CONSTITUTIONAL LAW EXAM 2
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 100%
SOLVED
,McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) - ANSWERS(Legislative Power Case)
Facts:
In 1816, Congress charters the 2nd bank of the U.S. in Baltimore. In 1818, Maryland
passes the statute taxing, "all banks or branches thereof," in Maryland not chartered by
State. The tax was 2% per issued note, an annual fee of $15,000, and $500 peer
violation. James McCulloch, a cashier at a bank in Maryland, issued notes without
paying the tax and was sued by the state for such. The lower state and state court of
appeals both favored the state. The case was then brought into the Supreme Court on a
writ of error.
Holding:
This case established two important principles in constitutional law. First, the
Constitution grants to Congress implied powers for implementing the Constitution's
express powers, in order to create a functional national government. Second, state
action may not impede valid constitutional exercises of power by the Federal
government.
Chief Justice Marshall: (Opinion of the Court)
The case pertains to a State (Maryland) denying the obligation of a law enacted by the
legislature of the Union, and the Plaintiff (McCulloch) contests the validity of the action
taken by the state (Maryland's taxing statute).
First question: Can Congress incorporate a national bank? Yes. Among the
enumerated powers, while it does not expressly say "bank" or "corporation", Congress
may lay and collect taxes, borrow money, and regulate commerce. In addition, the
national bank creation is constitutional under the Necessary and Proper clause. Second
question: Can Congress create the national bank under the Nessary and Proper
clause? Yes. For two reasons. First, the clause is placed among the powers of
Congress and not among the limitations on those powers. Second, the clause is meant
to enlarge and not diminish the powers vested in the government. Third question: Can a
State tax the nati
U.S. v. Comstock (2010) - ANSWERS(Legislative Power Case)
Facts:
6 days before Comstock was to complete his 37 month sentence for receiving child
porn, Attorney General Gonzales certified Comstock as a sexually dangerous person.
The lower courts ruled the action unconstitutional on the grounds that it exceeded
, Congress' constitutional authority. U.S. argued the action constitutional unthe
Necessary and Proper clause. This case upheld the federal government to require the
civil commitment of individuals already in Federal custody.
Holding:
The federal government may order the civil commitment of a mentally ill, sexually
dangerous person beyond the conclusion of his federal sentence.
Justice Breyer: (Opinion of the Court)
The Necessary and Proper Clause permitted Congress to enact the provision for 5
reasons. 1) the Necessary and Proper clause grants Congress broad power to enact
laws that are "rationally related" and "reasonably adapted" to executing the other
enumerated powers. 2) the statute at issue "constitutes a modest addition" to related
statutes that have existed for many decades. 3) the statute in question reasonably
extends longstanding policy. 4) the statute properly accounts for the State interests, by
ending the federal government's role "with respect to an individual covered by the
statute" whenever a State requests. 5) the state is narrowly tailored to only address the
legitimate federal interest.
Powell v. McCormack (1969) - ANSWERS(Legislative Power Case)
Facts:
89th Congress, subcommittee reported Powell, a representative from the 18th
congressional district in New york, had deceived House authorities regarding to travel
expenses and ordered illegal salary to his wife. 90th Congress, Powell was reelected to
his seat and House Democrats voted to remove him from his chairmanship of the
Committee on Education and Labor. When others sworn in, Powell was not given the
oath and the House authorized the Speaker to appoint a select committee to determine
his eligibility; the House then voted 307-116 to exclude and make his seat vacant.
Powell then sued the Speaker and others seeking a declaratory judgement that his
exclusion was unconstitutional and back pay for the time he was excluded. While the
case was pending, Powell was again reelected to the 91st Congress. The District Court
dismissed the case for "want of jurisdiction matter," The Court of Appeals affirmed the
decision, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Holding:
The House of Representative may not exclude a duly elected representative for any
reason beyond those enumerated in the Qualifications of Members Clause.
Chief Justice Warren: (Opinion of the Court)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 100%
SOLVED
,McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) - ANSWERS(Legislative Power Case)
Facts:
In 1816, Congress charters the 2nd bank of the U.S. in Baltimore. In 1818, Maryland
passes the statute taxing, "all banks or branches thereof," in Maryland not chartered by
State. The tax was 2% per issued note, an annual fee of $15,000, and $500 peer
violation. James McCulloch, a cashier at a bank in Maryland, issued notes without
paying the tax and was sued by the state for such. The lower state and state court of
appeals both favored the state. The case was then brought into the Supreme Court on a
writ of error.
Holding:
This case established two important principles in constitutional law. First, the
Constitution grants to Congress implied powers for implementing the Constitution's
express powers, in order to create a functional national government. Second, state
action may not impede valid constitutional exercises of power by the Federal
government.
Chief Justice Marshall: (Opinion of the Court)
The case pertains to a State (Maryland) denying the obligation of a law enacted by the
legislature of the Union, and the Plaintiff (McCulloch) contests the validity of the action
taken by the state (Maryland's taxing statute).
First question: Can Congress incorporate a national bank? Yes. Among the
enumerated powers, while it does not expressly say "bank" or "corporation", Congress
may lay and collect taxes, borrow money, and regulate commerce. In addition, the
national bank creation is constitutional under the Necessary and Proper clause. Second
question: Can Congress create the national bank under the Nessary and Proper
clause? Yes. For two reasons. First, the clause is placed among the powers of
Congress and not among the limitations on those powers. Second, the clause is meant
to enlarge and not diminish the powers vested in the government. Third question: Can a
State tax the nati
U.S. v. Comstock (2010) - ANSWERS(Legislative Power Case)
Facts:
6 days before Comstock was to complete his 37 month sentence for receiving child
porn, Attorney General Gonzales certified Comstock as a sexually dangerous person.
The lower courts ruled the action unconstitutional on the grounds that it exceeded
, Congress' constitutional authority. U.S. argued the action constitutional unthe
Necessary and Proper clause. This case upheld the federal government to require the
civil commitment of individuals already in Federal custody.
Holding:
The federal government may order the civil commitment of a mentally ill, sexually
dangerous person beyond the conclusion of his federal sentence.
Justice Breyer: (Opinion of the Court)
The Necessary and Proper Clause permitted Congress to enact the provision for 5
reasons. 1) the Necessary and Proper clause grants Congress broad power to enact
laws that are "rationally related" and "reasonably adapted" to executing the other
enumerated powers. 2) the statute at issue "constitutes a modest addition" to related
statutes that have existed for many decades. 3) the statute in question reasonably
extends longstanding policy. 4) the statute properly accounts for the State interests, by
ending the federal government's role "with respect to an individual covered by the
statute" whenever a State requests. 5) the state is narrowly tailored to only address the
legitimate federal interest.
Powell v. McCormack (1969) - ANSWERS(Legislative Power Case)
Facts:
89th Congress, subcommittee reported Powell, a representative from the 18th
congressional district in New york, had deceived House authorities regarding to travel
expenses and ordered illegal salary to his wife. 90th Congress, Powell was reelected to
his seat and House Democrats voted to remove him from his chairmanship of the
Committee on Education and Labor. When others sworn in, Powell was not given the
oath and the House authorized the Speaker to appoint a select committee to determine
his eligibility; the House then voted 307-116 to exclude and make his seat vacant.
Powell then sued the Speaker and others seeking a declaratory judgement that his
exclusion was unconstitutional and back pay for the time he was excluded. While the
case was pending, Powell was again reelected to the 91st Congress. The District Court
dismissed the case for "want of jurisdiction matter," The Court of Appeals affirmed the
decision, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Holding:
The House of Representative may not exclude a duly elected representative for any
reason beyond those enumerated in the Qualifications of Members Clause.
Chief Justice Warren: (Opinion of the Court)
