Court Case Quiz | Online Resources

You got 37 of 54 possible points.

Your score: 69%

Court case: Murphy v. Ford

The fact that Nixon was not indicted or convicted

Score: 1 of 1

Your answer	Choice	Correct?	Score	Correct answer
	means he cannot be pardoned.		0
	means he can be pardoned.		1
	means presidents cannot be pardoned.		0
	none of these		0

Court Case: Clinton v. Jones

The Court finds that Congress’ actions here violate Chadha.

Score: 0 of 1

Your answer	Choice	Correct?	Score	Correct answer
	True		0
	False		0

Court case: Clinton v. Jones

Breyer points out the standard is whether a law suit will significantly distract the president.

Score: 1 of 1

Your answer	Choice	Correct?	Score	Correct answer
	True		1
	False		0

Court case: United States v. Nixon

Based on the 5^th and 6^th Amendments, the tapes must be turned over in this case.

Score: 1 of 1

Your answer	Choice	Correct?	Score	Correct answer
	True		1
	False		0

Court case: Clinton v. Jones

Former presidents have provided testimony in the past so having Clinton do so is not a problem.

Score: 1 of 1

Your answer	Choice	Correct?	Score	Correct answer
	True		1
	False		0

Court case: Clinton v. Jones

Allowing this lawsuit will

Score: 0 of 1

Your answer	Choice	Correct?	Score	Correct answer
	lead to more frivolous lawsuits that will clog the system.		0
	will lead to more frivolous lawsuits but they will be stopped at the pleadings stage.		0
	the governor.		0
	all of these		0

Court case: Humphrey’s Executor v. United States

Myers is the controlling precedent in this case for the Court.

Score: 0 of 1

Your answer	Choice	Correct?	Score	Correct answer
	True		0
	False		0

Court case: In re Neagle

The power of the president to protect a judge while performing duties is undeniable.

Score: 1 of 1

Your answer	Choice	Correct?	Score	Correct answer
	True		1
	False		0

Court case: Humphrey’s Executor v. United States

The FTC, for the Court, is a partisan body and does not need to be impartial.

Score: 1 of 1

Your answer	Choice	Correct?	Score	Correct answer
	True		0
	False		1

Court case: Bush v. Gore

The Court found clear standards for determining voter intent.

Score: 0 of 1

Your answer	Choice	Correct?	Score	Correct answer
	True		0
	False		0

Court case: Bush v. Gore

Breyer argues that the Safe Harbor issue is not mandated by law.

Score: 1 of 1

Your answer	Choice	Correct?	Score	Correct answer
	True		1
	False		0

Court case: United States v. Nixon

The rule of law demands

Score: 1 of 1

Your answer	Choice	Correct?	Score	Correct answer
	the need to find out all the facts.		0
	the legitimacy of courts to be upheld.		0
	compulsory production of evidence.		0
	all of these		1

Court case: Nixon v. Fitzgerald

White is upset in dissent because he argues that the president would be above the law.

Score: 0 of 1

Your answer	Choice	Correct?	Score	Correct answer
	True		0
	False		0

Court case: In re Neagle

The Court does not grant habeas corpus despite the president’s power.

Score: 0 of 1

Your answer	Choice	Correct?	Score	Correct answer
	True		0
	False		0

Court case: Murphy v. Ford

President Ford argued that the pardon of Nixon was meant to end the season of rebellion in the U.S.

Score: 1 of 1

Your answer	Choice	Correct?	Score	Correct answer
	True		1
	False		0

Court case: Morrisson v. Olson

The special prosecutor office is a major office in the federal government.

Score: 1 of 1

Your answer	Choice	Correct?	Score	Correct answer
	True		0
	False		1

Court case: Morrisson v. Olson

Special prosecutors

Score: 1 of 1

Your answer	Choice	Correct?	Score	Correct answer
	are subject to removal from higher executive officials.		1
	have the power to perform major duties.		0
	have unlimited jurisdiction.		0
	none of these		0

Court case: Clinton v. Jones

Presidential immunity is not meant to protect them from unofficial duties.

Score: 1 of 1

Your answer	Choice	Correct?	Score	Correct answer
	True		1
	False		0

Court Case: Clinton v. Jones

For Scalia, the Line Item Veto does not violate any textual command in the Constitution

Score: 0 of 1

Your answer	Choice	Correct?	Score	Correct answer
	True		0
	False		0

Court case: National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning

Recesses of more than 3 but fewer than 10 days are not a recess for the Court.

Score: 1 of 1

Your answer	Choice	Correct?	Score	Correct answer
	True		1
	False		0

Court Case: Clinton v. Jones

When it comes to laws, the president can

Score: 1 of 1

Your answer	Choice	Correct?	Score	Correct answer
	only return the full bill as a veto.		1
	return parts of a bill for veto.		0
	tell Congress to rewrite the laws the way he wants them to write them.		0
	none of these		0

Court case: In re Neagle

Federal judges only perform duties in their respective court houses.

Score: 1 of 1

Your answer	Choice	Correct?	Score	Correct answer
	True		0
	False		1

Court Case: Clinton v. Jones

The only way for a line-item veto to be legitimate is through constitutional amendment.

Score: 1 of 1

Your answer	Choice	Correct?	Score	Correct answer
	True		1
	False		0

Court case: Morrisson v. Olson

In dissent, Scalia argues that the independent counsel is part of the executive because

Score: 1 of 1

Your answer	Choice	Correct?	Score	Correct answer
	it is meant to make laws.		0
	it is meant to decide on the constitutionality of laws.		0
	it is meant to enforce laws.		1
	all of these		0

Court case: In re Neagle

Section 3 of Article 2 declares the president

Score: 0 of 1

Your answer	Choice	Correct?	Score	Correct answer
	shall faithfully execute law.		0
	commission officers of the U.S.		0
	appoint officers with the advice and consent of the Senate.		0
	all of these		0

Court case: United States v. Nixon

There is a notion here that presidents enjoy immunity in general cases.

Score: 0 of 1

Your answer	Choice	Correct?	Score	Correct answer
	True		0
	False		0

Court case: Humphrey’s Executor v. United States

The president does not have inherent powers of removal for these types of officers.

Score: 1 of 1

Your answer	Choice	Correct?	Score	Correct answer
	True		1
	False		0

Court Case: Clinton v. Jones

Scalia argues that this law

Score: 0 of 1

Your answer	Choice	Correct?	Score	Correct answer
	is not really a line item veto.		0
	Congress faked out the Court with this law.		0
	would be the same as if the president declined to spend money.		0
	all of these.		0

Court case: Myers v. United States

Congress may have some say in removal of executive officials when

Score: 1 of 1

Your answer	Choice	Correct?	Score	Correct answer
	it is a major officer.		0
	it is the vice-president.		0
	it is an inferior officer.		1
	all of these		0

Court case: Clinton v. Jones

All the respondent is asking is for courts to

Score: 0 of 1

Your answer	Choice	Correct?	Score	Correct answer
	perform their Article III duties.		0
	find the president guilty.		0
	leave the decision to the Congress.		0
	none of these		0

Court case: Mississippi v. Johnson

The powers exercised here are

Score: 1 of 1

Your answer	Choice	Correct?	Score	Correct answer
	purely ministerial.		0
	executive and political.		1
	purely ministerial and executive and political.		0
	neither purely ministerial nor executive and political.		0

Court case: Myers v. United States

The power of removal of executive employees

Score: 0 of 1

Your answer	Choice	Correct?	Score	Correct answer
	stays with the president.		0
	is shared with the president and the Congress.		0
	are discussed in Articles I and II.		0
	none of these		0

Court case: Myers v. United States

Brandeis argues that laws passed by the Congress suggest it has some control over removal.

Score: 1 of 1

Your answer	Choice	Correct?	Score	Correct answer
	True		1
	False		0

Court case: Humphrey’s Executor v. United States

According to the Court, legislative intent suggests

Score: 1 of 1

Your answer	Choice	Correct?	Score	Correct answer
	it wanted the FTC to be subject to a government official.		0
	it wanted the FTC to be free from political domination.		1
	it wanted complete executive control over the FTC.		0
	none of these		0

Court case: Myers v. United States

Cabinet officers must be the president’s alter egos to carry out policy.

Score: 1 of 1

Your answer	Choice	Correct?	Score	Correct answer
	True		1
	False		0

Court case: Nixon v. Fitzgerald

Presidential power is rooted in

Score: 1 of 1

Your answer	Choice	Correct?	Score	Correct answer
	Marbury v Madison		0
	the Declaration of Independence		0
	the separation of powers		1
	all of these		0

Court case: Nixon v. Fitzgerald

It would not be too intrusive to allow questioning of the president’s duties here.

Score: 1 of 1

Your answer	Choice	Correct?	Score	Correct answer
	True		0
	False		1

Court case: Nixon v. Fitzgerald

The president can still be held accountable through

Score: 1 of 1

Your answer	Choice	Correct?	Score	Correct answer
	impeachment.		1
	the state legislature.		0
	the governor.		0
	all of these		0

Court case: Morrisson v. Olson

The Congress has the power to move appointment of special prosecutors to the judiciary and so no Article III violation has occurred.

Score: 1 of 1

Your answer	Choice	Correct?	Score	Correct answer
	True		1
	False		0

Court case: National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning

The Court argues that recess appointments are not meant to avoid the need for Senate confirmation.

Score: 1 of 1

Your answer	Choice	Correct?	Score	Correct answer
	True		1
	False		0

Court case: Ex parte Grossman

Pardoning for offenses against the U.S. include pardons for contempt.

Score: 1 of 1

Your answer	Choice	Correct?	Score	Correct answer
	True		1
	False		0

Court case: Myers v. United States

Removal authority is incidental to an actual appointment for the Court.

Score: 1 of 1

Your answer	Choice	Correct?	Score	Correct answer
	True		1
	False		0

Court case: National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning

For the Court, Pro Forma sessions are

Score: 0 of 1

Your answer	Choice	Correct?	Score	Correct answer
	counted as sessions.		0
	not counted as recesses.		0
	part of sessions when the Senate says they are.		0
	all of these.		0

Court case: National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning

It is the duty of the judicial department to

Score: 1 of 1

Your answer	Choice	Correct?	Score	Correct answer
	say what the law is.		1
	defer to the president.		0
	defer to the Congress.		0
	none of these		0

Court case: Bush v. Gore

Recounting over-votes is an equal protection issue.

Score: 1 of 1

Your answer	Choice	Correct?	Score	Correct answer
	True		1
	False		0

Court case: Bush v. Gore

Rehnquist is willing to defer to ______ based on his views of the 10^th Amendment

Score: 0 of 1

Your answer	Choice	Correct?	Score	Correct answer
	the state supreme court		0
	the state legislature		0
	the governor		0
	all of these		0

Court case: Ex parte Grossman

The power to pardon for contempt derives from the King of England’s power.

Score: 1 of 1

Your answer	Choice	Correct?	Score	Correct answer
	True		1
	False		0

Court case: United States v. Nixon

Absolute unqualified immunity would impede the judicial function.

Score: 1 of 1

Your answer	Choice	Correct?	Score	Correct answer
	True		1
	False		0

Court case: Mississippi v. Johnson

The power here is one that focuses on the president’s ministerial duties.

Score: 1 of 1

Your answer	Choice	Correct?	Score	Correct answer
	True		0
	False		1

Court case: Nixon v. Fitzgerald

The Court believes private lawsuits would inhibit the president’s management of the government.

Score: 0 of 1

Your answer	Choice	Correct?	Score	Correct answer
	True		0
	False		0

Court case: National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning

Scalia disagrees with the Court’s view of recess because it gives presidents too little latitude.

Score: 1 of 1

Your answer	Choice	Correct?	Score	Correct answer
	True		0
	False		1

Court case: Bush v. Gore

The lack of standards set by Florida

Score: 1 of 1

Your answer	Choice	Correct?	Score	Correct answer
	had no effect on voters rights.		0
	meant that all voters were treated equally.		0
	meant that ballots were evaluated unequally.		1
	none of these		0

Court case: Ex parte Grossman

For the Court, there are instances where there should not be a chance for a pardon.

Score: 0 of 1

Your answer	Choice	Correct?	Score	Correct answer
	True		0
	False		0

Court case: Morrisson v. Olson

According to Scalia this law violates Article II.

Score: 0 of 1

Your answer	Choice	Correct?	Score	Correct answer
	True		0
	False		0

Error message

Primary tabs

Court Case Quizzes

Institutional Powers and Constraints