Exam #4/final exam MONDAY JUNE 3rd
Part 1 - closed book/notes ( multiple choice: 30 points)
* review exam #3 (part 1), plus study guides below --
-- The Role of Congress (We the People):
Read We the People pages 143-147:
Explain BRIEFLY how Congress differs from the British Parliaments:
1. representation
2. separation of powers
3. length of terms
4. Federalism
Read pages 146-147:
5. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution contains the "necessary and proper" clause, which expands upon 17 specific grants of power to Congress. How would you define "necessary" and "proper"? Give an example.
6. Besides Article I, section 8, what other two major limitations on the power of Congress are contained in the Constitution?
powers."
7. Explain "implied powers." Give an example.
8. Explain "enforcement powers." Give an example.
9. Explain "inherent powers." Give an example.
10. Read each of the case studies attached and identify which Congressional power(s) was/were involved in each case. Jot down the power(s) involved next to the case name for later class discussion.
-- Civil Rights Movement and Gender (We the People; Magruder's Government):
Read in WE THE PEOPLE pages 267-268 and in MAGRUDER'S GOVERNMENT textbook Civil Rights Movement -- Beyond Race pages 622-623 and pages 626-630 and then answer the following questions in the spaces provided:
(a) The classification of gender as a potential area of illegal discrimination did not happen until 1971, nearly 200 years after the Constitution was adopted and over 100 years after the adoption of the 14th Amendment. Why did it take so long, since the 14th Amendment says "persons" and never mentions "men" or "women"?
(b) Finally, in 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down an Idaho law which gave fathers preference over mothers in matters involving the administration of their children's estate as unconstitutional. How would you expect Constitutional conservatives would view this decision? Explain.
-- how would you expect Constitutional liberals would view this decision?
(c) What is the standard for deciding claims of gender discrimination?
(d) The Civil Rights Act of 1964 expended the reach of anti-discrimination laws. Why do you think the Supreme Court did not find this federal law a violation of the Constitution, since it dealt with areas normally the subject of STATE laws?
(e) Title IX of the Federal Education Act of 1972 addressed gender discrimination. Since education is an area of STATE authority, how do you think the Supreme Court justified this law's constitutionality?
(f) The Supreme Court has ruled that affirmative action programs are constitutional, but reverse discrimination isn't constitutional. Based on the cases discussed, how does the Court appear to distinguish between affirmative action and reverse discrimination?
Read in N.Y. Times upfront the article "Race Matters" on pages 6-9 and answer the questions below in your journals:
1. What is the argument given by supporters of affirmative action programs? In YOUR opinion, is this argument exclusively/primarily a public policy position or is it exclusively/primarily a constitutional issue? Explain your conclusion.
2. What is the argument given by opponents of affirmative action programs? In YOUR opinion, is this argument exclusively/primarily a public policy position or is it exclusively/primarily a constitutional issue? Explain your conclusions.
3. Why do you think the article concludes that a Supreme Court ruling forbidding the use of race in admissions at public universities would effectively bare it at most private universities as well?
4. It is clear why affirmative action programs can raise legal questions when used in government and public schools. But why do you think it is also an issue in private companies?
5. What is the basis of the argument by Abigail Fisher that Texas discriminated against her through its admission policy to state universities?
6. What is the major concern of schools if affirmative action programs are eliminated? In your opinion, is this a public policy concern or a legal concern?
7. Does the precedent established in Grutter v. Bollinger in 2003 NECESSARILY mean that the Fisher case can't be decided in favor of Miss Fisher WITHOUT reversing the Court's decision Grutter?
8. With regard to the "affirmative action bake sale" at Berkeley, do you believe is a valid constitutional analogy to affirmative action programs? Why or why not?
9. In light of the Grutter decision, how can states pass laws (such as those in California and Michigan) outlawing affirmative action in admissions at public universities and in public hiring? Also, do you think those states could also outlaw affirmative action in private hiring? What about in private school admissions?
10. Sandra Day O'Connor stated in her majority opinion in Grutter that the day will come when "the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary." When that day comes, in your opinion would that mean that the Grutter decision will have to be reversed by the Supreme Court? Explain
11. In his dissenting opinion in Grutter, what was Justice Thomas' rationale for concluding the school's action was unconstitutional?
12. Why do many observers conclude that the Supreme Court's decision to reconsider affirmative action in college admissions just 9 years after Grutter indicates the Court could be ready to end affirmative action? Do you agree that is what taking Fisher necessarily means?
13. How have changes in the composition of the Court since Grutter impacted the view of many that Fisher could reverse, or at least modify, the Grutter precedent?
14. What does Supreme Court expert Jeffrey Rosen see the Justices as trying to balance in the upcoming Fisher case?
15. How would you decide Fisher, and wht?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 1 - open book/notes ( analysis questions: 70 points)
* review historical time-line for civil rights in the United States:
* August 1955: 14-year-old Emmitt Till is murdered while on a visit to Mississippi from his home in Chicago. {What court system -- state or federal -- has jurisdiction to handle this case?]
* fall 1955 -- Till murder trial leads to acquittal for all defendants, and 5th Amendment double jeopardy clause ("nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" prevents a re-trial")
[Is there a constitutional remedy available here for the victim and/his her survivors? A legislative remedy?]
* December 1, 1955: Rosa Parks refuses to give up her seat on a bus to a white person and is arrested [What impact, if any, does Brown v. Board of Education have on this situation?]
* 1956 -- Browder v. Gayle: Montgomery, Alabama. ordinances requiring separation of the races on private means of transportation within the city limits (such as the bus Rosa Parks rode on) is unconstitutional. {How could the Supreme Court reach this decision regarding when the buses were not public and the commerce clause was not involved?
* Voting Rights Act of 1957 (September 2, 1957)
* September 24, 1957: Little Rock Central High School and the "Little Rock Nine" -- Republican President Eisenhower sends in federal troops to enforce the integration of the high school. [What constitutional basis existed here for federal executive action?]
* Cooper v. Aaron (1958) -- In response to the state of Alabama amending its constitution to all segregated schools, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that a state cannot nullify a Supreme Court interpretation of the 14th Amendment equal protection clause. {What current situation in California might cause the Supreme Court to examine the Cooper decision? How is the Cooper case arguably a precedent? How is it not on target directly as a precedent?}
* 1962: Democratic President Kennedy sends federal troops to enforce the admission of an African-American student, James Meredith, to the University of Mississippi.
* Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- banned discrimination based on "race, color, religion, sex or national origin" in employment practices and public accommodations (in other words, expanded the reach of the 14th Amendment partially into the private sector). It also made it a federal crime to interfere with another person's civil rights. [What constitutional authority exists for Congress regulating private businesses?]
1965 -- federal Voting Rights Act: outlawed discriminatory practices in voting. {Note: this wasn't a court decision, but an act by the federal government over voting procedures, which had always been the domain of state authority in the federal system. Today, it applies to parts of only 9 states. Where would Congress' authority to pass this legislation come from? And, if this was a constitutional act in 1965, how can it be challenged before the Supreme Court now as unconstitutional?}
* 1972 -- Title IX of the federal Educational Amendments Act: No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance...{Why was this Act limited to education programs involving "Federal financial assistance?"}
* 1978 -- Regents of University of California v. Bakke: In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court rules that, although affirmative action programs are constitutional, quota system were "reverse discrimination" and illegal. {Is this a contradictory decision by the Court?}
* 1991: Rodney King (an African-American) is beaten by 7 California police officers after a highway stop; the beating is caught on video-tape by a bystander. [Where should criminal charges against the police officers be filed?}
* 1992: After a state trial for assault, the police officers are acquitted by a jury that included no African-Americans. [Is there a constitutional theory under which this verdict could be overturned, despite the double jeopardy clause?]
* 1993: Federal trial for civil rights violations leads to a conviction and prison sentence. [How is this outcome consistent with the 6th Amendment double jeopardy clause?]
* 2003 -- Grutter v. Bollinger: In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court allowed an affirmative action program that used race as a separate factor in admissions to the University of Michigan Law School. {How is this system different from a quota system, disallowed in Bakke?}
* 2012 -- Fisher v. University of Texas (argued): Students were guaranteed admission to the University of Texas if they were in the top 10% of their graduating high school class. The appellant was not, and so was in the pool of applicants in which race was a separate factor in admissions. {Why would the Supreme Court accept this case, when the Texas policy was based upon the Court's decision in Grutter in 2003?}
Part 1 - closed book/notes ( multiple choice: 30 points)
* review exam #3 (part 1), plus study guides below --
-- The Role of Congress (We the People):
Read We the People pages 143-147:
Explain BRIEFLY how Congress differs from the British Parliaments:
1. representation
2. separation of powers
3. length of terms
4. Federalism
Read pages 146-147:
5. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution contains the "necessary and proper" clause, which expands upon 17 specific grants of power to Congress. How would you define "necessary" and "proper"? Give an example.
6. Besides Article I, section 8, what other two major limitations on the power of Congress are contained in the Constitution?
powers."
7. Explain "implied powers." Give an example.
8. Explain "enforcement powers." Give an example.
9. Explain "inherent powers." Give an example.
10. Read each of the case studies attached and identify which Congressional power(s) was/were involved in each case. Jot down the power(s) involved next to the case name for later class discussion.
-- Civil Rights Movement and Gender (We the People; Magruder's Government):
Read in WE THE PEOPLE pages 267-268 and in MAGRUDER'S GOVERNMENT textbook Civil Rights Movement -- Beyond Race pages 622-623 and pages 626-630 and then answer the following questions in the spaces provided:
(a) The classification of gender as a potential area of illegal discrimination did not happen until 1971, nearly 200 years after the Constitution was adopted and over 100 years after the adoption of the 14th Amendment. Why did it take so long, since the 14th Amendment says "persons" and never mentions "men" or "women"?
(b) Finally, in 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down an Idaho law which gave fathers preference over mothers in matters involving the administration of their children's estate as unconstitutional. How would you expect Constitutional conservatives would view this decision? Explain.
-- how would you expect Constitutional liberals would view this decision?
(c) What is the standard for deciding claims of gender discrimination?
(d) The Civil Rights Act of 1964 expended the reach of anti-discrimination laws. Why do you think the Supreme Court did not find this federal law a violation of the Constitution, since it dealt with areas normally the subject of STATE laws?
(e) Title IX of the Federal Education Act of 1972 addressed gender discrimination. Since education is an area of STATE authority, how do you think the Supreme Court justified this law's constitutionality?
(f) The Supreme Court has ruled that affirmative action programs are constitutional, but reverse discrimination isn't constitutional. Based on the cases discussed, how does the Court appear to distinguish between affirmative action and reverse discrimination?
Read in N.Y. Times upfront the article "Race Matters" on pages 6-9 and answer the questions below in your journals:
1. What is the argument given by supporters of affirmative action programs? In YOUR opinion, is this argument exclusively/primarily a public policy position or is it exclusively/primarily a constitutional issue? Explain your conclusion.
2. What is the argument given by opponents of affirmative action programs? In YOUR opinion, is this argument exclusively/primarily a public policy position or is it exclusively/primarily a constitutional issue? Explain your conclusions.
3. Why do you think the article concludes that a Supreme Court ruling forbidding the use of race in admissions at public universities would effectively bare it at most private universities as well?
4. It is clear why affirmative action programs can raise legal questions when used in government and public schools. But why do you think it is also an issue in private companies?
5. What is the basis of the argument by Abigail Fisher that Texas discriminated against her through its admission policy to state universities?
6. What is the major concern of schools if affirmative action programs are eliminated? In your opinion, is this a public policy concern or a legal concern?
7. Does the precedent established in Grutter v. Bollinger in 2003 NECESSARILY mean that the Fisher case can't be decided in favor of Miss Fisher WITHOUT reversing the Court's decision Grutter?
8. With regard to the "affirmative action bake sale" at Berkeley, do you believe is a valid constitutional analogy to affirmative action programs? Why or why not?
9. In light of the Grutter decision, how can states pass laws (such as those in California and Michigan) outlawing affirmative action in admissions at public universities and in public hiring? Also, do you think those states could also outlaw affirmative action in private hiring? What about in private school admissions?
10. Sandra Day O'Connor stated in her majority opinion in Grutter that the day will come when "the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary." When that day comes, in your opinion would that mean that the Grutter decision will have to be reversed by the Supreme Court? Explain
11. In his dissenting opinion in Grutter, what was Justice Thomas' rationale for concluding the school's action was unconstitutional?
12. Why do many observers conclude that the Supreme Court's decision to reconsider affirmative action in college admissions just 9 years after Grutter indicates the Court could be ready to end affirmative action? Do you agree that is what taking Fisher necessarily means?
13. How have changes in the composition of the Court since Grutter impacted the view of many that Fisher could reverse, or at least modify, the Grutter precedent?
14. What does Supreme Court expert Jeffrey Rosen see the Justices as trying to balance in the upcoming Fisher case?
15. How would you decide Fisher, and wht?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 1 - open book/notes ( analysis questions: 70 points)
* review historical time-line for civil rights in the United States:
* August 1955: 14-year-old Emmitt Till is murdered while on a visit to Mississippi from his home in Chicago. {What court system -- state or federal -- has jurisdiction to handle this case?]
* fall 1955 -- Till murder trial leads to acquittal for all defendants, and 5th Amendment double jeopardy clause ("nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" prevents a re-trial")
[Is there a constitutional remedy available here for the victim and/his her survivors? A legislative remedy?]
* December 1, 1955: Rosa Parks refuses to give up her seat on a bus to a white person and is arrested [What impact, if any, does Brown v. Board of Education have on this situation?]
* 1956 -- Browder v. Gayle: Montgomery, Alabama. ordinances requiring separation of the races on private means of transportation within the city limits (such as the bus Rosa Parks rode on) is unconstitutional. {How could the Supreme Court reach this decision regarding when the buses were not public and the commerce clause was not involved?
* Voting Rights Act of 1957 (September 2, 1957)
* September 24, 1957: Little Rock Central High School and the "Little Rock Nine" -- Republican President Eisenhower sends in federal troops to enforce the integration of the high school. [What constitutional basis existed here for federal executive action?]
* Cooper v. Aaron (1958) -- In response to the state of Alabama amending its constitution to all segregated schools, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that a state cannot nullify a Supreme Court interpretation of the 14th Amendment equal protection clause. {What current situation in California might cause the Supreme Court to examine the Cooper decision? How is the Cooper case arguably a precedent? How is it not on target directly as a precedent?}
* 1962: Democratic President Kennedy sends federal troops to enforce the admission of an African-American student, James Meredith, to the University of Mississippi.
* Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- banned discrimination based on "race, color, religion, sex or national origin" in employment practices and public accommodations (in other words, expanded the reach of the 14th Amendment partially into the private sector). It also made it a federal crime to interfere with another person's civil rights. [What constitutional authority exists for Congress regulating private businesses?]
1965 -- federal Voting Rights Act: outlawed discriminatory practices in voting. {Note: this wasn't a court decision, but an act by the federal government over voting procedures, which had always been the domain of state authority in the federal system. Today, it applies to parts of only 9 states. Where would Congress' authority to pass this legislation come from? And, if this was a constitutional act in 1965, how can it be challenged before the Supreme Court now as unconstitutional?}
* 1972 -- Title IX of the federal Educational Amendments Act: No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance...{Why was this Act limited to education programs involving "Federal financial assistance?"}
* 1978 -- Regents of University of California v. Bakke: In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court rules that, although affirmative action programs are constitutional, quota system were "reverse discrimination" and illegal. {Is this a contradictory decision by the Court?}
* 1991: Rodney King (an African-American) is beaten by 7 California police officers after a highway stop; the beating is caught on video-tape by a bystander. [Where should criminal charges against the police officers be filed?}
* 1992: After a state trial for assault, the police officers are acquitted by a jury that included no African-Americans. [Is there a constitutional theory under which this verdict could be overturned, despite the double jeopardy clause?]
* 1993: Federal trial for civil rights violations leads to a conviction and prison sentence. [How is this outcome consistent with the 6th Amendment double jeopardy clause?]
* 2003 -- Grutter v. Bollinger: In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court allowed an affirmative action program that used race as a separate factor in admissions to the University of Michigan Law School. {How is this system different from a quota system, disallowed in Bakke?}
* 2012 -- Fisher v. University of Texas (argued): Students were guaranteed admission to the University of Texas if they were in the top 10% of their graduating high school class. The appellant was not, and so was in the pool of applicants in which race was a separate factor in admissions. {Why would the Supreme Court accept this case, when the Texas policy was based upon the Court's decision in Grutter in 2003?}