Law > EXAM > Constitutional Law I / II -MCQ: CONLAW I / II – MCQ Questions and Answers 2021-2022 (All)

Constitutional Law I / II -MCQ: CONLAW I / II – MCQ Questions and Answers 2021-2022

Document Content and Description Below

Constitutional Law I / II -MCQ: CONLAW I / II – MCQ Questions and Answers 2021-2022 Question 1 Which of the following statements about justiciability is FALSE? A. A litigant must allege injury ... in fact in order to bring a claim. B. A litigant can allege that a new law has the potential to harm him in order to bring a claim. C. Declaratory judgments are sometimes allowed. D. Article III gives federal courts jurisdiction over "cases" and "controversies." {{Ans- B is the correct choice because --theoretical harm is not enough to meet the requirement of standing; each litigant must have a significant stake in the controversy that is able to be resolved by the court, including injury in fact. Declaratory judgments are sometimes allowed about concrete facts, but not when the question raised is hypothetical or abstract. Question 2 The power of Judicial Review: A. Is not explicitly included in the written Constitution B. Belongs to the federal courts. C. Was established by the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison. D. All of the above. {{Ans- D is correct because all of the choices are true. Question 3 In Marbury v. Madison, Judge Marshall offered several reasons for recognizing a power of judicial review. Which of the following was NOT a justification of judicial review found in the Marbury opinion: A. The structure of a written constitution requires a way to interpret and enforce it against legislative violations. B. Judicial review enhances the will of the people in a democracy. C. Article III granted power to the federal courts over cases arising under the Constitution. D. The Supremacy Clause implies that the Framers expected the Supreme Court to decide if federal laws violated the Constitution. {{Ans- Choice B is correct because --it is not true. --Judicial review preserves the power of appointed judges to --declare what does or does not violate the Constitution; this actually --STRIPS POPULAR WILL of its ability to trample constitutional protections for minority groups. Choices A, C, and D can be found in the opinion, and --are discussed in Massey, pp. 17-18. ...argued Marshall, this "constitutional principle [must not] yield to the legislative act" of changing the rule. Article VI requires judges to take an oath "to support this Constitution." Marshall argued that judges would violate this oath if they upheld unconstitutional laws. Marshall argued that since the Framers apparently expected state judges to decide if federal laws violated the Constitution they must also have expected the Supreme Court to exercise the same power in its appellate capacity. Question 4 With regard to standing, the "ecosystem nexus" theory, in which the plaintiffs claimed that any user of a contiguous ecosystem adversely affected by the challenged state action suffered injury in fact: A. Succeeded in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife. B. Was rejected by the Supreme Court in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife. C. Succeeded in extending the Endangered Species Act to acts in foreign nations. D. Is an exception to the imminent harm rule. {{Ans- B is correct because --the Lujan Court found the plaintiffs lacked standing in part because --the injuries of which they complained - --diminished opportunity to view the Nile crocodile and the Asian elephant in their native habitat - --were deemed remote and speculative because --the plaintiffs had no present plans to travel to --Egypt and Sri Lanka in quest of these animals. The other choices are wrong because --they contradict the Court's holding in Lujan. Question 5 Organizations and associations have standing to sue only when: A. Their members are people who would have standing in their own right B. The asserted interests are related to the organization's purpose C. Participation of individual members is not required in the case D. All three of the above factors must be met. {{Ans- D is the correct answer because --this was part of the holding in Hunt v. Wash. Apple Avt'g. Comm. The other choices are not correct because --they cannot stand alone— --all three factors must be present in order for --an organization to have standing to sue on a constitutional claim, so --D is the best answer. Question 6 Assume Kelly sues a State law school for being racially discriminatory, but is allowed to attend law school while the case proceeds. By the time the case arrives at the Supreme Court for review, Kelly is one month shy of graduation, and the school has stated that she will be allowed to graduate regardless of the ruling in the case. The Supreme Court is likely to refuse to decide the appeal based on the reason that: A. This close to graduation, the case is ripe for review B. The case violates the prohibition on issuing advisory opinions C. Cases may not be brought by third parties D. By the time the review is heard, the case will be moot {{Ans- Choice D is correct; while a live controversy was --alleged at the beginning of the case, by now --the alleged wrong will have been resolved --before the Supreme Court can rule. There is --no ongoing stake in the controversy. Question 7 In Roe v. Wade, the Court found an exception to the mootness doctrine to allow the case to proceed. What was the Court's reasoning? A. The challenge to the state law banning abortions is capable of repetition yet evading review B. Voluntary cessation by defendant C. The doctrine of collateral consequences D. None of the above {{Ans- Choice A is correct because --a pregnancy will always be over before the appellate process is complete. --Therefore, unless the Court found an exception to the mootness doctrine, --no plaintiff could ever get to court to --challenge an unconstitutional law. Choices B and C are wrong because --those are different exceptions to mootness. Question 8 Taxpayer standing is very rare. In Flast v. Cohen, federal taxpayers challenged the government's financial aid to religious schools. This case was allowed to proceed because: A. The taxpayers attacked a federal expenditure that violated a specific limit on congressional power B. The taxpayers attacked Congress' exceeding the enumerated powers in Article I C. The taxpayers alleged theoretical ideological harm D. The taxpayers alleged that they were entitled to equal federal monies for their future educations {{Ans- A is the correct choice because --it was the accepted rationale in the case. B is wrong because --cases brought based on Congress' exceeding its enumerated powers --have consistently been rejected by the Court. C and D are wrong because --they do not satisfy the concrete and imminent harm requirements. Note, this did not allow many cases and seems to be limited to the narrow facts in Flast. Question 9 The Eleventh Amendment bars all of the following except: A. Suits for damages brought by citizens of the defendant state B. Suits for contract damages against a city within the plaintiff's state C. Suits for damages brought by citizens of a different state D. Suits brought according to a law passed by Congress that overrides the 11th Amendment {{Ans- B is correct because --only the state itself, not counties or cities, is --protected by --the 11th Amendment. A and C are wrong because --the Court has interpreted the language to --bar suits by a citizen from a foreign jurisdiction as well as --those brought by a state's own citizens. Choice D is wrong because --Congress cannot change the meaning of the 11th Amendment --by passing a law. Question 10 The political question doctrine: A. Forces the Supreme Court to be the arbiter of disputes between the other two branches of federal government B. Is clearly stated in the Constitution C. Will justify the Court's stepping in to decide matters of impeachment D. Is a vague principle invoked by the Court to avoid deciding matters that involve separation of powers questions, or that would be unwise as a policy matter. {{Ans- D is the correct answer because --the Court has decided issues about political issues, --only refraining when it would stir up tension with the other branches, especially when --the issue has been assigned to --another branch of government by the Constitution. Choices A B and C are untrue. [Show More]

Last updated: 1 year ago

Preview 1 out of 111 pages

Add to cart

Instant download

We Accept:

We Accept
document-preview

Buy this document to get the full access instantly

Instant Download Access after purchase

Add to cart

Instant download

We Accept:

We Accept

Reviews( 0 )

$16.00

Add to cart

We Accept:

We Accept

Instant download

Can't find what you want? Try our AI powered Search

OR

REQUEST DOCUMENT
62
0

Document information


Connected school, study & course


About the document


Uploaded On

Jun 11, 2022

Number of pages

111

Written in

Seller


seller-icon
solvesolved

Member since 2 years

5 Documents Sold


Additional information

This document has been written for:

Uploaded

Jun 11, 2022

Downloads

 0

Views

 62

Document Keyword Tags

Recommended For You

Get more on EXAM »

$16.00
What is Browsegrades

In Browsegrades, a student can earn by offering help to other student. Students can help other students with materials by upploading their notes and earn money.

We are here to help

We're available through e-mail, Twitter, Facebook, and live chat.
 FAQ
 Questions? Leave a message!

Follow us on
 Twitter

Copyright © Browsegrades · High quality services·