Question 1

Nevada passed a law banning all commercial billboards along state highways to improve the appearance of the environment. If this law were to be challenged, which of the following would a court examine to determine if the law is constitutional?

Accepted Answer

Courts evaluating the constitutionality of a law will examine whether it furthers a legitimate state interest, whether it directly and materially advances that interest, and whether it reaches no further than necessary to achieve that interest. Therefore, all of the choices A, B, and C are correct.

Question 2

Midori owned a home in Lexington, Kentucky. The city wanted her property to build a parking garage as part of a redevelopment. Even though Midori did not want to move, the city took her house (and provided her with compensation)through the power of

Accepted Answer

Eminent domain is the power of the government to take private property for public use, as long as just compensation is provided. In this case, the city wanted to build a parking garage as part of a redevelopment project and exercised its power of eminent domain to take Midori's property.

Question 3

A woman wishes to attend an all-male, publicly supported college. She claims the college is violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. What level of scrutiny will the court use when deciding this case?

Accepted Answer

Intermediate scrutiny is applied in cases involving discrimination based on gender. The court will examine if the college's policy serves an important governmental objective and the means chosen are substantially related to achieving that objective.

Question 4

The issue of the constitutional protections afforded flag burning was addressed in

Accepted Answer

The case of Texas v. Johnson involved the burning of an American flag during a protest, and the subsequent arrest and conviction of the protester for violating a Texas state law that made it illegal to desecrate a venerated object. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the protester, stating that flag burning was a form of symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment.

Question 5

A form of due process that holds that certain rights are so fundamental that the government may not eliminate them is referred to as

Accepted Answer

Substantive due process holds that certain rights are so fundamental that the government may not eliminate them, even through the procedural protections provided by due process. This includes rights such as the right to privacy, freedom of speech, and equal protection under the law. Procedural due process, on the other hand, refers to the procedures that must be followed by the government when depriving someone of life, liberty, or property. Judicial restraint refers to the idea that judges should defer to the decisions of other branches of government when possible. Eminent domain is the government's power to take private property for public use, but with just compensation to the owner.

Question 6

If Oregon passed a statute that prohibited liquor stores from engaging in any kind of advertising, that statute would be

Accepted Answer

Prohibiting liquor stores from engaging in any kind of advertising would be a restriction on commercial speech, which is protected under the First Amendment. Such a statute would likely be deemed an unreasonable restriction on free speech by the courts.

Question 7

The Supreme Court's approach during the period from the 1950s through the 1970s in deciding cases on constitutional grounds is described as

Accepted Answer

The period from the 1950s through the 1970s is widely regarded as a period of judicial activism, during which the Supreme Court played an active role in shaping social and political policy through its decisions on constitutional grounds. This period saw landmark cases such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and Roe v. Wade (1973), where the Court took an active and expansive view of its powers to protect individual rights and liberties.

Question 8

Lori and her friends burn an American flag as an act of political protest. Lori is arrested for violating a state law that prohibits flag burning. The Supreme Court has ruled that laws making it illegal to burn an American flag

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court has ruled in Texas v. Johnson (1989) and United States v. Eichman (1990) that laws making it illegal to burn an American flag violate a person's right to freedom of speech protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, choice C is the correct answer.

Question 9

The doctrine of preemption is based on the Constitution's

Accepted Answer

The doctrine of preemption is based on the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, which establishes federal law as the supreme law of the land. This means that if there is a conflict between state and federal law, federal law trumps state law. Preemption allows the federal government to preempt or override state laws in areas that fall within its authority.

Question 10

Thompson raised 80 acres of corn, most of which he used to feed his own cattle. He locally sold what he did not use. Based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Wickard v. Filburn,

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court's ruling in Wickard v. Filburn established that Congress can regulate any activity that has a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce. While Thompson's farming may seem like a purely local activity, the fact that he is selling some of his corn locally means that it has an effect on the national market for corn. Therefore, Congress can regulate his farming activity.

Question 11

A government action interfering with a fundamental right will be judged using

Accepted Answer

A government action that interferes with a fundamental right, such as the right to free speech or the right to vote, will be judged using strict scrutiny. This means that the government must have a compelling interest in the action and the action must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. This is the highest level of scrutiny used by courts, and is used to protect fundamental rights.

Question 12

Some presidents have argued that they should have the power of a line-item veto, which is the authority to nullify or cancel specific provisions of a bill, usually a budget appropriations bill, without vetoing the entire legislative package. A line-item veto is a challenge to which of the following principles?

Accepted Answer

The line-item veto challenges the principle of separation of powers by giving the executive branch the ability to invalidate specific provisions of a bill that has been passed by the legislative branch. This power blurs the founding fathers' intention of the checks and balances.

Question 13

Judicial review can best be described as the power of a federal court to

Accepted Answer

Judicial review allows federal courts to declare a statute or governmental action unconstitutional and void. This gives the court the power to review and interpret the Constitution, making sure that all other branches of government do not overstep their bounds and infringe on citizens' rights. Options A and D do not accurately describe judicial review, while option B is partially accurate but does not encompass the full extent of the power.

Question 14

Adam moved into an apartment complex. The rules of the complex prohibit unmarried men and women from living together in the same apartment. When Adam's friend, Diane, moved into the apartment he was served with eviction papers. Adam claims the apartment complex is violating his constitutional rights since it allows married couples to live together. Is Adam right?

Accepted Answer

The key issue here is that constitutional protections, such as equal protection rights, typically apply to actions taken by the government, not to policies of privately-owned entities like apartment complexes. Therefore, while Adam may feel unfairly treated, his constitutional rights are not being violated by the apartment complex's rules.

Question 15

When Congress passed a criminal statute called the "Gun-Free School Zones Act," the Supreme Court ruled that

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court ruled that the Gun-Free School Zones Act exceeded Congress's power under the Commerce Clause, making the law invalid. This decision was made in the case United States v. Lopez (1995).

Question 16

Generally, constitutional protections do NOT apply to

Accepted Answer

Constitutional protections only apply to actions taken by the government, not actions taken by privately owned businesses or individuals.

Question 17

A local school district had a policy that it would not hire bus drivers who had been convicted of driving while under the influence of alcohol. Sven claimed that this practice violated the Equal Protection Clause by unfairly excluding everyone who had been found guilty of DUI. Which standard will the court use to review the bus company's practice?

Accepted Answer

The court will use minimal scrutiny (also known as rational basis review) for this case because the policy does not involve a fundamental right or a suspect classification. The policy is related to the legitimate government interest of ensuring the safety of school children, and as long as the policy is rationally related to that legitimate interest, it is likely to be upheld.

Question 18

The idea that courts should not be heavily involved in lawmaking, but rather should only rule in cases where the constitutionality is clear is known as

Accepted Answer

The idea that courts should not be heavily involved in lawmaking, but rather should only rule in cases where the constitutionality is clear is known as judicial restraint.

Question 19

The Supreme Court case of Obergefell v. Hodges involved

Accepted Answer

Obergefell v. Hodges was a case that determined the legality of same-sex marriage in the United States. The Supreme Court ruled that denying same-sex couples the right to marry is unconstitutional, effectively legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.

Question 20

Which of the following limitations does NOT apply to the government in civil proceedings to take a person's liberty or property?

Accepted Answer

The Equal Protection Clause applies to government actions that treat individuals differently based on characteristics such as race, gender, or religion. It does not apply to civil proceedings to take a person's liberty or property. The other three limitations (procedural due process, takings clause, substantive due process) do apply in such proceedings.

Quiz 5: Constitutional Law