The federal government and each of the fifty state governments are based on (1), which set forth the (2) and the (3). Each state has its own (4) to interpret state constitutions and sometimes the federal constitution. However, the (5) is the most important developer of constitutional law.
- written constitutions 2. structure and powers of government 3. rights of citizens 4. court system 5. US Supreme Court
(1) refers to the authority of a court of law to review a particular legal issue. In constitutional law, it refers to the power of courts to (2). Thanks to (3), the Supreme Court extended its scope to (4) and (5).
- Judicial review 2. declare government actions invalid/unconstitutional 3. Marbury v. Madison 4. executive actions 5. state statutes
Judicial review is considered a (1) of the American legal and political systems, and is generally thought to preserve the ideal of (2).
- bedrock principle 2. constitutional supremacy
When judicial review cannot rely on (1) in interpreting the Constitution, courts often seek to discern (2). To help with this, they often turn to (3) and (4).
- plain meaning of text 2. intentions of the Framers 3. the Constitutional Convention debate in 1787 4. The Federalist Papers (James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay)
At odds in interpreting the Constitution are the (1) and the idea of (2), whose meaning evolves according to the “felt necessities” of the times.
- doctrine of original intent 2. the living Constitution
Who ruled in Marbury v. Madison, and what was the basic idea?
Chief Justice Marshall. The idea was that because laws do not always conform to the Constitution, yet the Constitution is seen as paramount, it is in the hands of judicial review to determine which of the conflicting ideas is correct.
In common law tradition, courts rely on (1), following what courts have said and done in the past. This doctrine of (2), which means “to stand by things decided,” applies to (3) as well.
- precedent 2. stare decisis 3. constitutional law/interpretation
The best known example of long-standing precedent later overturned were the cases of (1) and (2). In the former, racial segregation on trains, part of the (3) at the time, was challenged as a violation of the (4), which promises equal protection of laws to persons in a state’s jurisdiction. The latter case repudiated (5) in the context of public education, paving the way for abolishment of the idea altogether.
- Plessy v. Ferguson 2. Brown v. Board of Education 3. Jim Crow Laws 4. 14th Amendment 5. “separate but equal”
Courts often exercise (1) to avoid producing political conflict. It is manifested in a number of (2) limiting judicial review, and (3), its opposite, consists of ignoring or circumventing these.
- judicial self-restraint 2. doctrines 3. judicial activism
The most fundamental limiting doctrine of judicial review is the (1), in which there is a presumption of validity for a statute or action until demonstrated otherwise. The party bringing constitutional challenge has the (2). This is based on a respect for (3) and an understanding that judicial review is (4).
- presumption of constitutionality 2. burden of persuasion 3. legislative bodies 4. counter-majoritarian
Exceptional to presumption of constitutionality are laws that (1) or (2), which are subjected to (3).
- discriminate based on race or national origin 2. abridge fundamental rights 3. strict judicial scrutiny
Another fundamental limiting doctrine, (1), holds that a party seeking to challenge a law must have sustained (2) because of the law, such as someone criminally prosecuted under an unconstitutional law. In (3), a pregnant woman brought civil suit to strike down a Texas law banning abortions.
- standing 2. substantial injury to his rights 3. Roe v. Wade
The (1), arising from the opinion of Justice Louis D. Brandeis in (2), limit the exercise of judicial review by steering clear wherever possible of (3). However, in the modern era, especially the (4) of 1954-1969, courts tend to be less cautious with judicial review.
- Ashwander rules 2. Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority (1936) 3. challenging constitutional law 4. Warren Court (under Chief Justice Earl Warren)
The Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction is fixed by (1) of the Constitution. Per Marbury v. Madison, (2) many not alter original jurisdiction, though it may authorize (3) to share it. Congress may, however, alter the SC’s (4).
- Article III 2. Congress 3. lower federal courts 4. appellate jurisdiction
In (1) in 1869, Congress worked to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Court to prevent it from ruling on the constitutionality of the (2). This by no means indicates Congress could (3), as any attempt to do so would likely be (4).
- Ex Parte McCardle 2. Reconstruction program 3. completely abolish the Court’s appellate jurisdiction 4. declared invalid
In the 1980s a flurry of activity in Congress was aimed at restricting SC jurisdiction to hear appeals in cases dealing with (1) and (2). The constitutionality of such proposals is open to question; they may be construed as undermining the Court’s ability to (3).
- abortion 2. school prayer 3. fundamental constitutional rights
Sometimes Congress will attempt to overturn, evade or modify a SC decision through (1), which is generally unsuccessful because the SC reserves to itself the final word in (2). The best way to bypass a judicial decision is through a (3). Sometimes also the Court will (4).
- legislation 2. constitutional interpretation 3. constitutional amendment 4. overrule itself
For a constitutional amendment to be written, Article V requires a (1) majority vote in both houses of Congress, and ratification by (2) of the states.
- two-thirds 2. three-fourths
Examples of unsuccessful attempts to overturn SC decisions through Constitutional amendments relate to (1) and (2).
- abortion rights 2. flag burning
Another check on the court systems is the (1) by the (2). (3) is by no means automatic. President Nixon is known for changing the face of the Supreme Court with his (4) judges and setting the stage for the (5),
- appointment of federal judges 2. president 3. Senate approval 4. “constructionist” 5. conservative Rehnquist Court
Article I of the Constitution defines (1) as vested in a (2) and (3).
- legislative power 2. Senate 3. House of Representatives
Four other things Article I addresses
- minimal requirements for members 2. how members are chosen 3. broad authority to each house to determine its own procedures 4. privileges to members of Congress
Most of the (1) of Congress are set out in Article 1, Section 8. Despite broad powers, there is no general grant of (2) to Congress, so the power to make laws is reserved to the (3) under the (4).
- enumerated powers 2. police power 3. states 4. Tenth Amendment
However, Congress exercises legislative power well beyond its scope by (1), especially by using its ability to (2), set out in the (3) and interpreted liberally by the Supreme Court. However, in (4), the Court ruled that possessing a firearm near a school was not sufficiently related to interstate commerce. The (5) was struck down in 2000 for the same reason.
- linking laws to its powers contained in Section 8 2. regulate interstate commerce 3. Commerce Clause 4. United States v. Lopez 5. Violence Against Women Act of 1994
The linchpin of the argument that Congress has remained within the scope of its Constitutional powers is the (1) and the related doctrine of (2). This doctrine was established in the case of (3) and holds that Congress may enact law reasonably related to its (4) as long as they do not (5).
- Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8, clause 18) 2. implied powers 3. McCulloch v. Maryland 4. enumerated powers 5. violate a specific prohibition of the Constitution
Congress’s implicit, open-ended or non-defined powers are fully recognized in the (1) and in several amendments, including the (2), (3) and (4),
- Necessary and Proper Clause 2. Thirteenth (no slavery) 3. Fourteenth (equality, voting rights of males, no rebels in office, no questioning of public debt) 4. Fifteenth (no abridgment of voting rights based on race)
The case of (1), whose deciding vote was cast by Chief Justice John Roberts, upheld Obamacare’s mandate for health insurance. Though Congress had pushed to include it as a power of (2), the Court upheld it as an exercise of (3). The case transcended partisan politics because (4).
- National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius 2. regulation of interstate commerce 3. Congress’ broad taxing power 4. Roberts was a Republican appointed by George W. Bush
Although legislation is Congress’s principal function, (1) of the executive branch is also a responsibility. The Supreme Court ruled in 1881 that Congress’s (2) is a necessary auxiliary of this, as long as it is related to (3). (4) conduct these investigations, such as in (5).
- oversight 2. power of investigation 3. potential legislation 4. Congressional committees 5. Nixon’s Watergate hearings
(1) provides that executive power is vested int the president, while (2) enumerate executive powers. It was debated and generally accepted that Section 1 (3), so the trend is to legitimize broad presidential power, for example in (4).
- Article II, Section 1 2. Sections 2 and 3 3. independently grants power to the president 4. foreign affairs
The Constitution recognizes the President as (1) but does not define this term. Though the general idea is that the President must (2) to declare war, some have used limited military force without this. In (3) Lincoln imposed a naval blockade on southern ports at the outset of the Civil War, though he never declared war on the South, because to do so would be a (4) recognition of the sovereign Confederacy.
- commander-in-chief 2. await Congressional approval 3. The Prize Cases (1863) 4. de facto
Because Presidents, since WWII, have conducted wars by (1) rather than actually declaring war, Congress’s (2), or (3) has been its most effective means of reeling in long wars with high public disapproval. This was seen in (4).
- getting authorization for the use of force 2. power of the purse 3. ability to withdraw funding for war operations 4. George W.’s operation Iraqi Freedom
The (1) in 1964 allowed Johnson to use military force to defend South Vietnam from North Vietnam. In the aftermath of the Vietnam War, Congress enacted the (2) in 1973 to give itself the power to veto military deployment. Despite question of its constitutionality, it has never come under judicial review because (3) and (4),
- Gulf of Tonkin Resolution 2. War Powers Resolution 3. the veto has never been acted upon 4. courts tend to stay away from controversies between Congress and Exec., especially in war and peace issues.
The Framers of the Constitution viewed the principle of (1) and the related system of (2) as essential to limited government and individual liberty.
- separation of powers 2. checks and balances
Congress may not (1), (2), or (3), but it may give specific legislative power to (4),
- appoint officers 2. invest itself with executive power 3. delegate wholesale legislative power to the executive branch 4. regulatory agencies
(1) became a successful challenge to executive privilege of confidentiality when President Nixon refused to comply with a (2) for his (3).
- United States v. Nixon 2. subpoena duces tecum 3. Watergate Tapes
In 1988, the (1) tested the constitutionality of part of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. The part in question was the appointment of an (2) to investigate and prosecute high-ranking officials for federal crimes. The Court upheld that these should be appointed by (3), while dissenting judge Scalia argued this was an infringement of the President’s constitutionally-assigned (4) duties. The statute was not renewed after (5)’s investigation into President Clinton, which led to impeachment by the (6).
- Morrison v. Olson 2. independent counsel 3. federal judges 4. investigation/prosecution 5. Kenneth Starr 6. House of Representatives
Alongside separation of powers, (1), is another basic structural characteristic of the American constitutional system. This is the (2). Both the national government and states are (3) with their own (4) and (5). However, state governance must conform to the (6).
- federalism 2. division of power between federal government and state/local government 3. sovereign entities 4. constitutions 5. machinery of government (legislatures, exec. branches, court systems) 6. US Constitution
Federalism is in opposition to a (1), which vests all authority in the central government.
- unitary system
After the Revolutionary War, the (1) preceded that (2) as political communities, under the weak central government set out in the (3). When the Constitution was ratified, critics worried about the central government becoming too powerful so the (4) of 1789 gave powers to the states not given to the national government.
- states 2. Nation 3. Articles of Confederation 4. Tenth Amendment
As the national government’s role expanded and conflicts emerged with the states, (1) established the doctrine, based on (2), that state policies may not contravene with (3) national policies.
- Chief Justice John Marshall 2. the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, paragraph 2 3. constitutionally-consistent
The opposing doctrine, that states could (1) unconstitutional actions by the federal government, was set out by Thomas Jefferson in the (2). This extended to the court case (3) in which the Supreme Court rejected the idea that states could secede from the Union.
- nullify 2. Kentucky Resolution of 3. Texas v. White
Events of the 19th Century shaped cultural attitudes and brought citizens to more highly regard the national government, which in turn affected constitutional law. The Supreme Court switched gears from (1), in which nation and state are separate entities, to (2), in which there is considerable interaction. This change has also revealed (3), in which the federal government uses its superior fiscal resources to prod states into adopting policies (such as in 1980 when it forced states to (4) in exchange for (5).)
- dual federalism 2. cooperative federalism 3. coercive federalism 4. raise the drinking age to 21 5. continued highway funding
In (1), an attempt to make local officials carry out federal program by making local law enforcement to perform background checks on gun buyers, was struck down as unconstitutional.
Printz v. United States
Despite the Framers’ lack of anticipation for the rise of a pervasive national government and thus general lack of clearly enumerated individual rights, the following four rights were referred to explicitly: (1), (2), (3), (4)
- limitation on prosecution of treason 2. guarantee of habeas corpus 3. prohibition against bills of attainder 4. prohibition against ex post facto laws
(1) sought to narrowly define treason as (2) or (3). Such a crime would require (4) or (5). Punishment could be (6), but only (7).
- Article III, Section 3 2. levying war against the US 3. aiding/comforting enemies 4. two witnesses 5. confession in open court 6. decided by Congress 7. for the lifetime of the traitor (not descendents)
(1) sets out that the write of habeas corpus cannot be suspended except for (2). This details the prisoner’s rights not to be (3) or (4). The Supreme Court upheld these rights to (5) who were incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay.
- Article I, Section 9 2. public safety requirements 3. held unlawfully 4. denied due process of law 5. 9/11’s “enemy aliens”
(1) prohibit Congress and state legislatures from passing (2), which alter the legal status or consequences of an action already performed. To be invalidated in this way, the law must (3) and (4).
- Article I, Sections 9-10 2. ex post facto laws 3. be retroactive–apply to events that occurred before its passage 4. seriously disadvantage the accused, by more likely conviction or more severe consequences
In (1) a series of sexual assault convictions were reversed by the Supreme Court because the defendant was convicted under an amended law that changed the age of victims for “testimony-only” prosecution. This was an example of a decision relying on (2).
- Carmell v. Texas 2. Ex Post De Facto Clause
(1) also prohibit Congress from adopting (2), which impose punishment without the benefit of a trial in a court of law. This was seen after the Civil War in the striking down of statutes barring (3) without an oath that the person (4).
- Article I, Sections 9-10 2. bills of attainder 3. certain types of employment 4. an oath that the person had not sided with the Confederacy
The two bills of attainder struck down after WWII were in (1), in which three named federal employees were barred from benefits because they were “subversives,” and (2), in which members of the Communist party were barred from serving as officers in trade unions.
- United States v. Lovett 2. States v. Brown
(1) prohibits states from passing laws impairing the obligation of contracts. This (2) was important in early American (3), but in more modern times it is rarely used and has actually been cast aside, such as during the (4).
- Article I, Section 10 2. Contract Clause 3. economic development 4. Great Depression (postponement of foreclosures)
The (1) was drafted by (2) and added by the First Congress, urged by Thomas Jefferson, to help secure state ratification of he Constitution. It was originally intended to limit the (3), but in the late 19th Century the Supreme Court held that multiple provisions applied to (4). This addition to the constitution consists of the (5).
- Bill of Rights 2. James Madison 3. federal government 4. states as well 5. first ten amendments
6 main rights the First Amendment secures
- freedom of the press 2 freedom of speech 3. freedom of assembly 4. right to petition government for a redress of grievances 5. establishment of religion (Establishment Clause) 6. free exercise of religion (Free Exercise Clause)
The Free Exercise Clause provides virtually absolute protection for the right to express (1) and to (2). It also protects the right to (3) and (4) on behalf of religious organizations. It does not, however, permit (5).
- religious beliefs 2. assemble with other believers 3. solicit funds 4. proselytize 5. flouting of criminal laws applicable to everyone (substances, medical treatment, polygamy)
The (1) stated that in evaluating free exercise of religion under the First Amendment, the (2) should be applied, which mandates the claimant demonstrate a (3) and that (4), In response, the government must demonstrate a (5) and that it is (6). Under this test, an exception was carved out for certain (7).
- Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 2. Sherbert Test 3. sincere belief 4. the government has placed undue burden on that belief 5. compelling interest for its burden 6. using the least restrictive means 7. certain controlled substances in religious ceremonies
The (1) of the Constitution has been interpreted by the SC as establishing a (2), though there are arguments over how thick that wall should be. The three-part test to determine violation of this clause is called the (3), because it was articulated as part of the case (4). This test is administered by (5) and sometimes faces criticism.
- Establishment Clause 2. separation of church and state 3. Lemon test 4. Lemon v. Kurtzman 5. judges
Three prongs of the Lemon test
- Law/policy must have a secular legislative purpose 2. Principal effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religiou 3. Must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion
The separation of church and state has been debated for issues like (1) and (2). The (3) invalidated the former in the early 1960s and that decision has been (4) since then. However the (5) and (6) have not been seen to breach the Establishment Clause
- prayer/Bible study in schools 2. teaching of creation science 3. Warren Court 4. reaffirmed many times 5. placing of public school teachers in parochial schools to help disadvantaged kids 6. grants by the federal government for provisions to religious schools (alongside other public/private schools)
Freedom of speech and press are often referred to jointly as (1). “Redress of grievances” is also referred to as (2), a principal activity of interest groups.
- freedom of expression 2. lobbying
The outer bounds of free expression are marked where it can cause danger. In the past, this was referred to as the (1); in 1969 the SC reformulated it to speech that posed a danger of (2). There are also limits on expression in public, subject to (3) which may not be used in a discriminatory manner.
- clear and present danger 2. imminent lawless action 3. time, place and manner regulations
Freedom of expression does not include the right to commit (1) or (2), though suing for (3) is tough for public figures without showing (4).
- libel 2. slander 3. defamation 4. actual malice
(1) is not protected under the First Amendment; however, its definition relies on (2) and usually focuses entirely child pornography.
- obscenity 2. contemporary community standards
Expressions of hatred and bigotry are protected under the First Amendment except when using (1)–threats or insults likely to incite violence. (2) may not receive the same protection as other forms of speech.
- fighting words 2. purely commercial speech
Although the Supreme Court ruled in a case of (1) that rights are not shed at the school gates, some restrictions have been exercised on school speech, such as a (2) and a (3). The argument in favor of restriction is a (4).
- students protesting Vietnam at school 2. school newspaper story 3. shirt worn at a school event 4. significant, perhaps compelling interest
One example of expression stifled under the Clear and Present Danger doctrine was seen in (1), in which a member of the socialist party distributed literature urging Americans to resist the draft, which was seen to obstruct the war effort.
- Schenck v. United States
One common law doctrine has been grafted onto the First Amendment through judicial interpretation: (1), which seeks to stop publications from circulating material. This may not be used as a form of (2) but maybe used in threats to (3). One case in which this test did not stand up was in regard to NYTimes and the Washington Post publishing the (4), a study on US Decision Making Process on Vietnam Policy.
- prior restraint 2. censorship 3. national security 4. Pentagon Papers
Though not directly mentioned, implicit in the First Amendment is the (1), or the right to freely associate with people of one’s choosing. This was tested in both a case about the (2) and the (3); the latter stood up in court, and was a victory to (4).
- freedom of association 2. Jaycees prohibiting women 3. Boy Scouts of America prohibiting openly gay men as scout leaders 4. private organizations wishing to be protected from governmental intrustion
The second amendment refers to a need for a (1) as well as the (2), which the SC interpreted in 1875 as not guaranteeing (3) Accordingly in the modern era, the Court uniformly upheld (4). In a court case in 2008, that decision was (5).
- well-regulated Militia 2. right to keep and bear arms 3. individuals the right to possess guns 4. gun control legislation 5. reversed
However, in the court case in 2008 in which gun rights were said to be protected by the Second Amendment, (1) made clear that the Court did not cast doubt on legislation keeping guns out of the hands of (2) and (3), carried in (4), or (5).
- Justice Antonin Scalia 2. the mentally ill 3. felons 4. sensitive areas like schools and courts 5. laws imposing conditions/qualifications on the commercial sale of arms
The Third Amendment (1). It is not really relevant anymore but does show that (2).
- prohibits military authorities from quartering troops in citizens’ homes without their consent 2. the military is subordinate to civilian authority
The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from (1) conducted by (2). It was important in the case of (3), in the court held that evidence obtained in violation to the 4th could not be used in criminal prosecutions, and in (4), in which this protection extended to wiretapping.
- unreasonable searches and seizures 2. police and other government agents 3. Mapp v. Ohio 4. Katz v. United States
The Fifth Amendment protects, in part, (1). It requires the federal government to obtain an (2) from a (3) before trying someone for a major crime. It also prohibits (4), or being tried for the same crime twice. And it protects again (5), or “taking the Fifth.”
- rights of the accused 2. indictment 3. grand jury 4. double jeopardy 5. compulsory self-incrimination
The Fifth Amendment also protects against arbitrary use of (1), though it allows even (2) to take private property as long as it serves a (3). However, the Takings Clause also demands the government provide (4) for taking property. The Fifth Amendment also protects the right of (5), which applies to eminent domain because owners may challenge takings.
- eminent domain 2. private developers 3. public purpose 4. just compensation 5. due process of law
The Sixth Amendment is concerned exclusively with (1). Among these rights are (2), right of the defense to (3), (4), and (5), even if one must be provided at public expense.
- rights of the accused 2. speedy and public trial by impartial jury 3. cross-examine prosecutorial witnesses 4. compulsory process (right to subpoena witnesses) 5. right to counsel
The Seventh Amendment covers the (1). Originally it was interpreted as applying only to (2), but it has been expanded to (3). It does not apply to (4), and the jury can be as small as (5).
- right to a jury trial in civil suits 2. common law cases over $20 3. statutory rights 4. adjudication of certain issues by administrative/regulatory agencies 5. six people
The Eighth Amendment protects people accused of federal crimes from being required to (1), which is held by the Supreme Court to be “higher than necessary to ensure a defendant’s appearance for trial.” The Eighth does not (2), though. This amendment also protects against (3), including with regard to (4), or properties seized as penalties. It also covers (5) which was originally intended to prohibit torture, but has been extended to (6) and has been noted as having changing meaning in a maturing society.
- post excessive bail to secure pretrial release 2. require defendants be released on bail 3. excessive fines 4. forfeiture 5. cruel and unusual punishment 6. death penalty
The Ninth Amendment is an assurance that (1). Many rights are said to be implied though not explicitly stated, including (2).
- individual rights do not end at what is listed in the Constitution 2. presumption of innocence
The Fourteenth Amendment addresses (1) of former slaves freed by the (2). This amendment overturned (3), which not only defended (4) but also indicated that (5).
- legal status 2. Thirteenth Amendment 3. Dred Scott v. Sanford 4. slavery 5. blacks were not citizens of the US and possessed no rights or privileges but those the government chose to grant them
The Fourteenth Amendment also referred again to (1), which obliges government to provide (2) and a (3) before depriving citizens of life, liberty or property. This Due Process Clause has been invoked in (4) and in (5). The “property interests” part of this clause has also extended to government benefits, so that (6) without certain procedural safeguards.
- due process of law 2. fair notice 3. fair hearing 4. protections in judging juveniles “delinquent” and sending them to a reformatory 5. gathering evidence of criminal wrongdoing (police may not “shock the conscience” 6. welfare cannot be terminated
The Fourteenth Amendment has also made the (1) applicable to (2) using a (3) that places value on those protections that are essential to a “scheme of ordered liberty.” This is one reason that (4). The most recent incorporation came in 2010 with the Second Amendment, securing the right of homeowners to (5) and making states justify restrictions with strict scrutiny.
- Bill of Rights 2. states 3. doctrine of incorporation 4. federal governments assume a supervisory role over state/local governments 5. keep handguns for self-defense
Rights that are (1) are protected by a legal test of “strict scrutiny” in which government restriction must be (2) and (3). Other rights are protected less vigorously by (4), which requires government to show a (5). A third middle-ground test is called (6).
- fundamental 2. justified by a compelling interest 3. narrowly tailored 4. “rational basis test” 5. legitimate interest that is rationally related to the action taken 6. intermediate scrutiny
Under (1), government is barred from enforcing policies that are irrational, unfair, unreasonable or unjust, even if such policies do not (2). In (3) the Court struck down a state law setting maximum working hours in bakeries because it violated (4). While this idea has been repudiated by modern Court, substantive due process lives on under the constitutional (5).
- substantive due process 2.run counter to other specific constitutional prohibitions. 3. Lochner v. New York 4. liberty of contract 5. right of privacy
The right of privacy was first recognized in (1) as a (2), despite not being specifically mentioned in the (3). This case invalidated a state law banning the use of birth control devices. The right also extended in (4) to the right to have an abortion, though the view of the right as fundamental has been relaxed some and (5) have been upheld.
- Griswold v. Connecticut 2. fundamental right 3. Bill of Rights 4. Roe v. Wade 5. bans on partial-birth abortions
The right of privacy has also been extended to (1) and to the (2) in the form of refusing artificial means of prolonged life, though right of (3) has not been extended.
- private homosexual activity 2. right to die 3. physician-assisted suicide
Another function of the Fourteenth Amendment, founded in the idea that all individuals are equal before the law, extends (1). This right has been extended to (2) as well as “persons,” and has been used against (3). The Equal Protection Clause has also been invoked often in (4), especially in Brown v. Board of Education, which abolished (5).
- equal protection of the laws within a jurisdiction 2. corporations 3. discriminatory business regulation 4. civil rights of African-Americans and other minorities 5. racial segregation in public schools
Although the Supreme Court in 1873 attempted to limit the Equal Protection Clause to (1), it has been invoked by (2) and (3) to combat discrimination.
- African-Americans 2. women 3. gay rights activists
The Equal Protection Clause was also used to (1) state legislatures under the principle of “one person, one vote.”
The Fourteenth Amendment also prohibits (1), though it cannot reach private actors. However, private discrimination can be reached by civil rights legislation, such as with (2), which prohibits racial discrimination for public accommodation.
- state-sponsored discrimination 2. Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
One of the most difficult equal protection problems involves (1), efforts to assist women and minorities in employment, government contracting and higher education. Though the Court does not (2) the concept altogether, it does (3), upholding some uses of it while striking down others.
- affirmative action 2. repudiate 3. strictly scrutinize
The (1), (2), (3) and (4) Amendments focus on the right to vote. The original Constitution opened voting mainly to (5) but the franchise has become more inclusive. The (6), passed by Congress, helps prevent discrimination in the voting process.
- Fifteenth 2. Nineteenth 3. Twenty-Fourth 4. Twenty-Sixth 5. “freeholders” (white male landowners 21+) 6. Voting Rights Act of 1965
In (1) a female high school student brought suit against Virginia Military Institute for admitting only men. The Supreme Court agreed, ruling that Virginia had fallen short of establishing (2) for the discrimination.
- United States v. Virginia 2. exceedingly persuasive justification
The Establishment Clause of the Constitution was important to the Framers who sought to escape state religion like (1). The “wall” refers to (2), not (3), though some interpret it both ways.
- Henry VIII’s Church of England
- government interference with religion
- vice versa
There is no direct verbage giving the Supreme Court the right to (1), which is called (2). This power was “taken” under the (3) in the case of (4). So Obama’s statement regarding Obamacare that (5) is incorrect!
- review Congressional decisions
- judicial review
- Marshall Court
- Marbury v. Madison
- it is unprecedented for the Supreme Court to overturn law made by a democratically-elected Congress
Despite Congress denying Obamacare (formally called the (1)) was a (2) to avoid lost support, it was upheld under Congress’ (3). As a provision under the (4) it was shot down, because citizens cannot be forced to buy certain goods/services. (Prius? broccoli?)
- Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
- Taxing Clause
- Commerce Clause
(1) is generally considered the author of the Constutution and Bill of Rights, while (2) is considered the father of the Declaration of Independence.
- James Madison
- Thomas Jefferson
The Constitution is a (1), not a grant of (2). (3) are written laws, while (4) are laws expected as given just because you exist.
- limiting document
- positive laws
- natural laws
Considered by prof. a “legal brief in support of treason,” the (1) lists rights (2) and thus unalienable.
- Declaration of Independence
- endowed by the Creator (not king)
The Preamble has no (1) but establishes (2) the Constitution was established–“(3)”
- force of law
- to form a more prefect Union
Congresspeople only have to be (1) of the states in which they are elected, which opens the door for (2). They also need not be (3), though this restriction does extend to the President.
- natural-born citizens
Article I includes representation based on population, with slaves counting as (1) despite that they could not vote. This demonstrated the tug-of-war of power between the (2) and (3) and has more recently been echoed in (4). This partial counting of slaves went away in the (5).
- 3/5 of a person
- immigration issues
- 14th Amendment
Before 1913, Senators were elected by (1) rather than vote, while the House of Representatives was considered (2). State governors can appoint (3) in the case of vacancies, but not (4).
- state legislatures
- the representatives of the people
Article I, Section V gives the (1) the power to impeach, and (2) the power to try impeachments. Both (3) and (4) were Presidents who were impeached.
- House of Representatives
- Bill Clinton
- Andrew Johnson
The only five wars ever officially declared by Congress
- War of 1812
- Mexican-American War
- Spanish-American War
Congress is not able to pass laws for (1) of citizens, but is only able to link lawmaking to its (2). (3) can pass general laws, like anti-prostitution laws. Congress has used the (4) to prevent interstate transport of women for “immoral purposes”
- “general welfare”
- enumerated powers
- Mann Act (White Slave Traffic Act)
3 fundamental rights covered in Article I, Section 9
- Habeas Corpus
- Bills of Attainder
- Ex post facto laws
Also covered in I, 9 is the inability of government employees taking (1), or profits above and beyond their (2). Gifts given to Presidents are considered property of the (3) or (4).
Article II. Originally there were no term limits on Presidents, and (1) had four of them before the (2) put in term limits. The idea of an (3) is based on concern that the President would otherwise only pander to heavily populated states.
- 22nd Amendment
- electoral college
The only 4 enumerated powers of the Pres
- commander-in-chief (can send troops in to “armed conflict”)
- reprieves/pardons of felons
- power to temporarily fill Senate vacancies during recess (often used)
- required to give “state of the union” update “from time to time”–originally sent by letter to Congress
Article IV is based on (1) among states, meaming states must recognize one another’s rules, such as with (2). Citizens also must be (3) among states, and (4) must be recognized.
- full faith and credit
- gay marriage
- treated the same
- admittal of new states
SB1070 is said to be rooted in Article IV’s promise of (1) of states.
- protection from invasion
Article V covers guidelines of (1) and (2). The former must be done in 7 years but originally had no limits. The latter requires government officers to swear an oath to uphold the constitution.
- makin amendments
- Constitutional supremacy (Supremacy Clause)
When setting out the constitution, Thomas Jefferson expected a (1).
revolution every 25 years
Using executive power to curtail gun ownership would not be constitutional, but this is only a problem if someone steps in to stop the action. What are two examples of executive power being used unconstitutionally?
- FDR and Japanese internment camps
- Truman attempting to nationalize railroads/steel during strikes
3 ways the professor roots the Second Amendment as protection against the government
- Was obviously important (Amendments in order of importance)
- Constitution is a document limitin the government, and this was included as part of that
- Jefferson’s 25-year revolution comment