Con Law - Fed State

Exit

Question 1 of 1

  Time Left


0 [{"id":491983,"quiz_id":"25213","answer_id":null,"answerType_id":"0","created_at":"2018-06-19 21:42:58","updated_at":"2018-06-19 21:47:09","questionName":"An army fort had been used as a military outpost for more than 100 years. Following the end of the Cold War, the federal government closed the fort and sold half of the property to State X, which used the land to build a university. The population at the school is now double the population that had existed at the base, straining the available water supply. The water source, while located on the land purchased by the state, supplies water to both halves of the property. The federal government then agreed to take in 200 refugees from a war-torn country and to place them in the barracks that remained on the portion of the land the federal government still owned. The state then brought suit in federal court to prevent the refugee relocation, claiming that there would not be enough water for the existing population.The most likely outcome of the suit is that the state will ","questionTimeSeconds":"30","questionTimeMinutes":"1","questionImagePath":null,"position":10,"explanation":"THE CORRECT ANSWER IS: not prevail, because of the Supremacy Clause. DISCUSSION: The Supremacy Clause prohibits the state from regulating in a manner that conflicts with valid federal law. Congress has plenary (i.e., absolute) power over aliens. The federal government's decision to place refugees falls within the federal power to set conditions under which aliens may enter or remain in the country. The state may not regulate in a manner inconsistent with federal policy on the refugees. As such, the state will not prevail.\nDISCUSSION OF WRONG ANSWERS:\nINCORRECT. prevail, because a state may assert its regulatory authority over the federal government. The police power of State X to regulate for the health and safety of its citizens is limited by the Supremacy Clause. When a state's police power conflicts with federal policy, the state's regulatory authority must give way to federal power. In the present case, the federal government has exercised its plenary power over aliens by setting conditions for the refugees' relocation to State X. State X may not regulate in a manner inconsistent with federal policy on the refugees. Thus, this answer is incorrect. INCORRECT. prevail, because the source of the water is on state property. It is irrelevant whether the water source is on state property for Supremacy Clause purposes. If the state attempts to regulate water use in a manner inconsistent with federal policy on refugees, the state regulation is preempted. Thus, this answer is incorrect. INCORRECT. not prevail, because a state may not assert its regulatory authority over a natural resource to be used by the federal government for the benefit of aliens. The state is not absolutely prohibited from regulating a natural resource used by the federal government for the benefit of non-citizens; it is prohibited only from regulating it in a manner inconsistent with federal policy. Congress has plenary power over aliens, including refugees. The federal government alone has the authority to set conditions under which aliens may enter or remain in the country. In the present case, the state cannot act to prevent implementation of the federal policy relocating the refugees to the property adjacent to the university. Thus, this answer is incorrect.","question_score_id":null,"lang":null,"questionAudioPath":null},{"id":491982,"quiz_id":"25213","answer_id":null,"answerType_id":"0","created_at":"2018-06-19 21:42:58","updated_at":"2018-06-19 21:47:09","questionName":"State X is 75 percent covered in diamond mines. Its capital city is known for its luxurious hotels and resorts. Many of the capital city's tourists come to see the extravagant, diamond-encrusted details used in the hotels and resorts. To ensure the sale of State X's only raw resource\u2014 diamonds\u2014 the legislature passes a law that provides that only diamonds mined in State X can be used in its hotels and resorts. The price of the diamonds is the same for both in-state and out-of state companies. An interior design company specializing in diamond detailing, from neighboring State Y, sues in federal court for the right to sell diamond-encrusted hotel doorframes that were mined in State Y to State X's capital city's hotels.How is the court likely to rule? ","questionTimeSeconds":"30","questionTimeMinutes":"1","questionImagePath":null,"position":9,"explanation":"THE CORRECT ANSWER IS: The interior design company will prevail, because the statute violates the Commerce Clause. DISCUSSION: The State X statute imposes an undue burden on interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause. Even if a state regulation is not pre-empted by federal law and does not unduly discriminate against interstate commerce, it is unconstitutional if it imposes an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce. The State X statute does not discriminate against out-of-state companies as to pricing of diamonds; all in-state and out-of-state diamond sellers are charged the same price for State X diamonds. However, the requirement that out-of-state parties purchase State X diamonds to produce pieces for use in the capital city's hotels imposes a substantial rather than a trivial economic burden on out-of-state companies such as the interior design company.\nDISCUSSION OF WRONG ANSWERS:\nINCORRECT. State X will prevail, because all companies pay the same price for the diamonds and any extra cost incurred by the interior design company is trivial. The statute imposes an undue burden on interstate commerce, even though it does not unduly discriminate against interstate commerce. The State X statute does not discriminate against out-of-state companies as to pricing; all in-state and out-of-state companies are charged the same price for diamonds. However, the effect of the requirement that out-of-state companies use State X diamonds is to impose an undue economic burden on interstate commerce. For example, the interior design company will have to have diamonds shipped from State X to State Y, thereby significantly increasing the interior design company's production costs. Thus, this answer is incorrect. INCORRECT. State X will prevail, because the statute does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV. This answer is a red herring. The Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV does not apply to corporate entities such as the interior design company. That clause prohibits one state from discriminating against the citizens of another state as to 'basic rights' or 'essential activities.' The clause's protections extend to individuals who are citizens, but not to corporations or aliens. Thus, this answer is incorrect. INCORRECT. The interior design company will prevail, because the statute violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This is not the best argument for the interior design company to assert in challenging the statute's constitutionality. In an equal protection challenge, the court would likely uphold the statute under the 'rational basis' test. Social and economic regulation is presumed to be constitutional and will be upheld absent a clear showing of 'arbitrariness and irrationality.' Therefore, the statute would be upheld if there was a rational relation between the regulation and a legitimate state interest. As such, an equal protection argument is a weak constitutional ground on which to attack the validity of the State X statute. Thus, this answer is incorrect.","question_score_id":null,"lang":null,"questionAudioPath":null},{"id":491984,"quiz_id":"25213","answer_id":null,"answerType_id":"0","created_at":"2018-06-19 21:42:58","updated_at":"2018-06-19 21:47:09","questionName":"State A has 173 miles of coastline, and the seas bordering the state are filled with shipwrecks, some of which have been on the ocean floor for 200 years. Treasure hunters abound off the coast, affecting shipping traffic and disturbing fishing grounds. With the proliferation of treasure-hunting and salvage companies plying the waters offshore, the state legislature enacted a law prohibiting anyone from operating salvage operations within its waters without a state permit, which costs $1,000.A salvage company is doing business in State B, which is contiguous to State A. The salvage company operates its business under a federal salvage permit and has always complied with federal salvage regulations. When the State A legislation was enacted, the salvage company was conducting seven major salvage operations off the coast of State A. The salvage company continued to pursue those projects and began several more without applying for a State A permit. State officials then arrested a crew captain of the salvage company in State A waters and charged him with violating the new state lawWhich of the following is the salvage company's strongest argument that the state permit law is unconstitutional?","questionTimeSeconds":"30","questionTimeMinutes":"1","questionImagePath":null,"position":11,"explanation":"THE CORRECT ANSWER IS: The permit law is preempted by federal law pursuant to the Supremacy Clause. DISCUSSION: In a conflict between a state permit law and a federal permit law, the state law is preempted under the Supremacy Clause. The Supremacy Clause prohibits the states from regulating in an area that the federal government also regulates, unless the federal government authorizes the regulation, or the state regulation is not inconsistent with federal law. Here, the State A salvage permit law conflicts with federal regulation of the channels and facilities of interstate commerce on the seas promulgated under the congressional Commerce Clause power. The federal salvage permit law under which the salvage company operates thus preempts State A's law.\nDISCUSSION OF WRONG ANSWERS:\nINCORRECT. The permit law allows a taking of property in violation of the Due Process Clause. The state permit requirement is not a deprivation of a protected property interest without the procedural due process of notice and a hearing. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the state from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. However, the state government action in requiring a salvage permit does not amount to a deprivation of property implicating due process rights. 'Property' interests protected by the Due Process Clause include existing public benefits to which an individual has a 'legitimate claim of entitlement,' such as welfare or disability benefits or public employment. The federal salvage permit probably would not rise to that level. Moreover, the Due Process Clause would not protect the salvage company's substantive rights, only their procedural rights. Thus, this answer is incorrect. INCORRECT. The permit law infringes on the rights of nonresidents in violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause. The Privileges and Immunities Clause does not apply to a corporate entity such as the salvage company. Article IV, Section 2 provides that a state shall not discriminate against the citizens of another state as to 'basic rights' or 'essential activities' such as the right to work, transfer property, or access the state court system. The protections of the Privileges and Immunities Clause extend only to individuals who are citizens, not to corporations or aliens. As a corporation, the salvage company cannot claim the protection of the Privileges and Immunities Clause. If the company were an individual citizen, the argument could be made that the additional cost of the permit to nonresidents constitutes discrimination against nonresidents of State A in violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause. Thus, this answer is incorrect. INCORRECT. The permit law unduly burdens interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause. States are prohibited from discriminating against interstate commerce or imposing an undue burden on commerce. State A's permit requirement does not discriminate against interstate commerce; all salvage operations, resident and nonresident alike, are required to comply. A state regulation is not unduly burdensome if the burden imposed is outweighed by the local interest in protecting health and safety, and the regulation advances that goal by the least restrictive means. It could be argued that State A's interest in protecting safety in the shipping lanes and fishing grounds off its coast is advanced by the permit requirement, which does not unduly burden those companies wishing to conduct salvage operations in State A's waters. Thus, the State A permit requirement does not impose an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce. Thus, this answer is incorrect.","question_score_id":null,"lang":null,"questionAudioPath":null},{"id":491986,"quiz_id":"25213","answer_id":null,"answerType_id":"0","created_at":"2018-06-19 21:42:58","updated_at":"2018-06-19 21:47:09","questionName":"A city received $4 million in federal funding to construct an inner-city athletic facility. An appropriate site was chosen for the facility, and the city council earmarked $3 million for the project. At the same time, the city council set aside the remaining $1 million of the grant to enhance waterfront property for use by the general public by adding walkways, bikeways, a small park, and a retail facility providing sports equipment rentals. The funds from the commercial site are to be channeled back into the inner city recreational site. The athletic facility site was one mile inland from the waterfront property, which was accessible from the inner city by a system of subways and sidewalks. The city council, in making its allocation of the federal funding, determined that its plan promoted the health and recreation of the general public. The federal government disputed the allocation of funds and had the funds frozen after arguing in federal court that the plan violated the terms of the grant. The city filed a motion seeking release of the funds so that the plan could be implemented as conceived.What is the likely outcome for the city's motion? ","questionTimeSeconds":"30","questionTimeMinutes":"1","questionImagePath":null,"position":13,"explanation":"THE CORRECT ANSWER IS: The federal government will prevail, because the federal government has the power to condition receipt of the funds on the recipient's conformance to federal regulations. DISCUSSION: Under Article I of the Constitution, Congress is authorized to spend for the general welfare. When a state or locality accepts federal money, it must spend the money according to federal specifications. Under the spending power, Congress may require 'voluntary' conformance to federal regulations as long as the conditions attached to receipt of the funds are related to the goals of the spending program. Federal power to condition receipt, therefore, is not absolute. However, the condition that the grant to the city be spent on athletic facilities within the inner city is related to the federal goal of promoting the health of a certain constituency and will likely be upheld.\nDISCUSSION OF WRONG ANSWERS:\nINCORRECT. The federal government will prevail, because the doctrine of state sovereignty is inapplicable to an action between a local governmental body and the federal government. This answer misstates the federal government's power to regulate funds allocated to the states. Under Article I of the Constitution, Congress is authorized to spend for the general welfare. When a state or locality accepts federal money, it must spend the money according to federal specifications. Under the spending power, Congress may require 'voluntary' conformance to federal regulations, provided that the conditions attached to receipt of the funds are related to the goals of the spending program. Federal power to condition receipt, therefore, is not absolute. The condition that the funds granted to the city be spent on athletic facilities within the inner city is related to the federal goal of promoting the health of a certain constituency within the city. The spending program should therefore be upheld. Thus, this answer is incorrect. INCORRECT. The city will prevail, because the city's plan for construction of recreational facilities substantially complies with the terms of the federal grant. This answer misstates the requirements for compliance with federal specifications on how federal grants are to be spent. Under Article I of the Constitution, Congress is authorized to spend for the general welfare. When a recipient accepts federal money, the recipient is required to spend the money according to specifications set by the federal government. The recipient must fully comply; it cannot merely 'substantially' comply. The city's plan does not comply with the specification that the funds be used for recreational facilities within the inner city, because a quarter of the funds have been set aside for recreational construction outside the inner-city area. The city's plan also allocates funds for commercial construction (the rental facility), which the federal grant does not authorize. The fact that the inner-city sports facility is 'linked' to the waterfront property by rail service and by foot does not satisfy the federal requirement that funds allocated be spent for construction of athletic facilities in the inner city. Thus, this answer is incorrect. INCORRECT. The city will prevail, because federal intervention in implementation of the city's recreational facilities plan violates state sovereignty. This answer misstates the power of the federal government to regulate funds allocated to the states. Under Article I of the Constitution, Congress is authorized to spend for the general welfare. When a state recipient accepts federal money, the recipient, whether a state-wide or local governmental body, is required to spend the money according to specifications set by the federal government. Under the spending power, Congress may require 'voluntary' conformance to federal regulations, provided that the conditions attached to receipt of the funds are related to the goals of the spending program. Thus, this answer is incorrect.","question_score_id":null,"lang":null,"questionAudioPath":null},{"id":492036,"quiz_id":"25213","answer_id":null,"answerType_id":"0","created_at":"2018-06-19 21:42:58","updated_at":"2018-06-19 21:47:09","questionName":"The American and Mexican governments decide to create a joint commission to address the problem of declining numbers of certain types of trees. The commission is charged with determining whether particular parks should be closed and whether the two governments should impose bans or fines for cutting down trees. The U.S. president signs an executive agreement authorizing the commission to promulgate appropriate hunting regulations and to enforce and adjudicate the regulations against U.S. and Mexican logging companies. One of the commission's first acts is to institute a limit on the cutting of Mexican pines and an outright ban on cutting down papaya trees. A U.S. border state, which has one of the nation's richest varieties of trees, passes legislation requiring all logging operations using state land to register for a fee and to meet or fall below state logging limits, which are more restrictive than those set by the joint commission.If the joint commission brings an action in federal court to enjoin the state from enforcing its logging regulations, will the commission prevail?","questionTimeSeconds":"30","questionTimeMinutes":"1","questionImagePath":null,"position":4,"explanation":"THE CORRECT ANSWER IS: Yes, because the executive agreement supersedes inconsistent state law. DISCUSSION: Under the Supremacy Clause of Article II, the Constitution and laws of the United States are the 'supreme law of the land.' Any state law in direct conflict with a valid federal law is preempted by it if the federal law is intended to 'occupy the field.' The state legislation includes a regulation that imposes logging limits in direct conflict with the federal limits set by the joint commission. The president was authorized under Article II powers to enter into the executive agreement concerning international logging regulations; therefore, the executive agreement supersedes inconsistent state law.\nDISCUSSION OF WRONG ANSWERS:\nINCORRECT. Yes, because the state law discriminates against logging companies that are based outside of the state. There is no fundamental right to pursue a living free of government regulation. Moreover, it is unlikely that the commission could raise the discrimination claims of the logging companies regulated by the state law. Because the question presents the issue of a conflict between state and federal law, the answer should address the source of power of state and federal governments to regulate. Thus, this answer is incorrect. INCORRECT. No, because state law should prevail when the issue involved is regulation of state industry. The Supremacy Clause of Article II provides that the Constitution and laws of the United States are the 'supreme law of the land.' Any state law in direct conflict with a valid federal law is preempted by it if the federal law is intended to 'occupy the field.' Here, the state legislation includes a regulation that imposes logging limits in direct conflict with the federal limits set by the joint commission. Thus, this answer is incorrect. INCORRECT. No, because state conservation issues should be dealt with by each state. A valid executive agreement preempts state regulation of resources within state boundaries. Under the police power reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment, the states may regulate for the general health, safety, and welfare of state citizens. However, even a valid exercise of state regulatory power is preempted by a superseding federal law. The executive agreement creating the joint U.S. and Mexico commission was a valid exercise of the president's power over international relations. The state regulations are preempted by the federal law. Thus, this answer is incorrect.","question_score_id":null,"lang":null,"questionAudioPath":null},{"id":492040,"quiz_id":"25213","answer_id":null,"answerType_id":"0","created_at":"2018-06-19 21:42:58","updated_at":"2018-06-19 21:47:09","questionName":"State A is located in the Rocky Mountain region, and the state's economy depends in large part on the tourists who visit the state's natural wonders. A study by the state's Department of Environmental Protection found that fishing within the state has damaged the coast and increased the cost of administering public lands because of permitting costs and expenditures. The state legislature enacted a law restricting fishing \"on all waters located within the state.\" Only 500 fishers, chosen by lottery, were permitted to fish each year. The state ordered the administrators of the state national park to comply with the state law regarding fishing in the state, and the administrators refused.The imposition of the state legislation on the park is ","questionTimeSeconds":"30","questionTimeMinutes":"1","questionImagePath":null,"position":8,"explanation":"THE CORRECT ANSWER IS: unconstitutional, because the federal government has not consented to the fishing restrictions imposed by the state. DISCUSSION: A state is prohibited from regulating the federal government or its agencies by the Supremacy Clause, except where the federal government consents to the state regulation or the state regulation is not inconsistent with existing federal policy. Here, the federal administrators of the state national park have refused to consent to the state's fishing statute. In addition, the state statute is inconsistent with existing federal policy, which does not restrict fishing to designated areas or administer permits in the same manner. The state statute is therefore unconstitutional as applied to national parks within the state on Supremacy Clause grounds. Additionally, under the federal property power of Article IV, Section 3, Congress can 'dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.' Thus, federal lands are subject to the authority of the federal government, except to the extent that Congress has ceded jurisdiction to the state.\nDISCUSSION OF WRONG ANSWERS:\nINCORRECT. unconstitutional, because restricting fishing within the borders of the state is not rationally related to preservation issues. The 'rational basis' test is irrelevant when a state statute is inconsistent with federal policy. Even if there is a rational basis for the state policy, that policy cannot be imposed on the federal government or its agencies if it conflicts with federal policy or if the federal government does not permit such regulation. The question is not whether the state has a rational basis for its fishing restrictions, but whether the restrictions are consistent with federal policy and whether the federal government allows the state this regulatory reach. Thus, this answer is incorrect. INCORRECT. constitutional, because the federal government has not expressly prohibited the state from imposing restrictions on fishing within the borders of the state. Even if the federal government has not prohibited state regulation of fishing on public lands, the state may violate the Supremacy Clause if it attempts to impose regulations on the federal government or its agencies that are inconsistent with federal policy. Thus, this answer is incorrect. INCORRECT. constitutional, because the fishing restrictions apply in a non-discriminatory manner to all public lands in the state. Even if a state regulation is applied uniformly throughout the state, the regulation will violate the Supremacy Clause if it is inconsistent with federal policy or the federal government does not consent to the regulation. The state's fishing statute applies to all public lands in the state, including state-run and federally run parks. Although the fishing restrictions are applied in a non-discriminatory manner, the state statute may still violate the Supremacy Clause. Thus, this answer is incorrect.","question_score_id":null,"lang":null,"questionAudioPath":null},{"id":492039,"quiz_id":"25213","answer_id":null,"answerType_id":"0","created_at":"2018-06-19 21:42:58","updated_at":"2018-06-19 21:47:09","questionName":"A city applied for and received $5 million in federal funding for the construction of an artistic facility in the inner city. The funds were granted pursuant to a federal statute providing grants for artistic facilities within the inner city. An appropriate site was chosen for the facility, and the city council earmarked $4 million for the project. At the same time, the council set aside $1 million of the grant to enhance waterfront property for use by the general public by adding walkways, gardens, a small park, and a kiosk that sold water, umbrellas, and parasols. The funds from the kiosk are to be channeled back into the inner city artistic site. The artistic facility site was one mile inland from the waterfront property, which was accessible from the inner city by a system of subways and sidewalks. The council, in making its allocation of the federal funding, determined that its plan promoted the health and recreation of the general public. The federal government disputed the allocation of funds and succeeded in having the funds frozen after arguing in federal court that the council's plan was in violation of the terms of the grant. The city files a motion with the federal court seeking release of the funds so that the plan can be implemented as conceived by the council.At the federal court hearing on the city's motion, what is the most likely result?","questionTimeSeconds":"30","questionTimeMinutes":"1","questionImagePath":null,"position":7,"explanation":"THE CORRECT ANSWER IS: The city will not prevail, because the federal government has power to condition receipt of the funds on the recipient's conformance to federal regulations. DISCUSSION: Under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress is authorized to spend for the general welfare. When a state recipient accepts federal money, the recipient, whether a statewide or local governmental body, is required to spend the money according to specifications set by the federal government. Under the spending power, Congress may require 'voluntary' conformance to federal regulations, provided that the conditions attached to receipt of the funds are related to the goals of the spending program. Federal power to condition receipt, therefore, is not absolute. The condition that the funds granted to the city be spent on artistic facilities within the inner city is related to the federal goal of promoting the health of a certain constituency within the city, and the spending program will be upheld.\nDISCUSSION OF WRONG ANSWERS:\nINCORRECT. The city will not prevail, because the doctrine of state sovereignty is inapplicable to an action between a local governmental body and the federal government. This answer is incorrect because it misstates the power of the federal government to regulate funds allocated to the states. Under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, when Congress spends for the general welfare, Congress may require 'voluntary' conformance to federal regulations, provided that the conditions attached to receipt of the funds are related to the goals of the spending program. Even though the city is not likely to prevail, this answer choice does not state the correct reason for this probable result. Furthermore, the answer is incorrect to imply that state sovereignty may never be applicable to actions between a local government body and the federal government. INCORRECT. The city will prevail, because the city's plan for construction of artistic facilities substantially complies with the terms of the federal grant. When a recipient accepts federal money, the recipient is required to spend the money according to specifications set by the federal government. The recipient must fully comply; it cannot merely 'substantially' comply. The city's plan does not comply with the specification that the funds be used for artistic facilities within the inner city, because a fifth of the funds have been set aside for construction outside the inner-city area. The city's plan also allocates funds for commercial construction (the kiosk), which the federal grant does not authorize. The fact that the inner-city artistic facility is 'linked' to the waterfront property by rail service and by foot does not satisfy the federal requirement that funds allocated be spent for construction of artistic facilities in the inner city. INCORRECT. The city will prevail, because federal intervention in implementation of the city's artistic facilities plan violates state sovereignty. Under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress is authorized to spend for the general welfare. When a state recipient accepts federal money, the recipient, whether a statewide or local governmental body, is required to spend the money according to specifications set by the federal government. Under the spending power, Congress may require 'voluntary' conformance to federal regulations, provided that the conditions attached to receipt of the funds are related to the goals of the spending program. Here, the city will not prevail, because the federal requirement that the funds be employed only on construction of artistic facilities in the inner city is related to the goal of promoting health in the inner city. As such, this federal intervention does not violate state sovereignty.","question_score_id":null,"lang":null,"questionAudioPath":null},{"id":492037,"quiz_id":"25213","answer_id":null,"answerType_id":"0","created_at":"2018-06-19 21:42:58","updated_at":"2018-06-19 21:47:09","questionName":"A city was first established in the early 1800s. By the early 2000s, it became apparent that the narrow streets were inadequate for the requirements of a modern municipality. The main street, which ran through the middle of town, was the most congested street in the city. The state ordered the city to reduce the traffic problem by banning parking on one side of the main street. The city's council decided that the only fair way to decide which side of the street would lose its parking privileges would be by a flip of a coin. The mayor flipped the coin and the council decided that the north side of the main street was, thereafter, a no-parking zone. The owner of a pharmacy located on the north side of the main street protested that the action was unfair to his customers who would have to walk across the street to reach their vehicles. In addition, many of his customers indicated that they would now be frequenting a competitor located on the north side of the main street. The city council stuck by its decision.If the pharmacy owner challenges the parking ban in the federal district court, will his action be successful?","questionTimeSeconds":"30","questionTimeMinutes":"1","questionImagePath":null,"position":5,"explanation":"THE CORRECT ANSWER IS: No, because this is a reasonable regulation. DISCUSSION: The parking ordinance is a reasonable regulation and does not violate any of the pharmacy owner's constitutional rights. A state or local regulation is valid if it is rationally related to the health, safety and general welfare of its residents and does not violate any constitutional rights. Here, a parking ban on one side of the street is rationally related to safety and the choice of one side of the street over the other, even by coin flip, would not violate any constitutional rights of persons on the side of the street where parking is banned.\nDISCUSSION OF WRONG ANSWERS:\nINCORRECT. Yes, because this decision violates the equal protection clause by providing the saloon owner's competitor an unfair advantage. The Equal Protection Clause would be a weak challenge. This clause protects against discrimination which is unreasonable. Here, no suspect class or fundamental interest is involved. Thus, the discrimination against the businesses on the south side of the street need only be rationally related to any legitimate government interest. The city has a legitimate interest in safety and choosing the north side of the street is rationally related to that interest. INCORRECT. Yes, because this decision violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause. There is no discrimination against non-residents that would violate Art. IV, Sec. 2's Privileges and Immunities Clause. This clause protects against state or local discrimination against non-residents. The discrimination here is in favor of the south side of the main street over the north side. INCORRECT. No, because the city is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. The Eleventh Amendment does not bar federal court lawsuits against cities. The Eleventh Amendment prohibits state governments from being sued in the federal courts where retrospective monetary relief is awarded absent the state's consent or expressly permitted by Congress. Here, the suit is against the city, not a state government. Also, the suit appears to be requesting injunctive relief, restoration of the parking on the north side of the street, rather than monetary damages for past acts.","question_score_id":null,"lang":null,"questionAudioPath":null},{"id":491985,"quiz_id":"25213","answer_id":null,"answerType_id":"0","created_at":"2018-06-19 21:42:58","updated_at":"2018-06-19 21:47:09","questionName":"A construction company submits the winning bid to build a new federal courthouse in State C. A state statute provides that no contractor may engage in any work within State C without a state construction license. The construction company, a Delaware corporation, has conducted both state and federal construction projects throughout the United States and has a federal work license. The construction company refuses to obtain a state license, and state officials prohibit the company from entering the job site to begin work. Further delays will cause the costs of the project to rise significantly and subject the construction company to penalties for failing to meet construction deadlines.The state requirement that the construction company obtain a state license before beginning the project is ","questionTimeSeconds":"30","questionTimeMinutes":"1","questionImagePath":null,"position":12,"explanation":"THE CORRECT ANSWER IS: unconstitutional, because of the federal construction regulations. DISCUSSION: The state statute regulates federal construction projects in violation of the Supremacy Clause. State regulation of the federal government is permissible only if the state regulation is consistent with federal policy or if the federal government permits the state regulation. In this case, the federal government licenses contractors to work on federal projects. Under the Supremacy Clause, the state licensing statute is preempted by the federal regulation. The construction company's work on the federal courthouse project cannot be impeded by the state law.\nDISCUSSION OF WRONG ANSWERS:\nINCORRECT. constitutional, because the state licensing process is a simple procedure that will not have a significant impact on the construction company's rights. Even if the state licensing procedure is not burdensome, it is unconstitutional if the state licensing requirement conflicts with federal law. The state statute applies to all construction projects within State C, including federal projects such as the courthouse, to be built by the construction company. The federal government regulates such federal projects, as evidenced by the construction company's federal work license. Any state regulation in conflict with the federal regulation would be preempted under the Supremacy Clause, no matter how slight the burden. Thus, this answer is incorrect. INCORRECT. constitutional, because the construction company is undertaking a project within the borders of State C. State law in conflict with federal regulation is unconstitutional even if the state regulation applies only to activities taking place solely within state borders. State regulation of the federal government is permissible only if the state regulation is consistent with federal policy or if the federal government permits the state regulation. Under the Supremacy Clause, State C cannot regulate licensing of federal construction projects if the federal government has an inconsistent policy. The construction company is duly licensed to perform construction work on federal projects pursuant to its federal work license. The state's licensing statute thus conflicts with the federal regulation and, therefore, is preempted by the Supremacy Clause. Thus, this answer is incorrect. INCORRECT. unconstitutional, because the statute infringes the fundamental right to work. There is no fundamental right to work guaranteed by the Constitution. Individual fundamental rights, such as the right to travel, to privacy, to vote, to free speech, and to free exercise of religion, are protected from infringement by the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. The right to work is a 'basic right' for purposes of the Privileges and Immunities Clause, which protects individuals (not corporations like the construction company) from discrimination by states against non-citizens. Thus, this answer is incorrect.","question_score_id":null,"lang":null,"questionAudioPath":null},{"id":492033,"quiz_id":"25213","answer_id":null,"answerType_id":"0","created_at":"2018-06-19 21:42:58","updated_at":"2018-06-19 21:47:09","questionName":"After hearings that demonstrated that car accidents caused by uninsured drivers had a substantial effect on interstate commerce, Congress passes a law requiring that \"all drivers of motor vehicles must purchase car insurance.\"Is the law constitutional?","questionTimeSeconds":"30","questionTimeMinutes":"1","questionImagePath":null,"position":1,"explanation":"THE CORRECT ANSWER IS: No, because Congress cannot force consumers to enter a market. DISCUSSION: Correct. In the 2012 Affordable Care Act case, the Court held that Congress cannot force consumers to enter a market for insurance, even when the activity being insured had a substantial effect on interstate commerce. [NFIB v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. 2566 (2012)].\nDISCUSSION OF WRONG ANSWERS:\nINCORRECT. Yes, because Congress can regulate activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. INCORRECT. Congress does have the power to regulate activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, but this statute doesn't just regulate the activity; it requires consumers to purchase insurance. In the 2012 Affordable Care Act case, the Supreme Court held that even when an activity has a substantial effect on interstate commerce, Congress lacks the power to force consumers to purchase insurance for such activities. [NFIB v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. 2566 (2012)]. INCORRECT. Yes, because the Commerce Power gives Congress the power to regulate the interstate market for insurance. INCORRECT. Congress does have the power to regulate activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, but this statute doesn't just regulate the activity; it requires consumers to purchase insurance. In the 2012 Affordable Care Act case, the Court held that even when an activity has a substantial effect on interstate commerce, Congress lacks the power to force consumers to purchase insurance for such activities. [NFIB v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. 2566 (2012)]. INCORRECT. No, because drivers do not have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. INCORRECT. Congress can regulate any activity that, taken in the aggregate, has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. However, this law goes beyond regulation and requires that drivers must also purchase insurance. In the In the 2012 Affordable Care Act case, the Supreme Court held that requiring people to purchase insurance exceeded the scope of the Commerce Power. [NFIB v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. 2566 (2012)].","question_score_id":null,"lang":null,"questionAudioPath":null},{"id":492035,"quiz_id":"25213","answer_id":null,"answerType_id":"0","created_at":"2018-06-19 21:42:58","updated_at":"2018-06-19 21:47:09","questionName":"Congress passed the Age Discrimination in Employment Act to protect older workers from being discriminated against in the workplace. By its language, the ADEA protects all workers in the country. Three months before her 70th birthday, a secretary who works for State R received a memo informing her that she would be forced to retire under the state's mandatory retirement policy requiring the termination of all state government workers at the age of 70. The mandatory retirement policy was a critical component of State R's fiscal responsibility program because it enabled the state to hire younger workers at a pay rate of 40 percent less than the older workers. The secretary files a federal action challenging the state's mandatory retirement policy.Who is likely to prevail?","questionTimeSeconds":"30","questionTimeMinutes":"1","questionImagePath":null,"position":3,"explanation":"THE CORRECT ANSWER IS: The secretary, because the ADEA is a reasonable exercise of Congress's power under the Constitution. DISCUSSION: The State R mandatory retirement law is in direct conflict with a valid federal age discrimination law. Any state or local law in direct conflict with a valid federal law will be struck down as a violation of the Supremacy Clause. Here, the federal ADEA law is a valid exercise of Congress's power to regulate activities having a significant impact on the national economy pursuant to the Commerce Clause. The ADEA, on its face, applies to all workers--there is no exemption for state government employees. Thus, the State R mandatory retirement policy will be struck down because it directly conflicts with the ADEA's protection for older workers.\nDISCUSSION OF WRONG ANSWERS:\nINCORRECT. The secretary, because the state law is in violation of the Equal Protection Clause because age is a suspect category. Age is not a suspect category. Discrimination on the basis of age is only entitled to be judged under the rational basis test because age is not a suspect category (like race, national origin, or alienage), or even quasi-suspect (like gender or illegitimacy). Thus, this answer is incorrect. INCORRECT. State R, because the state's rationale satisfies the heightened scrutiny required when a law infringes upon a fundamental right. The right to work is not a fundamental right, so it does not get substantive due process protection. Consequently, this is not the best answer because no fundamental right is infringed by the State R mandatory retirement policy. INCORRECT. State R, because the ADEA is an unconstitutional interference with a necessary state economy measure. States are not immune from federal regulation. As long as the federal government is acting within a constitutional source of enumerated power, the federal regulation is applicable to the state and local governments. Here, the ADEA is a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause and would apply to the State R mandatory retirement policy. Thus, this answer is incorrect.","question_score_id":null,"lang":null,"questionAudioPath":null},{"id":491987,"quiz_id":"25213","answer_id":null,"answerType_id":"0","created_at":"2018-06-19 21:42:58","updated_at":"2018-06-19 21:47:09","questionName":"The senior ranking member of State C's Senate also serves as the chairperson of the powerful Committee on Urban Renewal. The senator is spearheading a major urban development project in the state's capital. In the course of deliberations on the project, the senator is charged under the federal racketeering statute with conspiracy to improperly influence a member of the federal department of Housing and Urban Development, from which the state was seeking matching funds.The senator raises the defense that the activities out of which the conspiracy indictment arose were an integral part of the deliberative process carried out by the senator as chairperson of the Committee on Urban Renewal. He further asserts that, as part of the legislative process, his activities are immune from prosecution.In a prosecution of the senator in federal court, what is the senator's strongest constitutional defense against application of the federal racketeering statute?","questionTimeSeconds":"30","questionTimeMinutes":"1","questionImagePath":null,"position":14,"explanation":"THE CORRECT ANSWER IS: The federal statute violates the concept of federalism by limiting the power of the state to control its legislative process. DISCUSSION: Under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, any state law in direct conflict with federal law is pre-empted. The concept of federalism, or the supremacy of federal over state government, gives federal law precedence. At the same time, the powers not expressly granted to the federal government are reserved to the states, including the right to regulate for the health, safety, and general welfare of citizens. In this instance, the senator could argue that regulation of the state legislative process is an incident of State C sovereignty, which is expressly reserved to the state under the Tenth Amendment.\nDISCUSSION OF WRONG ANSWERS:\nINCORRECT. The federal statute violates the Speech and Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution provides that congressmen 'shall not be questioned in any other place' for any speech or debate in the House or Senate. The clause protects congressmen from any inquiry into acts occurring in the regular course of the deliberative or political process. However, the Speech and Debate Clause does not apply to the conduct of state legislators, only to the conduct of members of Congress or their aides who are assisting in legislative functions. Thus, this answer is incorrect. INCORRECT. The federal statute violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as applied to legislators. The Due Process Clause protects any person from deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. In a prosecution of the senator under the federal criminal statute, he would be afforded a procedural due process hearing to determine whether he had violated the statute. The right to work as a legislator is not a fundamental interest subject to scrutiny under the Due Process Clause. Thus, there is no issue of violation of the senator's substantive due process rights, because no fundamental right (such as the right to privacy) is at stake. Thus, this answer is incorrect. INCORRECT. The federal statute is in direct conflict with a state law governing legislative immunity. Under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, any state law in direct conflict with federal law is pre-empted. Under the concept of federalism, the federal government has powers vested in it by the Constitution and the states have reserved regulatory power. Under the Tenth Amendment, the powers not expressly granted to the federal government are reserved to the states, including the right to regulate for the health, safety, and general welfare of citizens. The senator could argue that regulation of the state legislative process is an incident of State C sovereignty, which is expressly reserved to the state under the Tenth Amendment. However, this argument would fail if, as the answer states, there is a direct conflict between the state and federal statute. Thus, this answer is incorrect.","question_score_id":null,"lang":null,"questionAudioPath":null},{"id":492034,"quiz_id":"25213","answer_id":null,"answerType_id":"0","created_at":"2018-06-19 21:42:58","updated_at":"2018-06-19 21:47:09","questionName":"In order to address the rising costs of health insurance provided by insurance companies, Congress passes a complex law providing, among other things, that all health insurance shall henceforth be provided by the federal government. Because many Members of Congress expressed concern that this law might have constitutional difficulties, the law also provided that \"in any lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of this law, the United States Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.\" A group of insurance companies who feared that their companies might go out of business under the law file a lawsuit in the Supreme Court challenging its constitutionality, and the United States as defendant moves to dismiss.Should the Supreme Court grant the motion to dismiss?","questionTimeSeconds":"30","questionTimeMinutes":"1","questionImagePath":null,"position":2,"explanation":"THE CORRECT ANSWER IS: Yes, because the Court lacks jurisdiction over the case. DISCUSSION: Correct. Under Art. III, section 2, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction 'in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party.' Congress may neither enlarge nor restrict the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction. [Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)]. In this case, Congress seeks to increase the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which it lacks the power to do.\nDISCUSSION OF WRONG ANSWERS:\nINCORRECT. Yes, because the plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the case. INCORRECT. Art. III requires that a plaintiff bringing a lawsuit in federal court must show (1) injury in fact and (2) causation and (3) redressability. In this case, all three elements are met for these plaintiffs \u00e2\u20ac there would be an injury of loss of their livelihoods (2) caused by the act which would (3) be redressed by a successful constitutional challenge. Thus, the plaintiffs have standing to challenge the law. INCORRECT. No, because the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over cases involving the United States as a party. This is an incorrect statement of the law. Under Art. III, section 2, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction 'in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party.' It does not have original jurisdiction over cases involving the United States as a party. INCORRECT. No, because Congress has the power to increase the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. It is a basic principle of constitutional law that Congress lacks the power to either enlarge or restrict the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction. [Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)]. Because this law attempts to increase the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, it is unconstitutional.","question_score_id":null,"lang":null,"questionAudioPath":null},{"id":492038,"quiz_id":"25213","answer_id":null,"answerType_id":"0","created_at":"2018-06-19 21:42:58","updated_at":"2018-06-19 21:47:09","questionName":"In a show of support for Middle Eastern refugees driven from their country by war and now making new homes in the parish, a parish passes an ordinance prohibiting the hiring of any citizen of the aggressor country in positions funded by the state, including teacher. Some citizens of the country who created the refugee problem are known to have settled in the parish, and longtime residents and refugees alike have expressed dismay at their presence. One of the parish residents is a citizen of the aggressor country, who fled that country to avoid mandatory military service. He is a trained teacher and would like to teach at the high school in the parish.If the teacher challenges the parish ordinance, his most successful argument against its constitutionality is that the ordinance ","questionTimeSeconds":"30","questionTimeMinutes":"1","questionImagePath":null,"position":6,"explanation":"THE CORRECT ANSWER IS: usurps the role of the federal government in foreign affairs. DISCUSSION: The legislative and executive branches have constitutionally mandated powers over foreign affairs. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress authority to declare war, raise and support armies, and maintain a navy. Congress is also empowered to give advice and consent to the president concerning treaties made by him with foreign nations; the Senate must approve all treaties by a two-thirds vote. Under the president's Article II powers, the executive is authorized to make treaties and to appoint and receive foreign ambassadors. Therefore, the field of international relations is under the power of the federal government, and federal policy preempts the parish policy under the Supremacy Clause.\nDISCUSSION OF WRONG ANSWERS:\nINCORRECT. denies the teacher public employment in violation of his privileges and immunities rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the states from making or enforcing 'any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.' The clause's scope is limited to rights of federal citizenship, including the right to petition Congress, the right to vote in federal elections, and the right to interstate travel. The clause does not extend to the right to employment. Also, the clause is inapplicable to the teacher because it protects only 'citizens,' which in this case does not include non-resident aliens. Thus, this answer is incorrect. INCORRECT. denies the teacher a property right in public employment under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause protects only existing interests in public employment, not future rights. A person has a protected property interest in public employment if the person is an employee who may only be terminated for 'cause.' An 'at-will' public employee has no protected property interest in public employment. If an employee has a protected property interest in continued public employment, the employee is entitled to procedural due process protections under the Fourteenth Amendment. The teacher is not a parish employee and, therefore, has no 'legitimate claim of entitlement' to public employment under the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, this answer is incorrect. INCORRECT. is an ex post facto law denying the EMT public employment because of aggressive acts by his country. Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution prohibits Congress and the states from enacting legislation to criminalize past conduct. The ordinance in question simply prohibits the hiring of citizens of a particular country. It does not criminalize any conduct. Thus, this answer is incorrect.","question_score_id":null,"lang":null,"questionAudioPath":null},{"id":492032,"quiz_id":"25213","answer_id":null,"answerType_id":"0","created_at":"2018-06-19 21:42:58","updated_at":"2018-06-19 21:47:09","questionName":"Concerned about a rise in the number of fatal car accidents caused by drunk drivers, Congress passes a law making drunk driving a federal felony. After Congressional hearings for the bill, Congress finds that drunk driving has a substantial effect on the national market for car insurance and life insurance premiums.Is this statute constitutional?","questionTimeSeconds":"30","questionTimeMinutes":"1","questionImagePath":null,"position":0,"explanation":"THE CORRECT ANSWER IS: No, because drunk driving is not an economic activity. DISCUSSION: Correct. In order for Congress to regulate an intrastate activity under the Commerce Clause, Congress must demonstrate (1) that the activity is economic in nature; and (2) that the activity in the aggregate has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Here, because drunk driving is not an economic activity, Congress has no power to regulate it.\nDISCUSSION OF WRONG ANSWERS:\nINCORRECT. Yes, because it regulates an activity that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. INCORRECT. In order for Congress to regulate an intrastate activity under the Commerce Clause, Congress must demonstrate (1) that the activity is economic in nature; and (2) that the activity in the aggregate has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Drunk driving is not an economic activity, so therefore Congress lacks the power to regulate it. INCORRECT. Yes, because it is justified under the police power. INCORRECT. Congress does not have a police power; that power is reserved to state governments only under the doctrine of enumerated powers and the Tenth Amendment. INCORRECT. No, because Congress lacks the power to regulate wholly intrastate activity. INCORRECT. This is an incorrect statement of the law. Congress can regulate wholly intrastate activity if it shows that (1) that the activity is economic in nature; and (2) that the activity in the aggregate has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. However, because Congress cannot show that arson is an economic activity, it cannot regulate arson under the Commerce Clause.","question_score_id":null,"lang":null,"questionAudioPath":null}]
491983
0
90
block

An army fort had been used as a military outpost for more than 100 years. Following the end of the Cold War, the federal government closed the fort and sold half of the property to State X, which used the land to build a university. The population at the school is now double the population that had existed at the base, straining the available water supply. The water source, while located on the land purchased by the state, supplies water to both halves of the property. The federal government then agreed to take in 200 refugees from a war-torn country and to place them in the barracks that remained on the portion of the land the federal government still owned. The state then brought suit in federal court to prevent the refugee relocation, claiming that there would not be enough water for the existing population.The most likely outcome of the suit is that the state will

Select the Correct Answers  

(0/0)












491982
0
90
none
491984
0
90
none
491986
0
90
none
492036
0
90
none
492040
0
90
none
492039
0
90
none
492037
0
90
none
491985
0
90
none
492033
0
90
none
492035
0
90
none
491987
0
90
none
492034
0
90
none
492038
0
90
none
492032
0
90
none