Select a Chapter to start the court case quiz.
Court case: McCulloch v. Maryland
The power to create a bank is
inherent in congressional power.
implied in congressional power.
an enumerated power in the Constitution.
all of these
Court case: Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association
The anti-commandeering rule does not allow the Congress to issue orders directly to states.
Court case: Missouri v. Holland
Treaties
unlike laws passed by Congress are the law of the land.
have the full authority of law.
are binding on the states and U.S. territories.
Court case: Printz v. U.S.
State justices do not have to enforce federal prescriptions.
Treaties are valid under the necessary and proper clause.
Court case: Coyle v. Smith
For the Court, states have the power to determine their seat of government.
Court case: Alden v. Maine
Souter dissents and cites McCulloch to support his argument that states are not immune here.
Maryland argues that states should be able to
tax national banks.
tax state banks.
control local banks.
Only the president can administer laws enacted by the Congress.
Court case: New York v. United States
In dissent, White argues that the decision compromises the delicate balance in federalism.
For the Court, the anti-commandeering rule
protects the liberties laid out in the Constitution.
promotes political accountability.
prevents Congress from shifting costs to the states.
In dissent, Souter uses the Federalist Papers to support his argument that CLEOs can be forced to support the law.
The original understanding of the constitution was that states retain immunity.
The take title provision
is coercion and not within the Congress’ power.
is coercion and within the Congress’ power.
is the only way the Congress can encourage states to carry out policy.
none of these
Court case: Scott v. Sandford
For the Court, the class of people in which Scott is a part were
meant to be citizens.
meant to be free.
meant to never be citizens.
Court case: Arizona v. United States
In dissent, Thomas argues that the judiciary should not interpret congressional reasons for preemption.
Court case: Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority
When it comes to state sovereignty, the Constitution
places limits on the states.
allows states free reign.
keeps states fully separate from the federal government.
The legislative powers of the Congress are
very limited.
sizable but not unlimited.
unlimited.
subject to the discretion of the president.
The Court argues that the Constitution allows the Congress to
regulate individuals.
regulate states.
regulate states and individuals.
For O’Connor, the 10th Amendment allows states to retain their integrity.
The Court’s own precedents suggest states are not sovereign from the Congress.
Sovereign immunity does allow
some judicial review.
suit with consent from the state.
for the fact that states surrender some sovereignty under Section 5.
The Court upholds the National League of Cities in this case.
The power of Congress when it comes to admitting states
is found in Article 4, Section 3 of the Constitution.
does not allow states to be admitted in the jurisdiction of another state.
does not allow states to be admitted by the junction of two or more states.
The Court upheld the Missouri compromise here.
The issue here involves only one state so the treaty is invalid.
The Constitution gives no state powers that the federal government cannot displace.
Oklahoma has been admitted to the union with the same powers as other states.
Court case: Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council
State laws are preempted when Congress intended to occupy a field.
The state law here does not undermine the president’s authority.
The 11th Amendment
is clear about sovereign immunity.
allows suits against states from their own citizens.
does not address the issue in this case.
McCulloch effectively guts the 10th Amendment.
For the Court, states have no power to impede laws passed by the Congress.
States may confer citizenship to people that effectively nationalizes them.
Section 6 violates federal preemption because it touches on foreign relations.
For the dissenters, federalism means that
states are bound by whatever the federal government says.
states never have to listen to the federal government.
states have legitimate interests that the federal government must respect.
States that are admitted to the union have the same powers as existing states.
According to the Court, the Constitution was ratified by the people and not the states.
The absence of express preemption means nothing here.
At the time for the founding slaves were
considered citizens.
not considered citizens.
had sovereignty over themselves.
not allowed in the U.S.
Justice Thomas dissents because
he argues that the federal government can force CLEOs to enforce the law.
he argues that the Commerce Clause was used properly here.
he argues that the law violates the Second Amendment.
If a state does not think a regulation is in its best interest, the Congress may
invoke the 10th Amendment.
invoke the take care clause.
invoke the supremacy clause.
In citing New York, the Court argues that the Congress may give states this type of instruction.
Given the president’s power here
the federal government meant to preempt the states.
the federal government meant to share power with the states.
the federal government meant to defer to the states.
The Court believes that citizens and people of the U.S. are the same.
The conditions and incentives to gain state compliance are not within congressional power.
The Congress has the power to preempt state law.
PAPSA is a regulation that falls within the Congress’ power.
Section 3 of the Arizona law violates federal preemption because
the state violated the 14th Amendment.
the states said so.
the federal government occupies the field.
The Congress may attach conditions to the receipt of federal funds to encourage a state to carry out policy.
