← Con law cases Test
5 Written Questions
5 Matching Questions
- United States v. Alfonso Lopez, Jr. (1995)
- Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918)
- Medellín v. Texas (2008)
- Boumediene v. Bush (2008)
- Korematsu v. United States (1944)
- a Neither Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals, 2004 nor the President's Memorandum to the Attorney General (2005) constitutes enforceable federal law that pre-empts state limitations on the filing of habeas corpus petitions.
- b Foreign terrorism suspects held at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba have constitutional rights to challenge their detention in United States courts.
- c The power of Congress to regulate activities extends only to those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. The Act neither regulates commercial activity, nor contains a requirement that the possession be connected in any way to interstate commerce.
- d The power of Congress to regulate commerce does not include the power to regulate the production of goods intended for commerce.
- e Legal restrictions that curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are subject to the most rigid scrutiny. But, pressing public necessity may sometimes justify such restrictions.
5 Multiple Choice Questions
- U.S. citizens designated as enemy combatants by the Executive Branch have a right to challenge their detainment under the Due Process Clause.
- Under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution, a State must provide the same benefits to new residents as it does to other residents.
- Trying citizens in military courts is unconstitutional when civilian courts are still operating. Trial by military tribunal is only constitutional when there is no power left but the military, and the military may only validly try criminals as long as is absolutely necessary.
- State law is preempted if it stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. However, the Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court) will not interfere where there is a permissible and good basis for the state law.
- Non-coercive financial incentives by Congress are a constitutional exercise of the taxing and spending power.
5 True/False Questions
Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States (1964) → Legal restrictions that curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are subject to the most rigid scrutiny. But, pressing public necessity may sometimes justify such restrictions.
Wickard v. Filburn (1942) → Congress may regulate the activities of entities totally apart from interstate commerce, if those activities affect interstate commerce.
Ex parte Quirin (1942) → The Court will not set aside acts ordered by the President concerning acts of war, as that power is invested to the President under the Constitution.
Camps Newfoundland/Owatonna, Inc. v. Town of Harrison (1997) → Congress may regulate the ability of commercial institutions to deny service on the basis of race under its power to regulate interstate commerce.
Prize Cases (1863) → It is the Congressional prerogative "to declare war" under Article 1, Section: 8, Clause 11. However, the President has the ability to take action when attacked.