Select a Chapter to start the court case quiz.
Court case: Ex parte McCardle
The Court cannot hear this case because it is an original jurisdiction case.
Court case: Eakin v. Raub
For Gibson, courts have the power to scan the authority of lawgivers.
Court case: Flast v. Cohen
Standing focuses on the issue and not on the party contesting an issue.
Court case: Marbury v. Madison
Marbury was given his commission in Marbury v. Madison.
Court case: Patchak v. Zinke
The type of change laid out in this law is within Congress’ authority and does not violate Article III.
Congress violates Article III when it “changes the law.”
Court case: Baker v. Carr
Foreign relations cases ______.
are always political questions
are never political questions
are sometimes political questions
are not relevant for the Court
McCardle asked for a writ of habeas corpus.
Court case: Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee
Appellate jurisdiction extends to all cases from state courts.
To be a political question, there must be a textually demonstrable commitment to a coordinate political branch.
Which judge, in writing, supported judicial review?
Story
Gibson
Marshall
none of these
Court Case: Nixon v. United States
Article I says that ______.
the Court has some power in cases of impeachment
the President has some power in cases of impeachment
the House has some power in cases of impeachment
the Senate has the sole power to try cases of impeachment
The Court’s only function in a case like this is to ______.
declare it has no jurisdiction
declare it must decide the case
declare a lower court must decide
declare Congress must decide
In his dissent, Frankfurter would continue to rely on Luther v. Borden.
Marbury was written by John Marshall.
The word “sole” has a qualifier so that the Senate must share some of its powers to try impeachment cases.
Roberts’ dissent argues that Congress is simply picking the winner of this case by passing the law here.
The Court suggests that Klein is applicable in this case.
The Court utilized Baker v. Carr to analyze this case.
In concurrence, Souter adds that there may be times when judicial review is justified for an impeachment case.
The Constitution gives the Court appellate jurisdiction in all cases where it does not have original jurisdiction.
It is inherently the prerogative of the judicial department to say what is law.
Gibson argues that it is a fallacy that courts should say if a law is constitutional.
The Court holds that the case still rests on the Guaranty Clause.
To have standing, there must be ______.
a logical nexus between the law in question and a precise constitutional infringement
a logical nexus between the litigant and the issue in question
a logical nexus between the law and a Court precedent
There must be judicially discoverable standards for a case to be a political question.
Marbury v. Madison focused on the 1789 Judiciary Act.
Marbury was decided with the following verdict.
5-4
3-0
4-0
9-0
Section 2(b) of the law in question ______.
does not change the law
changes the law
is neutral about the current law
leaves the law up to the courts
The judiciary has the duty to say what is law.
U.S. Courts do not have jurisdiction over state legislative decisions.
Frothingham is applicable in this case as the key precedent.
The Constitution was ordained by the states.
The federal government ______.
may not claim powers not given it by the Constitution
may claim powers not given it by the constitution fosters legitimate regulation
may delegate states to enforce laws
The logical nexus in this case includes a nexus to the First Amendment.
The Senate is kept informed during impeachments because ______.
impeachment powers is divided between two houses
it takes a 2/3rd supermajority for conviction
impeachment powers is divided between two houses and it takes a 2/3rd supermajority for conviction.
