Untitled Deck Flashcards
Bob overhears Bill instructing Bill’s oldest daughter to “hide the body in the trunk.” The prosecutor wants to offer Bob’s testimony about Bill’s statement to prove that Bill murdered Jan. Hearsay?
A. No, because Bill didn’t utter an assertion.
B. No, because whether or not Bill’s statement is an assertion, the prosecutor isn’t offering Bill’s statement for its truth.
C. Yes, because Bill’s instruction is an out of court asserting offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
D. Yes, because all out of court statements are hearsay.
B. No, because whether or not Bill’s statement is an assertion, the prosecutor isn’t offering Bill’s statement for its truth.
Bob overhears Bill instructing Bill’s oldest daughter to “hide the body in the trunk.” The prosecutor wants to offer Bob’s testimony about Bill’s statement to prove that Bill had criminal intent. Hearsay?
A. No, because Bill didn’t utter an assertion.
B. No, because whether or not Bill’s statement is an assertion, the prosecutor isn’t offering Bill’s statement for its truth.
C. Yes, because Bill’s instruction is an out of court asserting offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
D. Yes, because all out of court statements are hearsay.
B. No, because whether or not Bill’s statement is an assertion, the prosecutor isn’t offering Bill’s statement for its truth.
Bob overhears Bill instructing Bill’s oldest daughter to “hide the body in the trunk.” The prosecutor wants to offer Bob’s testimony about Bill’s statement to prove that the police had probable cause to search Bill’s trunk. Hearsay?
A. No, because Bill didn’t utter an assertion.
B. No, because whether or not Bill’s statement is an assertion, the prosecutor isn’t offering Bill’s statement for its truth.
C. Yes, because Bill’s instruction is an out of court asserting offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
D. Yes, because all out of court statements are hearsay.
B. No, because whether or not Bill’s statement is an assertion, the prosecutor isn’t offering Bill’s statement for its truth.
Bob overhears Bill instructing Bill’s oldest daughter to “hide the body in the trunk.” The prosecutor wants to offer Bob’s testimony about Bill’s statement to prove that Bill’s daughter was an accomplice. Hearsay?
A. No, because Bill didn’t utter an assertion.
B. No, because whether or not Bill’s statement is an assertion, the prosecutor isn’t offering Bill’s statement for its truth.
C. Yes, because Bill’s instruction is an out of court asserting offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
D. Yes, because all out of court statements are hearsay.
B. No, because whether or not Bill’s statement is an assertion, the prosecutor isn’t offering Bill’s statement for its truth.
Bob overhears Bill instructing Bill’s oldest daughter to “hide the body in the trunk.” The prosecutor wants to offer Bob’s testimony about Bill’s statement to prove that Bill hid Jan’s body in the trunk. Hearsay?
A. No, because Bill didn’t utter an assertion.
B. No, because the prosecutor isn’t offering Bill’s statement to prove its truth.
C. Yes, because Bill’s instruction contains an out of court assertion offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
D. Yes, because all out of court statements are hearsay.
C. Yes, because Bill’s instruction contains an out of court assertion offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
To what purpose does Chief Justice Marshall put the Article III provision granting federal courts jurisdiction over cases “arising under the Constitution” in Marbury v. Madison?
A. None - he doesn’t mention this part of Article III.
B. To argue that federal courts are meant to apply the Constitution in at least some cases; and doing that may require evaluating “conflicts” between the Constitution and other potentially applicable laws.
C. To argue that the Constitution gives Congress plenary authority to
determine the scope of federal court jurisdiction.
D. To counter Madison’s argument that the case is actually governed by the Supremacy Clause.
B. To argue that federal courts are meant to apply the Constitution in at least some cases; and doing that may require evaluating “conflicts” between the Constitution and other potentially applicable laws.
Which of the following is an argument for adopting a “checks
and balances” rather than a “strict
separation” approach to structuring the federal government?
A. “Checks and balances” creates clearer boundaries between the powers of the different branches than does “strict separation.”
B. “Strict separation” leaves too much room for judicial manipulation of the
separation of powers.
C. Judicial enforcement of “checks and balances” is impossible.
D. “Strict separation” is unworkable because the powers of the three branches will necessarily overlap in some cases.
D. “Strict separation” is unworkable because the powers of the three branches will necessarily overlap in some cases.
Which of the following is not one of Marshall’s arguments for judicial review in Marbury v. Madison?
A. Article III’s provision of federal court jurisdiction over cases “arising under the Constitution” contemplates judicial review.
B. The Supremacy Clause’s structure – mentioning the Constitution before
federal statutes, treaties, or state law – suggests that the Constitution is
meant to trump “ordinary law”.
C. Judges frequently must resolve conflicts of potentially applicable law to decide cases, so resolving a conflict is between the Constitution and a
federal statute is an ordinary part of judging.
D. Judicial review is mandated by the text of Article III.
D. Judicial review is mandated by the text of Article III.
Suppose that, despite the federal government’s traditionally exclusive and plenary power over immigration, the Texas Governor decides that federal immigration authorities are not restricting illegal crossings of the Texas-Mexico border aggressively enough. He announces that Texas will stand up its own border patrol under the sole command of the Governor and orders those agents to make at least twice as many arrests at the border as their federal counterparts. Which theory best supports the Governor’s actions?
A. The Compact Theory.
B. The Anti-Compact Theory.
C. Popular Sovereignty.
D. Consequentialist Moral Theory.
A. The Compact Theory.
Suppose Congress passed a statute making it a felony to transport one ounce or more of marijuana across state lines; further suppose that it is legal to possess up to 2 ounces of marijuana in both Tennessee and Kentucky. If I’m caught crossing the TN-KY border with 1.5 oz. of weed for purely personal use, and as a defense to prosecution I argue that the federal statute is beyond Congress’s Commerce power, which of the following is the prosecution’s best response?
A. The federal statute regulates the channels of interstate commerce.
B. The federal statute regulates the instrumentalities of interstate commerce.
C. The federal statute regulates conduct bearing a “substantial relationship” to interstate commerce and/or is “necessary and proper” to commercial regulation.
D. Congress’s power under the Necessary and Proper Clause is effectively unlimited in
regulating domestic activity.
C. The federal statute regulates conduct bearing a “substantial relationship” to interstate commerce and/or is “necessary and proper” to commercial regulation.
Reasons why agencies interpret statutes may include:
A. Expanding agency power, filling statutory gaps, and providing industry guidance.
B. Filling statutory gaps, resolving statutory ambiguities, and implementing an express delegation of interpretive authority from the Supreme Court.
C. Resolving statutory ambiguities, filling statutory gaps, and implementing an express delegation of interpretive authority from Congress.
D. Expanding agency power, resolving statutory ambiguities, and fulfilling
presidential campaign promises.
C. Resolving statutory ambiguities, filling statutory gaps, and implementing an express delegation of interpretive authority from Congress.
Suppose the President issues an executive order requiring that a court, when reviewing a challenge to an agency’s interpretation of a statute, must uphold the agency’s interpretation if it
(1) reasonably follows relevant Supreme Court interpretations of the same or similar statutes and
(2) results in regulatory actions that are revenue neutral and don’t diminish state power. Applying
Loper Bright, the Supreme Court would most likely:
A. Uphold the Executive Order because it is narrower than the Chevron doctrine.
B. Strike down the Executive Order because it reinstates the Chevron doctrine.
C. Uphold the Executive Order because it does not override independent judicial power to
resolve questions of law.
D. Strike down the Executive Order because mandatory deference undermines independent
judicial power to resolve questions of law.
D. Strike down the Executive Order because mandatory deference undermines independent
judicial power to resolve questions of law.
What is the best argument against characterizing Canadian-Americans as a “suspect class”?
A. There isn’t a lengthy history of government mistreatment of the group.
B. The group is amorphous, making it difficult to determine who is and isn’t a member.
C. Canadian-Americans do not suffer a lack of influence in the ordinary political process.
D. A and C.
D. A and C.
Suppose that you’re in my first-year Civil Procedure class at the University of Texas Law School and I require that you type the following statement at the bottom of your law
school exam: “I certify that my answer is under 3,000 words long, that I have followed all requirements of the UT Honor Code, and that I have not employed any inappropriate or unprofessional methods (such as generative AI) in completing this exam.” The exam
instructions make clear that failure to type the certification will result in a grade of “F”. First Amendment problem?
A. Yes, because compelled speech always violates the First Amendment.
B. No, because compelled speech is accepted in the public classroom environment.
C. Maybe, since the certification does contain an evaluative statement about generative AI with which you might strongly disagree.
D. Probably not, because your blind-graded, unpublished Civ Pro exam isn’t a context in which you should expect to freely transmit a political or personal-identity message.
D. Probably not, because your blind-graded, unpublished Civ Pro exam isn’t a context in which you should expect to freely transmit a political or personal-identity message.
Suppose that Tennessee passes a law that requires everyone born on or before January 1, 1965, to prominently display a sticker that says “Boomer” on the back of their vehicles. (Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that this is intended to alert other drivers and law
enforcement that the car is likely driven by a senior, based on the idea that seniors are worse drivers on average than younger people.) What’s the best constitutional challenge to this (ridiculous) law?
A. First Amendment – it’s compelled speech with which the subject of regulation may deeply disagree (unlike just displaying a license plate number), in a context (public display of bumper stickers) that comes with a reasonable expectation of message autonomy.
B. Equal Protection - those impacted by the law (people over 60 years old) are (or should be) a suspect class, and there’s no way this promotes a compelling state interest.
C. Who cares – the law doesn’t even satisfy rational basis review.
D. Supremacy Clause – Congress has exclusive authority to regulate vehicles in interstate commerce.
A. First Amendment – it’s compelled speech with which the subject of regulation may deeply disagree (unlike just displaying a license plate number), in a context (public display of bumper stickers) that comes with a reasonable expectation of message autonomy.
Suppose that the President issues an Executive Order requiring that all members of Congress must wear a wristband displaying the number of times they’ve voted to raise the debt ceiling in order to attend the state of the Union address. What’s the best
constitutional challenge?
A. First Amendment – it’s compelled speech with which the subject may deeply disagree (emphasizing the debt ceiling over other issues), in a context (nationally televised speech)
that comes with a reasonable expectation of message autonomy.
B. Equal Protection - those impacted by the law (members of Congress) are (or should be) a suspect class, and there’s no way this promotes a compelling state interest.
C. Who cares – the law doesn’t even satisfy rational basis review.
D. Separation of Powers – Allowing the Executive to impose requirements on Congress that must be satisfied before it can discharge its constitutional functions undermines Congress’s independence and power to check the President.
D. Separation of Powers – Allowing the Executive to impose requirements on Congress that must be satisfied before it can discharge its constitutional functions undermines Congress’s independence and power to check the President.
