Con Law Practice Test Questions and Answers All Correct

Con Law Practice Test Questions and Answers All Correct The Supreme Court issues an opinion in which it determines that the statute of limitations for securities fraud (which has heretofore been uncertain) is three years. As a result, lower federal courts dismiss all pending cases that had not been filed within the three-year limitations period. Congress thereafter passes a statute requiring federal courts to reinstate these cases. Is the statute constitutional? - Answer-No, the federal judiciary has the power, not merely to rule on cases, but to decide them conclusively, subject to review only by superior courts. The Constitution forbids the legislature from interfering with the final judgments of courts. This new statute clearly violates the foregoing principle by retroactively commanding federal courts to reopen final judgments. A federal statute provides that the U.S. Supreme Court has authority to review any case filed in a U.S. Court of Appeals, even though that case has not yet been decided by the court of appeals. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued an important environmental rule. Companies that would be adversely affected by the rule filed a petition for review of the rule in a court of appeals, seeking a declaration that the rule was invalid solely because it was beyond the statutory authority of the EPA. A [second] statute specifically provides for direct review of EPA rules by a court of appeals without any initial action in a district court. The companies have filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court requesting immediate review of this case by the Supreme Court before the court of appeals has actually decided the case. The EPA acknowledges that the case is important enough to warrant Supreme Cour - Answer-A. the case is not within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as defined by Article III, and it is not a proper subject of that court's appellate jurisdiction because it has not yet been decided by any lower court. Congress passes the following statute: -"The appellate jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court shall not extend to any case involving the constitutionality of any state statute limiting the circumstances in which a woman may obtain an abortion." The strongest argument against the constitutionality of this statute is that A. Congress may not exercise its authority over the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in a way that seriously interferes with the establishment of a supreme and uniform body of federal constitutional law. B. Congress may only regulate the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over cases initially arising in the federal courts. C. The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court may only be altered by constitutional amendment. D. The statute violates the equal protection clause. - Answer-A. Congress may not exercise its authority over the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in a way that seriously interferes with the establishment of a supreme and uniform body of federal constitutional law. The president is considering selling arms to Israel. There is an old statute on the books prohibiting arms sales to "Middle-Eastern" countries. The president is unsure whether this statute applies to Israel, so he asks the Supreme Court for advice. What result? - Answer-The president is seeking an advisory opinion, which federal courts cannot issue. Congress passes a statute permitting persons with claims arising out of the recent war to bring suit against the U.S. government in federal court. If the federal court rules in favor of the claimant, the statute authorizes the Department of Defense to pay such claims if the Department of Defense determines that the judicial award was "just and equitable." Otherwise, the Department of Defense may reject such claims. Is this statute constitutional? - Answer-No, because the statute, in effect, renders federal court decisions non-final, advisory opinions. Old City police officers shot and killed J's friend as he was attempting to escape arrest for armed robbery. J brought suit in federal court against the Old City Police Department seeking only a judgment declaring unconstitutional the state statute under which the police acted. The statute authorized the police to use deadly force when necessary to apprehend a person who has committed a felony. In his suit, J alleged that the police would not have killed his friend if the use of deadly force had not been authorized by the statute. The court should A. Decide the case on the merits, because it raise a substantial federal question. B. Dismiss the action, because it involves a nonjusticiable political question. C. Dismiss the action, because it does not present a case or controversy. D. Dismiss the action, because the 11th Amendment prohibits federal courts from deciding cases of this type. - Answer-C. Dismiss the action, because it does not present a case or controversy. The legislature of the state of Gray recently enacted a statute forbidding public utilities regulated by the Gray Public Service Commission to increase their rates more than once every two years. Economy Electric Power Company, a public utility regulated by that commission, has just obtained approval of the commission for a general rate increase. Economy Electric has routinely filed for a rate increase every ten to 14 months during the last 20 years. Because of uncertainties about future fuel prices, the power company cannot ascertain with any certainty the date when it will need a further rate increase; but it thinks it may need such an increase sometime within the next 18 months. Economy Electric files an action in the federal district court in Gray requesting a declaratory judgment that this new statute of Gray forbidding public utility rate increases more often than once every two years is unconstitutional. Assum - Answer-(C) dismiss the complaint, because this action is not ripe for decision. Alex contracted for expensive cable television service for a period of six months solely to view the televised trial of Clark, who was on trial for murder in a court of the state of Green. In the midst of the trial, the judge prohibited any further televising of Clark's trial because he concluded that the presence of television cameras was disruptive. Alex brought an action in a federal district court against the judge in Clark's case asking only for an injunction that would require the judge to resume the televising of Clark's trial. Alex alleged that the judge's order to stop the televising of Clark's trial deprived him of property - his investment in cable television service - without due process of law. Before Alex's case came to trial, Clark's criminal trial concluded in a conviction and sentencing. There do not appear to be any obvious errors in the proceeding that led to the result in Clark's case. After Clark - Answer-C. grant the motion, because the subject matter of the controversy between Alex and the defendant has ceased to exist and there is no strong likelihood that it will be revived. In an attempt to stop the growth of North Korea's nuclear capability, the president has placed a naval blockade around North Korea, halting all ships coming into or leaving North Korea and inspecting these ships for nuclear material. Under international law, a blockade is considered an act of war. The president did not seek congressional approval of the blockade. A federal lawsuit is filed challenging the president's authority to impose a naval blockade without a congressional declaration of war. In this suit, the court will A. Declare the president's action constitutional because the president is the commander-in-chief of the armed services. B. Dismiss the case because it involves a nonjusticiable political question. C. Dismiss the case because federal courts do not get involved in foreign policy matters. D. Declare the president's action unconstitutional because the president failed to get a congressional declarat - Answer-B. Dismiss the case because it involves a nonjusticiable political question.