PSCI 1100 Midterm Exam with Complete Solutions
Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022) - Answer--How did the court rule?
No constitutional right to abortion, overrules Roe and Casey
-Broader significance
Shows how government is becoming increasingly more conservative, republica...
PSCI 1100 Midterm Exam with Complete
Solutions
Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022) - Answer--How did the court
rule?
No constitutional right to abortion, overrules Roe and Casey
-Broader significance
Shows how government is becoming increasingly more conservative, republican state
majorities and conservative SCOTUS. Ignores stare decisis by overturning legal
precedent.
Missouri Compromise of 1820 - Answer--Strictly political situation
-Missouri admitted as a slave state, Maine as a free state
-Slavery can't extend beyond Missouri's southern border
Compromise of 1850 - Answer--California admitted as a free state, in return, fugitive
slave law is strengthened
Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857) - Answer--How does the court rule?
The above compromises (1820 and 1850) are unconstitutional under this ruling.
SCOTUS holds that national government can't outlaw slavery when admitting states
because it is the state's decision
-4th amendment protects from having government seize "property" - enslaved people
seen as property
-Broader significance
Black people aren't citizens, protects institution of slavery
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) - Answer--How did the court rule?
Court held that state-imposed racial segregation is constitutional because the 14th
amendment establishes equality, but separation doesn't imply inferiority.
-Broader significance
Legal protection for segregation. Court ratifies Jim Crow regime.
Shelby County v. Holder (2013) - Answer--How did the court rule?
State argues that section 4 of Voting Rights Act, which is the formula for determining
pre-clearance, uses data from the 1960s, so the section is no longer relevant. SCOTUS
strikes section 4, removing pre-clearance from the law.
-Broader significance
Congress hasn't passed a replacement for the section, so the only remaining federal
enforcement for voting rights comes from section 2. African americans can sue states
when laws restrict voting rights, but this is a lengthy and expensive process.
Voting Rights Act of 1965 - Answer--Constitutional amendment needs federal
enforcement
, -Pre-clearance: fed has to approve any state law that would change voting rules
-Authorized the DOJ to suspend restrictive electoral tests in southern states that had a
history of low Black turnout
-DOJ could send federal officers into uncooperative areas
-incredibly successful, registration soared and southern politicians actually had to pay
attention to black constituents
Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Answer--outlawed discrimination based on race, color,
religion, sex, or national origin
-backed by federal enforcement
-crucial difference from court decisions because SCOTUS has no ability to enforce their
rulings
-Can withhold funds from segregated schools
Collective Action - Answer--Multiple groups working together towards a common goal in
spite of differing preferences
-Conflict is essential to this concept
-Requires coordination
-Facilitated by institutions
Prisoner's Dilemma - Answer--Challenge to coordination and collective action
-Groups would be better off working together to achieve a common goal, but fear the
other group will renege
-act in their self interest, worsening the outcome for both parties
free rider problem - Answer--Larger group
-Their contribution is so small as to be negligible
-do not cooperate, yet still reap the benefits
-If enough people free ride, collective action will fail
Tragedy of the Commons - Answer--pre-existing public good is overused
-quality of the good deteriorating
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) - Answer--How did court rule?
rules that Congress has the power to incorporate the bank and that Maryland couldn't
tax instruments of the national government employed in the execution of constitutional
powers
-Broader significance
Court rules that congress has implied powers because of necessary and proper clause.
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) - Answer--How did the court rule?
Regulation of steamboat operators involves interstate commerce and is therefore
reserved to Congress under the Commerce Clause. National government has sole
control over interstate commerce, which means state laws become invalid in the face of
national law.
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 Scholarsstudyguide. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $12.99. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
