Monday, February 12, 2007

Review Questions

What is the Guarantee Clause? Did the court in Baker overturn the decision concerning the use of the Guarntee Clause that was established in Colegrove? What was the courts decision in Baker?

How did Nixon define the word "try," and did the court agree?

Did the court provide Marbury a remedy? Explain why or why not

What is the differance between mootness and ripeness?

Which of the limits placed on the court was significant in McCardle?

30 comments:

Anonymous said...

Are you going to go over these at 10?

Anonymous said...

did'nt Nixon define the word "try" as in bringing the case before a judge, as in "try" in the judicial term? i have no idea if the court agreed. However the use of the word "try" implied limitation on the Senate to try the impeachment

Anonymous said...

does anyone have a list of the cases that's gonna be on the quiz

Anonymous said...

Din't "Try" mean to Nixon that the actual case shouldn't be tried in a comitte and then the results shown to the whole Senate, but rather the whole case should occur before the Senate entire?

Anonymous said...

I don't understand this question:

"Did the court provide Marbury a remedy? Explain why or why not"

What do you mean by remedy?

Anonymous said...

The guarantee clause is the republican form of goverment. Did the court say that Tennesse violated the equal protections clause because the case involved race regarding African Americans and voting?

Anonymous said...

Come on guys! I'm having a nervous break down here, please someone, tell me which cases will be on the quiz (which cases we've gone over in class so far) PLEASE! OH MY GOD.

Anonymous said...

i dont understand..are we going to go over any of this?

thelastczarnian said...

Marbury v. Madison

Ex Parte McCardle

City of Boerne v. Flores*

Baker v. Carr

Nixon v. US

Flast v. Cohen

Anonymous said...

What are the three justifications for judicial review??

Anonymous said...

Oh man thank you so much czarnian , I will kiss you in class tomorrow. Unless you're a dude.

Anonymous said...

Response to Marbury v Madison remedy question: That question is asking whether the Supreme Court was actually able to issue a writ of mandamus forcing the new Sec. of State to deliver Madison's commission. They ruled that they did not have jurisdiction to do so, because the law that said they had original jurisdiction over mandamus writs turned out to be against the Constitution (article 3 section 3) and therefore was void (judicial review). So NO they did not remedy the situation and Marbury did not receive his commission.

Anonymous said...

Regarding this question:
The guarantee clause is the republican form of goverment. Did the court say that Tennesse violated the equal protections clause because the case involved race regarding African Americans and voting?
NO! The court did not rule on whether Tennessee violated that clause, all it ruled was that No it was not a political question and could therefore be decided in court (was judiciable) , unlike Colgrove, where reapportionment was ruled a political question. Baker was not a political question because of the first two points in the political question test: 1. Textually demonstratable committment of the issue to another branch- (the Constitution says another branch should do it) and 2. A lack of judicially discoverable standards

Anonymous said...

BTW i am not that review person that is not helping us, I am just another student !

Anonymous said...

Response to this question: Din't "Try" mean to Nixon that the actual case shouldn't be tried in a comitte and then the results shown to the whole Senate, but rather the whole case should occur before the Senate entire?

YES!

Anonymous said...

Also- The court did not agree, citing the dictionary from the time the Constitution was written. The Ct. decided that the Constitution allowed Senate discretion as to how to "try" an impeachment.

Anonymous said...

are we responsible for the articles Dr. Davis posted on the blog (like the Hamdan case)?

Anonymous said...

Yup

Anonymous said...

Please let it snow so we can have school cancelled tomorrow!!!

Re-Sign A.D. said...

What was the holding and rationale of City of Boerne v. Flores?

Can't wait for '07 Draft said...

What is the difference between ripeness and mootness?

Anonymous said...

Ripeness- the case doesn't apply yet, as in the example of a high school freshman who sues UMBC for tuition hikes. The issue is not ripe because the kid isn't old enough to go there yet. Moot means it has already been decided.

Hima Raviprakash said...

What Nixon was attempted to do is show that try meant an actual trial giving the court judicial review. However the court didn't agree. They said that the constitution meant it in a more general terms. It is not so limited as Nixon tried to argue

Hima Raviprakash said...

When I asked if Marbury was provided a remedy that basically means did the court give him the writ of mandamus

Hima Raviprakash said...

No, all the court decided in Baker is that the case is not a political question under the Equal Protection Clause

Hima Raviprakash said...

Is there anything you don't understand about Flast because you can just read the holding

Anonymous said...

What are the three justifications for judicial review?

What case is the Virginia & Kentucky Resolutions relevant to?

What case is the Chisolm v Georgia relevant to?

What are the different types of Constitutional Interpretation?

Anonymous said...

Hey Hima, are you the TA?

Anonymous said...

I will stay up all night praying to the Lord and Saviour to let snow descend down from the heavens tomorrow. Praise God.

Anonymous said...

Under what grounds does Marshall even raise the issue of "judicial review" in Marbury and of what significance does it actually have to the case at hand, beyond the sweeping precedence that it creates?