Short Questions

Question 1

What powers Congress use to enact divorce laws in DC?

Answer 1

General federal police power for DC (as well as military bases and federal lands)

Question 2

State the power: Congress pays for highways

Answer 2

Spending Power; and

Commerce Clause

Question 3

What power is used?: Federal Income Tax

Answer 3

16th A: Taxing Power

Question 4

What source of power: Congress conditions aid to states for medical programs on state funding of AIDS research

Answer 4

Spending Power

Question 5

What power: Congress adopts a tax to regulate banknotes rather than to raise revenue

Answer 5

Power to coin money

Question 6

What power: Congress prohibits hunting on federal land

Answer 6

Property power

Question 7

What power: Congress bars racial discrimination at places of public accommodation

Answer 7

Commerce Clause

Question 8

What power: Congress requires all employers, including state governments, to comply with federal minimum wage and overtime provisions

Answer 8

Commerce Clause

Question 9

Under the Due Process clause: Do you need a lawyer for ALL procedures where do you face deprivation of a protected benefit?

Answer 9

No, there is no across-the-board right to counsel under the Constitution in any event.

In determining the procedures required under the Due Process Clause, the courts consider: (i) The importance of the individual’s interest that is involved, (ii) The value of specific procedural safeguards of the individual’s interest, and (iii) The government’s interest in fiscal and administrative efficiency.

Question 10

Can you tax exports?

Answer 10

No,

The federal taxing power does NOT allow Congress to tax exports. Neither Congress nor the state can tax exports to foreign countries

Question 11

Remember these examples of violation of the establishment clause by schools:

Answer 11

1. A school policy whereby students themselves decide whether to hold a student invocation ceremony prior to athletic events.
2. Posting of the Ten Commandments in a public school pursuant to legislature’s declaration that the posting is for a secular purpose.
3. A voluntary moment of silent prayer or meditation at the beginning of the schoolday.
4. A program whereby, once weekly, the schoolday ends one hour early so that interested students may participate in voluntary religious classes in the classroom (NOT AN ACTUAL VIOLATION)

Question 12

May a State require federal employees who drive as part of their jobs to have a valid driver’s license, even when performing job duties?

Answer 12

No

The states may not regulate the federal government without the federal government’s consent. Thus, instrumentalities and agents of the federal government are immune from state regulations relating to performance of their federal functions.

Question 13

Statute forbids the killing of cows in a ritualistic manner. Unconstitutional?

Answer 13

Yes, it only targets ritualistic slaughter

The Supreme Court has stated that the amendment prohibits the government from outlawing religious beliefs and it has struck down a statute similar to the one here that outlaws conduct merely because it is religious (i.e., ritual slaughter of cows is prohibited but not other instances of cow slaughter), at least when the law is not necessary to achieve a compelling interest.

Question 14

What conditions a restriction of speech on public forums (a park) needs to fulfill to be valid?

Answer 14

Strict scrutiny

To be valid, government regulations on speech and assembly in public forums must be content-neutral and narrowly tailored to serve an important government interest, and must leave open alternative channels of communication.

Question 15

City ordinance requires permits for public gathering, the mayor has discretion to issue or deny such permits based on his judgment of whether the speech would be in the public interests

Constitutional?

Answer 15

No, because the ordinance is void on its face.

Although a municipality can place reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on certain aspects of speech, it may not adopt a regulation that gives officials broad discretion over speech issues. If a statute gives licensing officials unbridled discretion, it is void on its face, and speakers need not even apply for a permit.

Question 16

State health inspector denies permit to federal installation that doesn’t follow the more strict state health code.

Is the state law valid?

Answer 16

No, The state law violates the principles of intergovernmental immunity as applied to the manager.

The states have no power to regulate the activities of the federal government unless Congress consents to the regulation. Thus, instrumentalities and agents of the federal government are immune from state regulations that interfere with their federal functions. Here, the regulation clearly interferes with the manager’s duties to run the refinery. While it might be argued that the manager agreed to comply with the state regulations, because he allowed the state inspection, nothing indicates that Congress consented, and so the state regulation cannot be applied to the manager.

Question 17

Can a foreign government sue a state?

Can a Native American tribe?

Answer 17

No, because the Eleventh Amendment bars actions brought by a foreign government against a state government.

and

No, because the Supreme Court has held that, for Eleventh Amendment purposes, a Native American tribe is treated as a private party, and so it is barred from bringing an action against a state government in federal court.

Question 18

Can a Senator sue in order to challenge the constitutionality of a statute that violates the constitution? Does he have standing?

Answer 18

No, The Senator will not succeed because she lacks standing to challenge the statute.

The Supreme Court has held that members of Congress lack standing to challenge a law authorizing the President to exercise a line item veto (such as the statute here), reasoning that the injury is not concrete and personal, but rather is institutional in that it is shared by all members of Congress. [Raines v. Byrd (1997)]

Question 19

Can a citizen sue to challenge an expenditure created by congress to study snowflakes because it is unnecessary and pointless?

Answer 19

He does not have standing

Generally, taxpayers lack standing to challenge federal appropriations. There is an exception for expenditures violating the Establishment Clause, but that is not the case here.

Note that in any case it is necessary that the P show that he is a taxpayer

Question 20

Due Process Clause under 14thA. Is it proper under Due Process that a public employee has a hearing to defend his position regarding grounds for dismissal after being terminated?

Answer 20

No, it would be unconstitutional for violation of procedural due process. His termination did not satisfy due process.

Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a public employee who is subject to removal only for “cause” under a statute, ordinance, or personnel document has a property interest in continued employment that cannot be taken away without due process of law. The Court has held that such an employee generally must be given notice of the charges and a pretermination opportunity to respond to those charges. The employee must also be given a subsequent evidentiary hearing regarding the termination (with reinstatement if the employee prevails).

Question 21

A police officer cadet was fired without a hearing or without knowing the reasons for the decision. There are no rules created that recognize those rights to her. There is also no rules indicating that she can only be fired by “cause”

What she could argue to force the hearing to be made?

Answer 21

She needs to argue that no police officer had ever been terminated during probation except when there is an actual cause

The fact that no police officer has been terminated during probation except for cause may be enough for the graduate to show that she has a right to a hearing. Continued public employment may be a protected property interest if there is a clear practice or mutual understanding that an employee can be terminated only for “cause.” If the graduate can establish this, she will be able to force the city to give her a reason for her termination and a hearing.

Question 22

Under current Supreme Court precedent, which of the following is a sufficient justification for a government program differentiating on the basis of a person’s race?

1. A program based on race in order to promote diversity
2. A program of minority hiring to correct the effects of past discrimination in hiring by a government agency.
3. A program laying off white teachers before minority teachers with less seniority, in order to achieve racial balance among the faculty.
4. A redistricting of legislative boundaries for the purpose of placing racial or ethnic minority voters in the majority.

Answer 22

A program that seeks to correct pas discrimination

A program of minority hiring to correct the effects of past discrimination in hiring by a government agency is permissible. Under the Equal Protection Clause, a government classification based on race is constitutional only if the government can show that the discrimination is necessary to achieve a compelling interest. The Supreme Court has held that remedying past discrimination is a compelling interest and that the type of hiring program described in this choice was necessary to achieve that interest.

Therefore SCOTUS believes that this is not a compelling interest:

1. Diversity in the student body
2. Giving score to racial diversity in college application as the sole factor to define admissions
3. Racial balance in public employees
4. A redistricting of legislative boundaries for racial or ethnic minority in the majority

Question 23

is a school teacher job considered a self-governing position in relation to whether a state law can discriminate again non-citizens?

Answer 23

Yes, a school teacher would be considered a self-governing position

The state’s action would be reviewed under the rational basis standard. Although state classifications based on alienage are generally suspect, a state may reserve a government position for citizens if it is related to self-governance, involves policymaking, or requires exercise of important discretionary power over citizens. In these cases, only a rationality test is used. A public school teacher at the primary and secondary school level performs an important governmental function (e.g., he influences students’ attitudes about government, the political process, citizenship, etc.), and therefore the exclusion of aliens is rationally related to the state’s interest in furthering educational goals. [Ambach v. Norwick (1979)]

Question 24

What is the protection created to whom under the Privileges and Immunities Clause (Article IV)

Answer 24

States may not discriminate against nonresidents regarding fundamental rights—i.e., those involving important commercial activities (such as pursuit of a livelihood) or civil liberties—absent a substantial justification: i.e., the state shows that nonresidents either cause or are part of the problem the state is attempting to solve, and that there are no less restrictive means to solve the problem. For example, states may not charge nonresident commercial fishermen substantially more for a license than they charge residents absent substantial justification.

This protection is NOT extended to Corporations and to Aliens

Question 25

What is the protection created to whom under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment?

Answer 25

**States may not deny their own citizens rights of national (Federal) citizenship,** such as the right to petition Congress for redress of grievances, the right to vote for federal officers, the right to enter public lands, the right to interstate travel, and any other right flowing from the distinct relation of a citizen to the United States Government. **Corporations, aliens, and legal residents** are not citizens of the United States and are not protected by the Fourteenth Amendment Privileges or Immunities Clause

Question 26

What would need to prove a city, to show that an ordinance restricting porn theathers is constitutional?

Answer 26

That the ordinance is made to serve a substantial governmental interest and does not unreasonably limit alternative avenues of communication. A zoning ordinance prohibiting the location of adult bookstores and theaters in areas close to residential zones and restricting such theaters to a limited area of the city is permissible if it is designed to promote substantial government interests (e.g., property interests) and does not prohibit all such entertainment in the community. [City of Renton v. Playtime Theaters, Inc. (1986)] Because the city’s ordinance is a legitimate part of its zoning scheme and does not prevent the businesses from operating in other areas of the town, it will probably be upheld. Even if it is arguably content-based, is permissible because it is based on the legitimate local interest of preserving property values from the secondary effects of such businesses

Question 27

Which of the following suits would not fall within the United States Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction under Article III, Section 2? 1. A suit seeking to assert the interest of state citizens in retaining diplomatic relations with a foreign nation. 2. A suit seeking to protect a state’s timber from allegedly illegal cutting by residents of another state. 3. A suit seeking to enjoin enforcement of an allegedly unconstitutional executive order that will greatly limit the state’s authority to make policy decisions regarding admission to state universities. 4. A suit by the United States Government seeking to enjoin state construction of a bridge over a navigable waterway.

Answer 27

A suit seeking to assert the interest of state citizens in retaining diplomatic relations with a foreign nation. The suit to assert state citizens’ rights is not within the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction. Under Article III, Section 2, the United States Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and in which a state is a party. In (A), the state is not really seeking to advance or protect any interest of its own. Rather, the state is attempting to act in parens patriae (i.e., to act as a representative of its citizens, thereby asserting their interests). Thus, the state is not an actual party in this case in the sense that the Supreme Court has traditionally required to justify exercise of original jurisdiction. (B) would be a proper case for institution under the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction because it involves an attempt by a state to protect its own economic interest rather than to assert the interests of its citizens in a representative capacity. Similarly, (C) sets forth a situation in which a state is attempting to defend its asserted right to render decisions affecting admissions policies relative to its own state universities. Thus, in (C) the state is an actual party to the case. Finally, (D) describes an attempt by the federal government to prevent state construction of a bridge (presumably pursuant to the admiralty power). Clearly, this case involves an alleged grievance that will be directly committed by a state. Therefore, the state is an actual party.

Question 28

Does the Contract Clause limits state or federal powers?

Answer 28

The Contract Clause does not limit federal power, only state power, The Clause bans only substantial state interference with existing contracts (i.e., destruction of almost all of a party’s rights under a contract)

Question 29

When a liquidated damages clause is acceptable?

Answer 29

A liquidated damages clause is enforceable if: (i) damages are difficult to ascertain at the time of the making of the contract, and (ii) the damages are a reasonable forecast of compensatory damages.

Question 30

What does it mean when the law says that a regulation of speech must be viewpoint neutral?

Answer 30

it cannot permit presentation of one side of an argument and exclude the other. A regulation of speech on a particular topic in a nonpublic forum may not limit the speech to one position, to the exclusion of other positions. The term content neutral refers to a regulation that is neutral as to subject matter as well as to viewpoint.

Question 31

Under the rules the Supreme Court currently uses to determine whether an abortion regulation is valid, the government may not impose an undue burden on a woman’s ability to obtain an abortion \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. 1. After viability 2. During the first and second trimester 3. During the first trimester 4. Before viability

Answer 31

Before viability Under the rules the Supreme Court currently uses to determine whether an abortion regulation is valid, the government may not impose an undue burden on a woman’s ability to obtain an abortion before viability. The choices involving trimesters are incorrect. In the past, the Supreme Court differentiated its approach to abortion regulation based on the trimester of pregnancy involved, but the Court no longer uses this approach. After viability, the government may prohibit abortion unless the woman’s health is threatened.

Question 32

Under the one person, one vote principle \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. 1. regarding state government districts, almost exact mathematical equality between districts is required 2. regarding state government districts, a variance of more than 3% is invalid 3. regarding congressional districts, a variance of 10% is permissible 4. regarding congressional districts, almost exact mathematical equality between the congressional districts within a state is required

Answer 32

Regarding congressional districts, almost exact mathematical equality between the congressional districts within a state is required under the one person, one vote principle. The rationale is that voting is a fundamental right, diluting one person’s vote compared to another’s raises equal protection concerns, and there is no compelling interest that would justify more than a couple of percentage points difference from district to district. Regarding state government districts, almost exact mathematical equality between districts is NOT required under the one person, one vote principle. In state government districts, the variance from district to district may not be unjustifiably large. But this is a much more lenient standard than the almost exact mathematical equality standard. Regarding congressional districts, a variance of 10% is NOT permissible. In congressional districts almost exact mathematical equality is required and a variance of even a couple of percentage points might be ruled invalid. Regarding state government districts, a variance of more than 3% is NOT invalid under the one person, one vote principle. The variance may not be unjustifiably large, but a variance of even 16% has been found to be valid.

Question 33

A state enacted health care legislation to provide comprehensive insurance coverage on prescription drugs for all of its citizens. The legislation provided state reimbursement for the cost of all prescription drugs with one exception—a drug commonly known as the “abortion pill,” which was prescribed to induce early-term abortions without surgery. All other prescription drugs for pregnant women were covered. A pregnant woman who had received a prescription for the drug and was subsequently denied reimbursement filed suit in federal district court challenging the constitutionality of the legislation. Which of the following best describes the appropriate standard by which the court should review the constitutionality of the state legislation? 1. Because the state legislation does not improperly discriminate against a suspect class or burden a fundamental right, the woman will have to show that the legislation is not rationally related to any legitimate state interest. 2. Because the state legislation discriminates against women by not providing coverage for all of their prescription medications as it does for men, the state will have to demonstrate that the legislation is substantially related to an important government interest. 3. Because the state legislation impinges on a woman’s constitutional right to choose whether to terminate her pregnancy, the state will have to show that the legislation does not constitute an undue burden on that right. 4. Because the state legislation discriminates against women seeking to exercise their fundamental right to terminate their pregnancy in favor of women incurring the regular expenses of pregnancy, the state will have to demonstrate that the legislation is necessary to vindicate a compelling state interest.

Answer 33

**Because the state legislation does not improperly discriminate against a suspect class or burden a fundamental right, the woman will have to show that the legislation is not rationally related to any legitimate state interest.** The court should require the woman to show that the legislation is not rationally related to any legitimate state interest. The Supreme Court has held that the right of privacy includes the right of a woman to have an abortion under certain circumstances without undue interference from the government. However, neither federal nor state government is required to grant medical benefit payments for abortions, even if it grants benefits for childbirth services. The Court has held that **a state’s failure to provide funding for a woman’s abortion decision does not constitute interference with her constitutional right to make that decision; hence, such legislation is valid unless the plaintiff can show that it is not rationally related to a legitimate state interest.** [See Maher v. Roe (1977)] (B) is incorrect because the legislation does not create a gender-based classification that would require application of an intermediate scrutiny standard. The fact that the restriction applies to a drug prescribed only to women does not establish gender-based discrimination. [See Geduldig v. Aiello (1974)] (C) is wrong because, as discussed above, legislation excluding abortion-related expenses from government funding has been held not to constitute interference with a woman’s constitutional right to choose to have an abortion. Therefore, the undue burden test does not apply. (D) is incorrect for the same reason as in (C), and also because it does not state the standard that the Court uses to evaluate abortion regulations. **Regulations restricting pre-viability abortions will be invalidated if they constitute an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to have an abortion**. [Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992)]

Question 34

The police department of a small city has jurisdiction within the city limits and over a defined portion of the surrounding rural communities within the county. A farmer lives in one of the rural communities receiving police protection from the city. The farmer does not pay any tax to the city directly, but a portion of the farmer’s county property tax is turned over by the county to the city in order to support the city’s police department. The farmer’s property was vandalized several times over the past several months, and the farmer became unhappy with the police protection that the city was providing. After his complaints to the police department and city hall did not improve the situation, the farmer wanted to vote against the mayor in the next election, but a city ordinance provides that only residents of the city may vote in city elections. If the farmer brings a suit to compel the city to allow him to vote in the city’s mayoral election, is he likely to prevail? 1. No, because the resident voting limitation appears to be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. 2. No, but only if the city can prove that the resident voting limitation, which affects a fundamental right, is necessary to a compelling interest. 3. Yes, because the resident voting limitation violates the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 4. Yes, because the resident voting limitation constitutes an instance of taxation without representation.

Answer 34

**No, because the resident voting limitation appears to be rationally related to a legitimate government interest.** (A) The farmer is not likely to prevail because the rational relationship test applies. Although the right to vote is a fundamental right, laws prohibiting nonresidents from voting are generally valid, provided that they meet the minimal scrutiny, or “rational basis,” standard. Under this standard, a law will be upheld as long as it is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Limiting the voters in a city’s mayoral election to residents of the city serves the interests of efficiency and prevents persons with little personal interest in the city from voting. Thus, a court would likely uphold the ordinance. Answer (B) is incorrect because it sets out the strict scrutiny standard. While voting is a fundamental right and governmental action affecting fundamental rights generally is reviewed under strict scrutiny, that is not the case with laws limiting voting to residents. Answer (C) is incorrect. The Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a state from denying its citizens certain privileges or immunities of national citizenship. The voting restriction here does not affect any national right, except, perhaps, the right to travel. Even if that right is impacted here, as discussed above, the Supreme Court has approved limiting the right to vote to residents. Answer (D) is incorrect. While “no taxation without representation” was a rallying cry for the war of independence, it is broader than the constitutional doctrines applicable here

Question 35

A state’s constitution authorizes a state reapportionment board to redraw state legislative districts every 12 years. During the most recent reapportionment process, consultants had provided the board with two alternative plans for reapportionment. One plan provided for districts with less than a 3% difference in proportional representation between districts. The other plan was drawn up to conform state legislative districts as nearly as possible to county borders, resulting in differences in proportional representation between districts of up to 12%. The current apportionment of legislative districts results in differences of up to 15% between districts. The board ultimately selected the reapportionment plan based on county borders, and this plan was approved by the state legislature. A Caucasian resident and registered voter of the state brought a constitutional challenge to the reapportionment in federal court. His claim is based on the fact that, as a result of the plan that the board selected, the percentage of the African-American voting population in the district in which he lives increased from 45% to 55%. Had the other plan been selected, the percentage would have been unchanged in his district. In the absence of a federal statute applicable to the state, is the resident likely to prevail? 1. Yes, because an alternative plan with more equal apportionment is available. 2. Yes, because any legislative apportionment discriminating in favor of or against racial minority groups is subject to strict scrutiny, and there is no evidence of past discrimination or any other compelling state interest to justify adopting the plan. 3. No, because preserving political subdivisions is a legitimate state interest that justifies the plan’s variance in representation. 4. No, because the reapportionment plan results in less of an overall variance between districts than the current legislative apportionment.

Answer 35

**No, because preserving political subdivisions is a legitimate state interest that justifies the plan’s variance in representation.** The resident will not prevail because the reapportionment plan does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been interpreted to prohibit state dilution of the right to vote, so that whenever a governmental body establishes voting districts for the election of representatives, the number of persons in each district may not vary significantly. However, for the purpose of electing representatives to a state or local governmental body, the variance in the number of persons included in each district can be greater than that permitted for congressional districts. If the deviation from mathematical equality between districts is reasonable and tailored to promote a legitimate state interest, the law establishing the districts will likely be upheld. The Court has held that maintaining the integrity of local political subdivision lines when establishing legislative districts is a legitimate state interest, as long as the final apportionment is substantially based on population. [See Mahan v. Howell (1973)—16% variance upheld] Here, the reapportionment attempted to conform legislative districts as nearly as possible to county borders and had a maximum variance of 12%. Thus, it will probably withstand the resident’s challenge. (A) is incorrect because the fact that an alternative plan has a lesser variance between the districts does not make the selected plan invalid. Because it satisfies the less stringent requirements for state and local governmental bodies discussed above, the plan does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. (B) is incorrect because race can be considered in drawing up new voting districts, even though it cannot be the predominant factor. If a plaintiff can show that a redistricting plan was drawn up predominantly on the basis of racial considerations (as opposed to the more traditional factors, such as compactness, contiguity, and community interest), the plan will violate the Equal Protection Clause unless the government can show that the plan is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest (such as eliminating past discrimination). However, if a legislative redistricting map can be explained in terms other than race, the Court will not find that the law constitutes racial discrimination on its face. In such a case, the person attacking legislative districts as being based on racial classifications would have to show that district lines were drawn predominantly for a racially discriminatory purpose. Here, as discussed above, the state’s interest in preserving political subdivisions (counties) is a legitimate government interest, and the resident will be unable to prove that this was not the predominant factor in the reapportionment. (D) is incorrect because the fact that the reapportionment plan reduces the existing population variance among districts does not make it constitutionally valid. The plan must satisfy the equal protection requirements established by the Court in apportionment cases.

Question 36

During a presidential campaign, a candidate’s campaign manager secretly engaged in activities that may have violated both state and federal laws. After the candidate was elected President, the FBI investigated the manager’s activities as well as whether the President was involved. After the campaign manager was indicted in federal court, but before trial, the President granted a blanket pardon to the campaign manager for “all federal crimes that may have been committed in the past 20 years.” Is the pardon valid?

Answer 36

Yes, because the pardon power is an unqualified power (except as to impeachment). Blanket pardons are valid. Presidents may pardon offenses that occurred before the President took office. The pardon is valid. Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution grants the President the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. This pardon power is not subject to control by Congress, and it includes the power to commute a sentence on any conditions the President chooses (as long as the conditions do not offend some other constitutional provision). The power to pardon is a constitutional power, superior to laws found in statutes.

Question 37

A state legislature enacted a statute providing for loaning certain textbooks on secular subjects to students in all public and private schools. In accordance with the statute, the state board of education distributed textbooks to a private school that offered religious instruction and admitted only Caucasian students. Which of the following is the strongest argument against the constitutionality of free distribution of textbooks to the students at the private school? 1. A state may not constitutionally aid private schools through distribution of textbooks. 2. Segregation is furthered by the distribution of textbooks to these students. 3. The distribution of textbooks advances religion because it is impossible to separate their secular and religious uses. 4. The distribution of textbooks fosters excessive government entanglement with religion.

Answer 37

**Segregation is furthered by the distribution of textbooks to these students.** No, if it can be prove that the state provision of textbooks to the segregated private school violates the Equal Protection Clause by giving state support to a racially segregated educational process. This may not be a winning argument but it is clearly the best of the lot. (A) is wrong because it is far too broad. A state may, under many situations, aid a private school through distribution of textbooks. This may be permissible even if the private school is religiously affiliated, as discussed below. (C) and (D) are parts of the test for violation of the Establishment Clause. The Supreme Court has held that a state lending textbooks on secular subjects to all students, including those at religious schools, does not violate the Establishment Clause. Thus, (C) and (D) are incorrect.

Question 38

Tax exemption on a news magazine if they talk about a minority. Constitutional?

Answer 38

NO, Press can be taxed, but not for content, that creates a restriction on content on the matter of publication that cannot be justified absent a compelling interest. A compelling interest regarding minority would only be arguable when there is an attempt to remedy past discrimination

Question 39

State purchases land to expand a museum owned by a private party. The museum implements racists policies. There is state involvement?

Answer 39

No. State must actively, facilitate, encourage or authorize the acts of the private party to be considered as state action

Question 40

Tabacco State wants to stop growing it because is dangerous for health. It forbids the growth of tobacco statewide, even when 90% of the tobacco grown on the country comes from that state. A federal statute exists incentivizing the growth of tobacco with tax benefits. Is the state regulation constitutional?

Answer 40

Under the dormant commerce and the supremacy clause, the statute would be stricken as unconstitutional since: 1. Congress under the commerce clause can regulate intrastate activities (growth of tobacco when they could affect interstate commerce) 2. Congress enacted a federal statute that contradicts the state statute

Question 41

state legislature proposes a law that will ban porn theaters. A porn theaters owner would be affected if this law is implemented. Can he sue the to prevent this?

Answer 41

No, the court will dismiss the action for want of a case or controversy There is no case or controversy present. The controversy is not ripe since the legislature could simply not enact the statute.

Question 42

Is the spending power limited to only the deliberation of congress?

Answer 42

NO. The spending power is not absolute: 1) They cannot spend on things that **are unconstitutional** (discrimination); 2) the spending need to be **reasonably related to the federal purpose** (Fed Gov imposing drinking age on South Dakota)

Question 43

President issues an executive order forbidding commerce with a country under a federal act. Valid?

Answer 43

Yes, the power to regulate foreign commerce lies on congress, and congress may delegate this power to the president

Question 44

Federal acts determine that illegal aliens need to be retained by state law officials if they found that an arrested person is an ilegal allien. The state doesn't agree with the statute and doesn't comply with it Can the Fed Govt force the state to comply?

Answer 44

No, beacuse the 10th amendment prevents the federal goverment from requirng state official to act

Question 45

Kid in religious school gets punished on class, recieved paddling. Constitutional under which amendment?

Answer 45

Best answer question The punishment here is constitutional because it does not violate any constitutional provision. The best answer reflecting this reasoning is (D)—**there was no Eighth Amendment violation here**—because paddling students as a disciplinary measure has not been found to be cruel and unusual punishment.

Question 46

The United States Surgeon General was cited for contempt for refusing to answer questions as part of a Senate investigation regarding an issue in the Food and Drug Administration. His contempt citation will be dismissed under which argument?

Answer 46

**Best answer :** The questions do not relate to any matter concerning which the Senate may legislate. His contempt citation will be dismissed if he can show that the questions do not relate to any matter concerning which the Senate may legislate. **Congress’s power to investigate is limited to matters on which it can legislate.** Therefore, if the Surgeon General can demonstrate that the questions concerned matters upon which Congress could not legislate (not an enumerated power under Article I, Section 8), then this contempt citation must be dismissed