Constitutional Law Multiple Choice || A Verified A+ Pass.
5 views 0 purchase
Module
Constitutional Law
Institution
Constitutional Law
For a party to have standing to sue in federal court, the Constitution require that the party be able to show it satisfies the following elements: correct answers (1) injury-in-fact
(2) injury must be fairly traceable to the defendant
(3) the injury must be redressable by the court
What is the...
for a party to have standing to sue in federal cou
Written for
Constitutional Law
Constitutional Law
Seller
Follow
FullyFocus
Reviews received
Content preview
Constitutional Law Multiple Choice || A Verified A+ Pass.
For a party to have standing to sue in federal court, the Constitution require that the party be able
to show it satisfies the following elements: correct answers (1) injury-in-fact
(2) injury must be fairly traceable to the defendant
(3) the injury must be redressable by the court
What is the textual basis in the Constitution for the requirement that a party have standing to
sue? correct answers The language in Article III, Section 2, which describes the power of the
Supreme Court and other federal courts as extending only certain types of "cases" or
"controversies"
May a federal court provide advice about a legal question in response to questions that Congress
or the President ask of it (outside the context of an existing dispute?
For example, could Congress - in considering whether to enact the Affordable Care Act (also
known as Obamacare) in 2009 or 2010 - have asked the Supreme Court's justices to provide
them with an opinion about whether the law (if ultimately enacted) would be constitutional?
correct answers No. Neither the Supreme Court nor any other federal court can provide such
advice because the Constitution bars courts from issuing advisory opinions.
What are the two things that the Supreme Court - in Lujan - said must be true for an alleged harm
to amount to an injury-in-fact? correct answers It must be:
(i) concrete and particularized
(ii) actual or imminent
Imagine that a wildlife researcher in Oregon is studying the Northern Spotted Owl, a species
protected by the Endangered Species Act. The Department of Interior decides that while the ESA
protects the Norther Spotted Owl against acts that directly harm the owl, it odes not protect the
owl against forestry operations that harm the owl indirectly by harming its habitat. Assuming
these forestry operation would in fact occur and would lead to the elimination of the owl
population in the area, can the wildlife researcher likely show that the harm to the owl's habitat
would count as "injury in fact" enabling the researcher to sue the Department of Interior in
federal court? correct answers Yes, because the harm that the researcher plausibly says will
occur to the owl population will cause harm to the researcher by depriving it of animals to study
in the area where the researcher works.
Which of the following best describes how the concept of a state's "quasi-sovereign interests"
modifies the standing analysis in the view of the Court in Massachusetts v. EPA? correct answers
A state can satisfy the injury-in-fact requirements by showing evidence of harms - such as harms
to the state's quasi-sovereign interest in protecting its air or water quality - even though such
harms would likely not be particularized enough to let an individual citizen satisfy the injury-in-
fact requirement on the grounds that citizen is hurt by polluted air.
After capturing an enemy combatant during the war in Afghanistan, the government detains that
combatant under circumstances that an individual citizen - and taxpayer - believes are illegal
, under international law, and a US status incorporating those aspects of international law into
domestic law.
Does the taxpayer likely have standing to sue the government on grounds that the government is
using her tax dollars to carry out the illegal detention? correct answers No. The general rule is
that a taxpayer's connection to such government action does not give her any more stake in the
government's action than any other citizen-taxpayer and whatever injury exists is thus not
sufficiently particularized to count as an injury-in-fact for purposes of standing.
What two factors does ripeness (for review) depend on? correct answers (1) Whether the issue is
fit for judicial decision and
(2) the hardship to the parties of withholding consideration
(And the party must have already suffered harm, or be facing or threatened with specific harm).
Which of the following best provides a short summary of the black letter law on when Congress
can deprive the Supreme Court of appellate jurisdiction to hear a case on a federal question?
correct answers Congress has power to remove jurisdiction under its power to make exceptions
to the Court's appellate jurisdiction. The extent of that power is uncertain but Congress may not
exercise it in such a way that it imposes a rule of decision on the Court, or deprives its
judgements of finality.
Which of the following is true about the Supreme Court's power to review and reverse a state
court decision that discusses, in a dicta, the meaning of a federal constitutional provision such as
the First Amendment of the US Constitution? correct answers The US Supreme Court may do so
under any circumstances where federal law is discussed, even if such discussing is purely dicta
rather than the state court's holding, because even dicta may be relied upon by other courts and it
is the highest federal court (the Supreme Court), not the state court, that is the ultimate authority
on questions of federal law.
Which of the following are the two major factors the Court uses in determining if a certain issue
is a non-justiciable political question? correct answers (1) The textual constitutional commitment
of the issue to a political branch
(2) The lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards.
If a person sues a state for creating Congressional districts with unequal populations - claiming
that the inequalities created by such districts violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th
amendment - would the courts find this to raise a non-justiciable question? correct answers No -
because the Court has deciding that in contrast to cases on the clause guaranteeing states a
republican form of government, cases that raise Equal Protection Claims about unequal voting
power of individuals raise questions where there are well-developed and familiar judicial
standards.
The Senate tries an impeached judge - but it delegates to a special committee of Senators the
responsibility to hear evidence (and then present the full Senate with a full transcript and a
report). If the impeached judge challenges the Senate's procedure, on grounds that this committee
hearing is not a trial by the full Senate, as required by the Constitution, what will the Court rule
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller FullyFocus. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £8.93. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
