons v. Ogden through Heart of Atlanta Motel. Be sure to include a discussion of the different ways the Court has defined "commerce." Finally, in light of the most recent Commerce Clause cases we have read, what do you think is the current state of Commerce Clause powers? Why?

Q: Explain what is meant by the term "stream of commerce" and how the Court justified this interpretation of commerce during the nineteenth 19th century.

Q: What are the key points in Gibbons v. Ogden that led to an expansive reading of the Commerce Clause?

Q: In March 1937 President Franklin Roosevelt proposed legislation to reform the federal judiciary. In that proposed statute, what specific changes did Roosevelt recommend for the U.S. Supreme Court?

Q: Intrastate commerce is commerce that takes place _______.A. Among one or f more states onlyB. Between two states onlyC. Within one state onlyD. Within one region only

Q: Public opinion concerning the Court-packing plan _______.A. Was favorable nationwideB. Was unfavorable nationwideC. Was largely unchangedD. Was in favor of an alternate to the plan

Q: Who provided the crucial vote known as the "switch in time"?A. Justice McReynoldsB. Justice SutherlandC. Justice Van DevanterD. Justice ButlerE. Justice Roberts

Q: The "Four Horsemen" (Justices Van Devanter, McReynolds, Sutherland, and Butler) were known for their _______.A. support of Roosevelt's Court-packing planB. steadfast support for federal power to regulate the economyC. consistent votes to strike down New Deal legislationD. active promotion of effective state efforts to deal with the DepressionE. support of federal trust-busting efforts

Q: In Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), the Supreme Court _______.A. upheld the New York steamship monopoly because it was a state regulation of intrastate commerceB. held that navigation was commerce and that the Gibbons/Vanderbilt steamship operation was validly operating in interstate commerce under a permit issued by the federal governmentC. held that steamship movement from New Jersey to New York was considered interstate commerce under the stream of commerce doctrineD. held that New York had the right to regulate commercial navigation in its waters (including the right to impose a monopoly) because the federal government had not yet entered into the field of regulating navigation

Q: In Nevada Department. of Human Resources v. Hibbs, the Court changed directions in its analysis of the Eleventh Amendment because _______.A. the case involved gender discriminationB. the case involved age discriminationC. the case involved discrimination based on disabilitiesD. none of the above

Q: In National League of Cities v. Usery (1976) the Court considered the constitutionality of the 1974 amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act that extended the Act's minimum wage and maximum hours provisions to the states and their political subdivisions. The Court held that Congress exceeded its authority in attempting to regulate the wages and hours of state and local government employees.A. True, but National League of Cities was overruled by Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985).B. True, and National League of Cities was reaffirmed by Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985).C. False, but National League of Cities was overruled by Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985).D. False, and National League of Cities was reaffirmed by Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985).

Q: 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.

Q: How does the Succession Act of 1947 differ from the National Security Act of 1947 in terms of presidential succession?

Q: United .States. v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936) makes clear that presidents have almost unfettered power over foreign affairs. Are there any limits to such power? If so, what are they?

Q: Who is second in line to assume the presidency in the event of a president's death, resignation, or disability?A. The Vice-PresidentB. The first ladyC. The Speaker of the HouseD. The president pro -tempore of the Senate

Q: There was no limit on the number of terms a president could serve until _______.A. the ratification of the Eleventh Amendment in 1795B. the ratification of the Twelfth Amendment following the confused presidential election of 1800C. the ratification of the Civil War AmendmentsD. the ratification of the Twenty-second Amendment in 1951E. the ratification of the Twenty-sixth Amendment in 1971 (which also established the minimum voting age at eighteen)

Q: For purposes of Questions 28 and 29, assume that it is November 2006. Republicans still control the U.S. Supreme Court (seven Republicans and two Democrats) but a Democrat, Howard Lark, is now president of the United States, and Democrats control the House of Representatives. The Democratic Party also controls the Senate. But in the election of 2006 the party lost several seats, such thatbeginning in January 2007, when the new senators are to be sworn inthe Senate is going to be controlled by Republicans, though by a slim margin (forty-nine Democrats and fifty-one Republicans). While Terminator's case against the Senate committee was pending in federal court, the Senate decided to take action against him. In December 2006 it voted to exclude him from the Senate and directed the Senate majority leader (a Democrat) to inform the governor of California that the seat was vacant. The governor, Dreg Mavis (another Democrat), not only was quick to call a new election but also decided to run in itas the Democratic candidate to replace Terminator. As it turned out, and much to the delight of the Democratic Party, Mavis won the election. He was sworn in as a member of the U.S. Senate in January 2007. Livid about this turn of events, Terminator brought another suit against the Senate, claiming that it did not have the power to deny him a seat since he met all the qualifications for office: he was thirty, had been a U.S. citizen for more than nine years, and so on. Believing that Terminator might have a plausible legal argument, and knowing that the U.S. Supreme Court was controlled by Republicans, Democrats in the Senate decided to take yet another step: they removed the Court's authority to hear cases centering on the power of Congress to refuse to seat members. Both houses quickly passed the legislation, and the president signed it. This step, however, did not deter Terminator. Not only did he proceed with his challenge to the Senate's authority to exclude him, but he also made an additional claim: Congress cannot take away the Court's jurisdiction to hear this class of case. Suppose you are a justice on the Supreme Court. Would you decide this case on its merits (that is, would you determine whether Congress could exclude members), or would you dismiss it on the ground that the Court lacked jurisdiction to decide it and/or that the dispute itself is nonjusticiable?

Q: Explain the two limitations the Court has set on searches incident to a valid arrest.

Q: What guarantees are afforded to the criminally accused in the two clauses of the Fourth Amendment?

Q: Which of the following statements best describes the incorporation of the exclusionary rule into the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?A. The exclusionary rule has not been incorporated.B. The exclusionary rule was incorporated in the Weeks v. United States ruling.C. The exclusionary rule was incorporated in the United States v. Leon ruling.D. The exclusionary rule was incorporated in the Mapp v. Ohio ruling.

Q: Why might it be do argued that Carhart v. Gonzalez may not be reason for concern that Roe may eventually be overturned?

Q: What rationale did Harlan provide to support the right to privacy in his Ullman dissent? Why do some scholars consider this dissent so important?

Q: Contrast substantive due process and the rational basis approach.