Select a Chapter to start the court case quiz.
Court case: U. S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton
Who has the right to choose their representatives?
States
The House
The Senate
The people
Court case: McGrain v. Daugherty
If the end is legitimate but not constitutional, the law is valid.
The Court believes the 10th Amendment applies in this case.
The Court cites Powell to suggest the people should not choose who governs them.
Court case: McCulloch v. Maryland
The key to the Constitution is that it is
very specific in laying out the government structure of the nation.
broadly defined and outlines the government.
says nothing about how the government should be structured.
none of these
For Thomas, the Framer’s intent supports the notion of term limits being constitutional.
Court case: Gravel v. United States
In partial dissent, Brennan argues that the Court has expanded the speech and debate clause too far.
Court case: Watkins v. United States
Watkins was
not allowed to know if he could refuse to answer
allowed to know if he could refuse to answer
unnecessarily thrown in jail
Court case: Barenblatt v. United States
The First Amendment does not bar this congressional activity.
The judiciary lacks authority
if the Congress acts pursuant to its constitutional power.
if the Congress tells the Court not to act.
if the President backs congressional action.
all of these
Court Case: Powell v. McCormack
The House cannot exclude members who meet the qualifications to be seated.
The Congress can investigate solely to punish witnesses.
Compulsion of witnesses is
fine is the purpose is legitimate.
fine if it does not serve a legislative function.
is fine if members want information for any reason.
Members of the Congress and aides should be seen as one entity.
Rule 11
cannot be read in isolation
must be read in light of legislative history
is meant to protect national security
A bank can be created to carry out the powers of
collecting taxes
borrowing money
regulating commerce
The power to charter a bank is an enumerated power.
The government must be given the power to carry out its enumerated powers.
For the Court, the Framers intended
the qualifications in the Constitution to be exclusive.
the Congress to have some say in qualifications.
only the Senate to have some say in qualifications.
only the House to have some say in qualifications.
Stewart dissents because he thinks the case is moot.
The Court argues that Watkins applies in this case.
For the Court, the framers believed that qualifications
could be changed by the Congress.
were already limited by Article I, Section 5.
could be changed by the president.
could never be changed.
The object of investigations is to
obtain information for prosecution.
obtain information for opposition research.
obtain research for the legislative process.
For Black, the state’s interest is too vague and broad.
Court case: United States v. Katzenbach
Black thinks the Court should not decide this case.
The HUAC charter is
overly broad
narrowly defined
unlikely to produce any information
Committee jurisdiction that is too vague may lead to unlimited power.
Powell is a case that involves a political question.
Section 2 does not allow the Congress to take appropriate measures here.
The necessary and proper clause does not allow extraction of testimony.
Clark dissents because he believes congressional committees should be able to investigate.
This ruling
provides criminal protection for aides and members.
does not provide criminal protection for aides and members,
does not protect aides of members from testifying at trials.
provides protection where acts do not impugn a legislative act.
The legislative intent
was to impose stringent regulations to stop this evil.
was that Congress did not think current remedies worked.
was that new measures were needed to enforce the 15th Amendment.
The Congress does have the power to
determine if members meet the Article I, Section 5 requirements.
change the Article I, Section 5 requirements by a majority vote.
decide, in consultation with the Senate who, who may be seated.
The Court cites McCulloch to support its conclusion.
