Exam 2

Question 1

President does not possess lawmaking authority in

Answer 1

domestic arena - reserved for congress

Question 2

the President is the

Answer 2

sole organ of authority in foreign affair

Question 3

Youngstown v. Sawyer (1952) - Concurring Opinion by Justice Jackson

Answer 3

3 zones of authority
When president acts pursuant to congressional authorization
- Authority at its maximum
- Includes all presidential powers plus congressional powers
When President acts in absence of congressional grant or denial
- Can only rely on his own presidential powers
- “Zone of Twilight” - he and Congress may possess concurrent authority
- Tests of power will rely on contextual circumstances
When President acts against will of Congress
- Authority at its lowest
- Relies on presidential powers minus congressional authority

Question 4

U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright (1936)

Answer 4

Holding:
Delegation of lawmaking authority to the President is constitutional because the President is the sole organ of authority in foreign affairs

Question 5

Youngstown v. Sawyer (1952)

Answer 5

Holding:
Truman’s seizure of steel mills is unconstitutional because presidential authority in foreign affairs does not extend into domestic arena

Question 6

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004)

Answer 6

Holding:
Indefinite detention of U.S. citizen as an enemy combatant is unconstitutional because citizens must be afforded opportunity to challenge status and detention

Question 7

Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2015)

Answer 7

Holding:

Question 8

The Prize Cases (1863)

Answer 8

Holding:
Presidential blockade is constitutional because President possesses authority to suppress insurrection

Question 9

Ex parte Milligan (1866)

Answer 9

Holding:
Writ of habeas corpus is granted because military tribunals have no jurisdiction over citizens while U.S. courts are open

Question 10

Habeas corpus

Answer 10

a court order to the martial or warren of a prison to turn over a prisoner

Question 11

Ex parte Quirin (1942)

Answer 11

Holding:
Jurisdiction of military tribunal is constitutional because Quirin is an unlawful combatant who violated the laws of war

Question 12

Korematsu v. United States (1944)

Answer 12

Holding:
Relocation of Japanese individuals is constitutional in order to protect U.S. national security

Question 13

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

Answer 13

Holding:
Maryland statute taxing the national bank is unconstitutional because bank was chartered under the Necessary and Proper Clause for Congress

Question 14

Missouri v. Holland (1920)

Answer 14

Holding:
Congressional statute enforcing Migratory Bird Treaty is constitutional because of the Necessary and Proper Clause and states do not have exclusive control over birds

Question 15

Who possesses police power?

Answer 15

States possess exclusive police power
The federal government does not have a police power

Question 16

Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918)

Answer 16

Holding:
Congressional statute regulating child labor is unconstitutional because it violates state police power under the Tenth Amendment

Question 17

National League of Cities v. Usery (1976)

Answer 17

Holding:
Amendment to FLSA is unconstitutional because traditional governmental functions of states are exclusively governed by states

Question 18

Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (SAMTA) (1985)

Answer 18

Holding:
Congressional statute (and action by Labor Department) is constitutional. National League of Cities v. Usery is overturned.

Question 19

Chisholm v. Georgia (1793)

Answer 19

Holding:
Lawsuit commenced by Chisholm allowed to proceed. States are not immune from individual suits.
Implications of Decision:
The 11th amendment to the Constitution explicitly overturns the decision in Chisholm v. Georgia

Question 20

New York v. United States (1992)

Answer 20

Holding
Congressional statute requiring states to create their own waste disposal facilities is unconstitutional because federal government cannot compel state legislation

Question 21

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

Answer 21

Holding:
The federal permit supersedes state law because Congress possesses authority over interstate commerce and navigation is considered commerce

Question 22

U.S. v E. C. Knight Co. (1895)

Answer 22

Holding:
Federal action to prevent monopoly is invalid because manufacturing is not part of interstate commerce

Question 23

Stafford v. Wallace (1922)

Answer 23

Holding:
Congressional statute regulating the meatpacking industry is constitutional because their stockyards are part of interstate commerce
- STREAM OF COMMERCE -

Question 24

Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935)

Answer 24

Holding:
National Industrial Recovery Act is declared unconstitutional because Congress cannot delegate lawmaking authority to the Executive

Question 25

The “Four Horsemen” of the Supreme Court

Answer 25

Butler, Van Devanter, McReynolds, Sutherland

Question 26

“Switch in Time that Saves Nine”

Answer 26

Roberts switches his vote and sides with liberal justices to uphold New Deal statutes

Question 27

NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel (1937)

Answer 27

Holding: The National Labor Relations Act is constitutional because manufacturing directly affects the stream of commerce which Congress may regulate

Question 28

U.S. v. Darby Lumber (1941)

Answer 28

Holding: Congressional statute is constitutional because Congress has authority to prohibit shipment of goods across state lines. Hammer v. Dagenhart is overturned.

Question 29

Wickard v. Filburn (1942)

Answer 29

Holding: Congressional statute is constitutional because the over production of wheat intended for home use substantially affects interstate commerce

Question 30

United States v. Lopez (1995)

Answer 30

Holding: The Gun Free School Zone Act is unconstitutional because mere possession of a gun is not related to interstate commerce

Question 31

Three areas of Congressional Authority over Interstate Commerce

Answer 31

established by Lopez Regulate the channels of interstate commerce (movement of stuff from one place to another) Regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce (including people) (manufacturing, production, labor) Regulate activities that substantially affects interstate commerce

Question 32

United States v. Morrison (2000)

Answer 32

Holding: The Violence Against Women Act is unconstitutional because Congress does not possess authority to regulate non-economic activities under the Commerce Clause

Question 33

Gonzales v. Raich (2005)

Answer 33

Holding Application of federal statute prohibiting marijuana use is valid and supersedes state law. Consumption of marijuana for medicinal purposes is within the authority of Congress to prohibit.

Question 34

Champion v. Ames (1903)

Answer 34

Holding Congressional statute banning interstate sale of lottery tickets is constitutional because commerce includes anything of monetary value and regulation includes power to prohibit

Question 35

Civil Rights Cases (1883)

Answer 35

Holding The civil rights acts are unconstitutional bc the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment does not apply to private individuals

Question 36

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US (1964)

Answer 36

Holding Civil Rights Act of 1964 is constitutional bc Congress has authority to prohibit racial discrimination under the Commerce Clause

Question 37

Implication of Champion and Heart of Atlanta Motel

Answer 37

Police power Used to protect the health, safety, and morality of citizens Retained exclusively by the states Federal Police Power (?) Seems very similar Congress has authority to prohibit in order to protect the health, safety, and morality of citizens Can only do these things under the Commerce Clause If it crosses state lines Regulation of interstate commerce

Question 38

Cooley v. Board of Wardens (1852)

Answer 38

Holding State law regulation use of harbor pilots is constitutional bc Congress has chosen not to exercise its authority

Question 39

Cooley v. Board of Wardens (1852)

Answer 39

Implication Legal doctrine called the “Dormant Commerce Clause”- if congress does not act then state may pass legislation, only for commerce clause

Question 40

Southern Pacific Railroad Co. v. Arizona (1945)

Answer 40

Holding State law regulating length of trains is unconstitutional because it substantially disrupts the free flow of interstate commerce

Question 41

Granholm v. Heald (2005)

Answer 41

Holding State law regulating out of state wine shipments is unconstitutional because it places a discriiminatory burden on interstate commerce / non uniform burden on interstate commerce

Question 42

National Fed of Ind. Business v. Sebelius (2012)

Answer 42

Holding The ACA is unconstitutional under the commerce clause, but it is constitutional under Congress’s Tax and Spend authority because of John Roberts.