Exam (elaborations)
BARBRI MBE Exam Questions and Answers 2025
- Course
- Institution
BARBRI MBE Exam Questions and Answers 2025
[Show more]
Content preview
1BARBRI MBE Exam Questions and Answers 2025
A statute passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President
authorizes a federal agency to select a site for and to construct a monument
honoring members of the capitol police force killed in the line of duty. The statute
appropriates the necessary funds but provides that the funds may not be
expended until both houses of Congress have adopted a concurrent resolution,
not subject to presentment to the President, approving the agency's plans for the
monument's location and design.
Is the provision requiring further congressional approval before expenditure of
the funds constitutional?
A No, because decisions regarding the placement and design of government-
owned structures are an exclusively executive function with which Congress may
not interfere by any means.
B No, because the provision amounts to an unconstitutional legislative
interference with an executive function.
C Yes, because Congress may attach reasonable conditions to its appropriation of
funds to executive departments, and its special interest in the members of its own
police force makes the provision a reasonable condition.
D Yes, because the provision is part of a statute that was passed by both houses
of Congress and signed by the President.
(B) is correct. The enactment of laws by Congress requires passage of the law in
both houses (bicameralism) and approval of the law by the President (that is, the
1
,2
presentment requirement) or an override of a presidential veto. Here, Congress
passed a law and the President signed it, but Congress sought further control by
requiring expenditures to be approved specifically by Congress without
presentment to the President. Such a requirement usurps the power of the
executive branch to execute laws and places it in the hands of Congress in
violation of the doctrine of separation of powers. (A) is incorrect. Under the
Spending Clause, Congress certainly has the power to adopt a law specifying
where a monument should be placed, and if such a law were passed by Congress
and the President signed the law, it would be valid. However, that is not what
happened here. Here, the law left it to an agency to select a site. (C) is incorrect
for the reasons stated above; requiring subsequent Congressional approval of
agency site selection is unconstitutional. (D) is incorrect for the same reason.
Under the authority of a federal voting rights statute, some states drew
congressional districts in a manner calculated to increase the likelihood that
members of historically disadvantaged minority racial groups would be elected.
The U.S. Supreme Court declared these districts to be unconstitutional, as
improper racial gerrymanders.
In response to this ruling, Congress passed a new statute that explicitly denies the
Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over all future cases challenging the
constitutionality of action taken under the authority of the federal voting rights
statute.
Which of the following is the most persuasive argument for the constitutionality
of the new statute restricting the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction?
A Article III of the Constitution explicitly states that the Supreme Court's appellate
jurisdiction is subject to such exceptions and regulations as Congress shall
make.BThe constitutional principle of separation of powers authorizes Congress
to pass statutes calculated to reduce the effects of Supreme Court decisions that
interfere with the exercise of powers that have been delegated to the legislative
branch.CThe establishment and apportionment of congressional districts directly
affect interstate commerce, and the Constitution authorizes Congress to use its
2
,3
plenary authority over such commerce for any purpose it believes will promote
the general welfare.DThe Fifteenth Amendment authorizes Congress to enforce
the amendment's voting rights provisions by appropriate legislation, and Congress
could reasonably determine that this restriction on the Supreme Court's appellate
jurisdiction is an appropriate means to that end.
(A) is correct. Article III explicitly gives Congress the power to make exceptions to
the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. (B) is incorrect. The separation of
powers doctrine is described as a series of checks and balances among the three
branches of government - just the opposite of what this choice suggests. (C) is
incorrect. Although Congress has broad powers under the Commerce Clause, they
are not without limit. The Commerce Clause gives Congress power to adopt laws
concerning channels of interstate commerce, such as roads and airways;
instrumentalities of interstate commerce, such as trucks and trains; and economic
or commercial activities - even ones that take place solely within one state - that
in aggregate have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Congressional
voting districts do not fall within any of these categories. Moreover, the General
Welfare Clause is part of Congress's spending power (it may spend for the general
welfare) and is not part of Congress's commerce power. (D) is incorrect because it
is not as strong an answer as (A). Article III explicitly allows Congress to make
exceptions to the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction without qualification.
The enabling clause of the Fifteenth Amendment allows Congress to adopt
legislation protecting the right to vote from discrimination. A law taking away
from the Supreme Court jurisdiction to hear cases under a voting rights statute
would seem to be the opposite of what is allowed by the Fifteenth Amendment's
enabling clause.
A man was in jail after being arrested for burglary. When the police attempted to
question him, the man invoked his Miranda rights and refused to answer any
questions. The man was subsequently tried, convicted, and sentenced to a prison
term for the burglary. Three years later, while the man was serving his prison
sentence for the burglary, a police detective from a nearby town questioned him
about an unsolved homicide. The detective did not know that the man had
3
, 4
invoked Miranda at an earlier time. The man waived his Miranda rights and made
several incriminating statements to the detective. When he was later charged
with the homicide, the man moved to suppress these statements, claiming that
his earlier refusal to waive his Miranda rights should have been honored.
Should the court suppress the statements?
Press Enter or Space to submit the answerANo, because the detective was
unaware that the man had originally invoked his Miranda rights.BNo, because the
man's prior invocation of his Miranda rights did not preclude the later
interrogation.CYes, because the man had earlier invoked his Miranda rights, and
the police were not permitted to resume questioning, even after a time lapse of
years.DYes, because the man was incarcerated, and his earlier invocation of his
Miranda rights shielded him from further questioning until he was released.
(B) is correct. As a general rule, police officers must scrupulously honor a
detainee's invocation of Miranda rights. If the invocation is not scrupulously
honored, statements made by the detainee are inadmissible. The prohibition
against questioning a detainee after invoking Miranda rights lasts the entire time
the detainee is in custody for interrogation purposes, plus 14 more days after the
detainee returns to his normal life (which can include his "normal life" in jail).
Here, the detainee invoked Miranda rights three years before the questioning in
the current case. Thus, far more than 14 days had passed since he had returned
to his "normal life" in jail. Therefore, (B) is correct and (C) and (D) are incorrect.
(A) is incorrect because whether the detective knew the man had originally
invoked his Miranda rights is irrelevant: his incarceration and time lapse of three
years rendered the prior invocation of his rights moot. The man would need to be
given new Miranda warnings regardless.
A defendant is on trial in federal court for bank robbery. Before the police had any
suspects, a police officer interviewed an eyewitness at the police station and
showed her a "mug book" containing dozens of photographs. The eyewitness
identified the defendant's photograph as that of the robber.
4
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 TutorExpert. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $7.99. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
70055 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now