POS 4606 Unit 2 and 3 Take Home Exam

President Roosevelt's judicial reorganization plan was motivated, in large part, by disagreement with the Supreme Court over one particular provision of the Constitution that grants power to Congress.
1. Identify the disputed constitutional provision.
2. Make your best argument that the Supreme Court's interpretation of that provision was correct.
3. Make your best argument that President Roosevelt's interpretation of that provision was correct.
Click the card to flip 👆
1 / 48
Terms in this set (48)
President Roosevelt's judicial reorganization plan was motivated, in large part, by disagreement with the Supreme Court over one particular provision of the Constitution that grants power to Congress.
1. Identify the disputed constitutional provision.
2. Make your best argument that the Supreme Court's interpretation of that provision was correct.
3. Make your best argument that President Roosevelt's interpretation of that provision was correct.
1. Commerce Clause
2. The Court decided that Congress' Commerce Clause powers did not apply to the executive branch and it was beyond the scope of power delegated by Congress.
-President Roosevelt's main argument was whether CONGRESS had the power to do what it was doing under the Commerce Clause.
The "Rehnquist Revolution" ended with Gonzales v. Raich.
1. Briefly describe the facts and the ruling in Gonzales v. Raich.
2. Do you agree with the Court's interpretation of the Commerce Clause in this case? Why or why not?
3. What method of interpretation did you rely on to reach your conclusion - originalism or purposivism?
1. There were conflicting legislation between the federal government and the state of California about the provisions of possessing and cultivating weed. The federal government seized weed owned and cultivated by the plaintiff as a violation of the Federal Controlled Substances act, even though the plaintiff had the right to possess it from the California Compassionate Use Act. The plaintiff's argued that the Controlled Substances Act exceeded Congress' authority to regulate interstate commerce granted by the Commerce Clause
2. The decision upheld that Congress did have the power to regulate interstate commerce of weed even if it was not bought or sold because it interferes with the economy. I do not agree with this decision because in my opinion, the economy is made up of buying and selling goods. In this case, there was no spending or producing weed to sell that would effect the economy
3. Purposivism because although not explicitly stated in the Commerce Clause, I believe that producing a product only for one's consumption does not necessarily impact the economy.
John Marshall is referred to as the "Great Chief Justice." Identify and describe at least two qualities or characteristics that made John Marshall influential. Describe at least one other justice you have learned about this semester and explain what qualities or characteristics have led that justice to be influential, either as a colleague or as a developer of the law.
John Marshall was an influential Chief Justice because he possessed the ability to explain clearly the justifications of the Court's conclusion on cases and had a great ability to persuade his colleagues.
Another justice that was influential to the Supreme Court was Justice Black. He was so influential due to his forceful writing and his consistent interpretations of the Constitution.
Which of the following powers does the Constitution explicitly grant to the President? Select all that apply.
-Take care to faithfully execute the laws
-Appoint judges
-Commander in Chief
Where does the Constitution vest the executive power of the United States?
- In the president
What did President Roosevelt's Executive Order 9066 do?
It gave the Secretary of War authority to remove people of Japanese ancestry from military areas in the United States.
Justice Jackson's Youngstown Steel concurrence sets forth a three part test that judges often use to assess whether a president's exercise of executive power is constitutional. According to Jackson's test, when are courts most likely to uphold executive action?
when the executive branch acts with congressional authorization
In Ex Parte Milligan, how many of Lincoln's five appointees voted to uphold the President's authority to impose military law whether or not the President acted with congressional authorization?
0
Did President Truman ask Congress to declare war against North Korea?
No, but Congress approved his use of force.
Which of the following is not a way that modern Supreme Court jurisprudence enforces federalism-based limits on Congress' power?
It enforces implicit limitations on congressional power when states and private actors are regulated evenly
Why did President Truman seize the steel mills? Select all that apply.-Seizing the mills was more attractive to Truman politically than going through the procedures Congress established. -The President was concerned that a strike would endanger American troops in Korea. -The President wanted to avoid a strike.In US v. Burr, what reasons did John Marshall give for requiring President Jefferson to hand over documents? Select all that apply.-Presidents must follow the law. -Presidents are not kingsWhat branch of the federal government employs the most people?executiveWhat far reaching legal arguments did the government's attorney make before Judge Pine in the Steel Seizure case? Select all that apply.-The inherent powers conferred by Article II justified the seizure. -The President is not required to follow the Bill of Rights. -The President did not need approval from Congress to seize the mills.According to Rehnquist, what real world considerations influenced the Supreme Court's decision to rule against Truman in the Steel Seizure cases? Select all that apply-The litigation was conducted in Washington, D.C. The public did not strongly support the U.S. war effort in the Korean Conflict.What is true of the actions challenged in both Hirabayashi and Korematsu? Select all that apply.-They were confirmed by Congress. -They were authorized by the executive branch. -They limited the civil liberties of Japanese Americans.What was the first Supreme Court decision to hold that the Constitution protects some claims of executive privilege?US v. NixonWhat Supreme Court decision first recognized that the president must comply with a subpoena in a state criminal proceeding?Trump v. VanceAfter Youngstown was decided, the justice who wrote the majority opinion in that case hosted a dinner party at his home for the purpose of making peace between President Truman and the Supreme Court. He served the president's alcoholic beverage of choice - bourbon. Which justice hosted the party?Hugo BlackSelect all that are true of both Trump v. Vance and Trump v. Mazars.-The Supreme Court considered separation of powers concerns in both cases. -They both sought documents created before Trump became president.What Supreme Court decision required the President to establish some process for enemy combatants detained at Guantanamo Bay?Hamdi v. RumsfeldWhat was different about the War on Terror than the Civil War or World War II? Select all that apply.-The War on Terror lacked an objective that could be easily measured. -The War on Terror was not waged against nation states.What Supreme Court decision did Congress seek to undo when it passed the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005?Rasul v. BushSelect all that are true of the Supreme Court's decision in Ex Parte Milligan.-The case involved actions that took place during the Civil War. -The case considered whether Milligan could be tried by military commission.What did the Military Commissions Act of 2006 attempt to do?Strip federal courts of habeas jurisdiction over petitions filed by Guantanamo detaineesWhich former Supreme Court justice is famous for hailing states as "laboratories of democracy"?Louis BrandeisWhich of the following did the Supreme Court say in US v. Nixon? Select all correct answers.-Executive privilege is based upon the Constitution's structure. -Courts may review a president's claim of executive privilege.How has the Supreme Court used the anti-commandeering doctrine?To limit federal power in areas where states traditionally exercise sovereign controlWhich of the following is (are) true of Chief Justice Warren? Select all that apply.-Warren's prior service as a Republican governor did not accurately predict his voting record as a justice. -Warren came to view the Supreme Court as a protector of the public -Warren is recognized as an effective ChiefSelect all of the following statements that are true of federalism.-The Supreme Court sometimes invokes the concept to limit the power of the national government. -The concept is recognized by the Tenth Amendment. -It describes the division of power between national and state governments.What was not a purpose of the White Paper the Heritage Foundation published while the Affordable Care Act was being debated in the Senate?To rally nationwide support for the ActWhich of the following cases did not invoke the anti-commandeering doctrine?McCulloch v. MarylandWhich future Supreme Court justice worked as a special prosecutor to the Senate's Watergate Special Prosecution Force?Steven BreyerWhich group filed NFIB v. Sebellius, challenging the Affordable Care Act?A group of Republican Attorneys GeneralWhich of the following is true of the Supreme Court's decision in NFIB v. Sebelius?It upheld the individual mandate under Congress' taxing power.Which of the following is not true of the power reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment?It includes the power to regulate interstate commerce.Both the Steel Seizure case and US v. Nixon were decided by the Supreme Court very quickly. In both cases, about how much time elapsed between the first event that prompted the litigation and the day the Supreme Court issued its decision?2 monthsThe divided vote (and legal reasoning) of one justice in the NFIB v. Sebelius decision surprised almost all Supreme Court watchers. (Some were delighted. Others were aghast.) Who is that justice?John RobertsPresident Washington first coined the term "executive privilege."FalseThe Supreme Court has never decided whether a former president may keep documents secret by claiming executive privilege.trueJustice Kagan recused from NFIB v. Sebellius because she served as Solicitor General while her office defended the law challenged in this case.falseBush Administration attorneys relied on the Supreme Court's World War II precedents in Ex Parte Quirin and Johnson v. Eisentrager to advise the President that enemy combatants captured during the War on Terror and held off American soil could not petition American courts for habeas relief.trueWhen the President and Congress disagree about whether the president must give information to Congress, Congress always files a lawsuit asking the judiciary to resolve the disagreementfalseConsider whether the Supreme Court had the final word in interpreting the Constitution in Korematsu v. United States. (1) Summarize the Court's ruling in Korematsu. (2) Explain why Mr. Korematsu's conviction was later overturned. (3) Summarize the reason the Supreme Court finally gave in acknowledging that Korematsu was wrongly decided and explain whether you think the Court was correct in the latter case1. The Court ruled in Korematsu that the exclusion order did not go beyond the President's and Congress's war powers. The Court supported this ruling by stating that "all restrictions which curtain the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect" and are suspect to tests of the most rigid scrutiny. 2. Mr. Korematsu's conviction was later overturned because a pro bono legal team presented evidence that the government's legal team withheld or destroyed evidence and information that proved that Japanese Americans were not a threat to the U.S. 3. The Court finally renounced Korematsu in the case of Trump v. Hawaii by holding that Korematsu was wrong because it specifically targeted a specific group of people solely for their race or minority status. I believe the Court was correct in the latter case since the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment protects racial and minority groups from exclusion and discrimination.The Supreme Court (so far) has had the final word in interpreting the Constitution in Bush v. Boumediene. Is the decision an important victory for civil liberties, or is it a terrible blow to separation of powers? Make your best argument in support of each side. (2 points for each argument)On one hand, the decision was a victory for protecting the 5th amendment, which protects the right to not be deprived of liberty without due process of the law, because it provided protection to individuals who were deemed as enemy combatants and gave them the opportunity and resources to receive due process and have the right to petition for habeas. Before Bush, no court had ever held that noncitizen enemy combatants could invoke habeas to challenge their detention. Congress passed a statute confirming that was the rule and denying the Supreme Court the power to review the statute. The Court reviewed the statute and invalidated it, holding (for the first time ever) that nonenemy combatants can take advantage of the privilege of habeas and challenge their convictions in federal court.Consider US v. Nixon. (1) (1 point) Describe the result the Supreme Court reached. (2) (1 point) The justices initially agreed on what the final result in the case should be, but they disagreed on the reasoning that justified the result. Explain whether you think the opinion was more (or less) powerful because the justices compromised on their reasoning to issue a unanimous opinion. (3) (2 points) Once the justices agreed to base their reasoning on the Constitution, explain the competing constitutional interests they balanced in this case.1.In US v. Nixon, the Court decided that the Constitution does give the President a presumptive executive privilege but the Court determines whether or not the privilege applies by balancing the potential need for executive privilege and the need for judicial process. 2. The decision was more powerful as unanimous because all of the justices issued the same opinion as the highest authority of the judicial system. Therefore, the decision was strong standing and provided more opportunities for the Court to expand on executive privilege and whether or not it is granted. 3. The competing constitutional interest they balanced in the case is executive privilege and also the potential evidence of an impeachable offense the Court must balance. Additionally, the separation of powers since the Court also has to check the powers of the executive, the President, which is essential to the checks and balances approach to limiting and delegating powers.Consider the Tenth Amendment: (1) (2 points) What does it mean and why is it important to the concept of federalism? (2) (2 points) Do you agree with George Mason that it was a necessary amendment, or with James Madison that it was superfluous? Why?1. The 10th Amendment essentially states that all the powers in the Constitution not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states and or to the people. This amendment is a fundamental principle of federalism since federalism is the division of powers between the federal, state, and local governments. Therefore, this amendment secures the right of the states to govern themselves while also upholding federal government laws. 2.I agree with Mason's view that the 10th Amendment was necessary because as time goes on, governments tend to get bigger in size and power unless specifically limited. Furthermore, having a written amendment limiting the federal government's power and securing the states' powers is essential to the upkeep of federalism.The NFIB litigants argued that the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate was unconstitutional because it exceeded Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. (1) Explain what the mandate required (1 point) and how you would have decided the issue in light of Wickard v. Filburn and Gonzales v. Raich (2 points). (3) (1 point) Identify the method of interpretation you applied and explain how it helped you reach your result.1. The individual mandate of the ACA required people to purchase health insurance in an effort to reduce the free-rider problem in the health care system. 2. I would have decided that enforcing the individual mandate was in the power of Congress' Commerce Clause powers because in Wickard and Gonazles, the Court upheld that Congress has broad commerce powers. Buying insurance effects the economy, locally and nationally, so 3. Congress has authority over it. The method I implemented was originalism because I utilized the formal and explicit reading of the Constitution's Commerce Clause powers.