100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
Previously searched by you
CONSTITUTION LAW NPTC EXAM QUESTIONS AND CORRECT ANSWERS VERIFIED BY EXPERTS|ACCURATE ACTUAL EXAM WITH FREQUENTLY TESTED QUESTIONS AND STUDY GUIDE| GUARANTEED PASS|ALREADY GRADED A+|LATEST UPDATE 2024/2025$23.49
Add to cart
CONSTITUTION LAW NPTC EXAM QUESTIONS AND CORRECT ANSWERS VERIFIED BY EXPERTS|ACCURATE ACTUAL EXAM WITH FREQUENTLY TESTED QUESTIONS AND STUDY GUIDE| GUARANTEED PASS|ALREADY GRADED A+|LATEST UPDATE 2024/2025
4 views 0 purchase
Course
CONSTITUTION LAW NPTC
Institution
CONSTITUTION LAW NPTC
CONSTITUTION LAW NPTC EXAM QUESTIONS AND
CORRECT ANSWERS VERIFIED BY EXPERTS|ACCURATE
ACTUAL EXAM WITH FREQUENTLY TESTED QUESTIONS
AND STUDY GUIDE| GUARANTEED PASS|ALREADY
GRADED A+|LATEST UPDATE 2024/2025
CONSTITUTION LAW NPTC EXAM QUESTIONS AND
CORRECT ANSWERS VERIFIED BY EXPERTS|ACCURATE
ACTUAL EXAM WITH FREQUENTLY TESTED QUESTIONS
AND STUDY GUIDE| GUARANTEED PASS|ALREADY
GRADED A+|LATEST UPDATE 2024/2025
Justiciability doctrine - CORRECT ANSWER Places a limit on the federal judicial power
determines which matters the FC can hear and which must be dismissed
Prohibition against advisory opinions, standing, ripeness, mootness, and PQ doctrine
two limitations of the Justic. doctrine - CORRECT ANSWER Must be an actual case or
controversy (must be true lawsuits between individuals with a personal stake in the outcome) to
achieve some personal right or remedy
Prudential - policy goes against judicial review sometimes
Prohibition against advisory opinions - CORRECT ANSWER Actual dispute between litigants -
cannot be a request for advice
substantial likelihood judgment will have some effect in favor of P
The FC cannot issue advisory opinions
Advis. opinion: lawsuit that seeks the court's opinion on a question and asks them to render a
declaratory judgment (essentially a request for advice)
Arguments against Advisory opnions:
Textual - case and controversies
Structural - separation of powers
Precedent/history
prudential
Waste of courts time
If the SC made advisory opinions it would erode their authority. They would be making laws
instead of congress. It would violate the separation of powers.
To avoid being an AOpinion: Must be an actual controversy, between adverse litigants, that have
an interest in the outcome, court's decision must have possibility to bring a change or effect.
Standing - CORRECT ANSWER Determination of whether a specific person is the proper party
to bring matter for adjudication or challenge some form of government action.
,You must ask: WHO is the proper party to bring the lawsuit?
Elements:
Injury in fact: must be actual or imminent, concrete and particularized
Causation: fairly traceable to defendant's conduct
Redressability: decision will likely redress P's injury
Injury in fact - CORRECT ANSWER actual or imminent - cannot be hypothetical
Cannot be someday,injury must have happened. A mere interest in the problem is not enough
(Lujan v. defenders)
Concrete and particularized - certain types of injuries (cannot be harm to society) - can be money
damages, civil rights violation, unconstitutional tax under establishment clause (Flash v. Cohen),
any common law injury, physical injury, injunctive remedy
Generalized grievance - must be more than a complaint that the gov. if not following the law.
Frothingham v. Melon (injury shared with citizens)
Causation - CORRECT ANSWER Must be fairly traceable to D's conduct and not some third
party
d's conduct must have caused the injury
Redressability - CORRECT ANSWER Likelihood that the problem will be fixed (relief or
redress available from the court)
Prohibition on third party standing - CORRECT ANSWER Person has been injured but doesn't
have a good claim so he tries to assert someone else's right to rectify his harm
concerns: person who suffered from the legal interest should bring the claim
judiciary might not have to deal with these issues when they don't have to
Physicians allowed to sue on mother's rights under an abortion statute (singleton v. wuff)
Third party claim - CORRECT ANSWER Exception that allows one to assert another's rights:
allowed to assert someone else's right if there is a close relationship between the litigant and the
third party's rights
Obstacles to them bringing suit, impediment to original party placing the claim
Litigant and third party both suffer some type of injury
Ripeness - CORRECT ANSWER Matter is premature for review, because the injury is
speculative and may never occur
ASK: is it too early?(has the injury occurred yet?)
,Ripeness determines when a party can seek pre-enforcement challenge to a statute (party wants
to engage in conduct that might violate the statute)
Mixture of Con. and prudential concerns: How likely will there be enforcement of the statute?
Look for a genuine threat of immediate harm
Three situations where a hardship is found and there will be ripeness:
Person faced with a choice b/w foregoing allegedly lawful behavior and risking likely
prosecution with substantial consequences
Enforcement of a statute or regulation is certain
There are collateral injuries
Mootness - CORRECT ANSWER Means the injury has ceased
Someone WAS injured, but no longer so
English v. arizona
examples of moot claims: challenge a statute and it gets repealed, criminal defendant dies,
settlement, change in facts that ends controversy
fourt exceptions where a case will not be moot: recurring issue yet it evades review (When there
is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be subjected to the same action
again and would again be unable to resolve the issue because of the short duration of the action) -
pregnancy in Roe v. Wade
Evading review : timeliness aspect, issue happens too fast for the court to render a judgment
(must be capable of repetition)
Voluntary cessation but could reoccur, class action or multiple parties, collateral consequences
will exist.
Political question - CORRECT ANSWER Subject matter is inappropriate for judicial review.
Allegations of unconstitutional gov. conduct should not be ruled on by the F courts.
Con. interpretation should let other branches do it.
ASK: is this question solely and exclusively a province of the political branches? (if yes,
judiciary needs to stay away)
policy reasons: separation of powers, there has been a commitment of the issue to another
branch. (or can we come up with a rule of law that governs these things?)
Prudential : mutual respect among branches, don't want to piss other branches off.
PQ are those that are issues committed by the CON to another branch of the gov. Decision by
judiciary could create some crisis or chaos.
, Political gerrymandering is NOT a political question
Section 13 of the judiciary act says scotus can issue a writ of mandamus in the case of marbury.
Jurisdictional limitations - CORRECT ANSWER Article 3 specifies that congress can influence
the court's decision
It is constitutional for congress to withdraw jurisdiction from the courts which there is another
avenue of review (Ex parte McCardle)
Two things Congress cannot do: (use their jurisdiction rules to compel courts to reach certain
results in certain cases and violate any other provision of the constitution)
Article 1 section 8 (congress powers) - CORRECT ANSWER The Congress shall have Power
To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the
common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises
shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian
Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies
throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights
and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United
States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors
and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the
Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on
Land and Water;
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 or Stuvia-credit 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 DrMedinaReed. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $23.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
