Monday, February 12, 2007

Review Session

Hey guys, please enter any questions you have regarding the quiz in the comments section of this post and I will do my best to help you. Thanks.

-Hima

27 comments:

Joseph said...

How many multiple choice and short answer questions will there be on the quiz?
I know that everything is fair game on the quiz, but are there any topics that I should specifically study?

Anonymous said...

In terms of the articles, what aspects of them should we focus on, or would just the general facts of the article suffice?

Hima Raviprakash said...

The only thing I can tell you is study everything that was discussed in class. I'm not allowed to tell you about the contents of the quiz. I'm only supposed to help you understand the material.

Anonymous said...

Quiz Questions:
Would a good defintion of a political question be that it is an issue that is best defined by the lower courts?

Why again can the supreme court not here political questions like in Nixon vs. US.

Can you explain logical reasoning as a means for a justice to decide on a case?

Why did the court have no jurisdiction in Marbury vs. Madison?

Muslim American said...

it will be mainly if not all multiple choice, fyi.

Anonymous said...

Would it be fair to say that the signifigance in Exparte v Mccardle is that the goverment can pass law to limit jurisdiction of the supreme court?

Anonymous said...

Could you please clarify what textually commited meant in the Nixon v US case

Anonymous said...

What's the main gist of Boerne v. Flores?

Anonymous said...

Logical Reasoning used by Justices:
1. If a law is repugnant to the Constitution, then the law is void.
2. The law is repugnant to the Constitution.
3. Therefore, the law is void.

the lastczarnian said...

I have a question about Flast vs. Cohen. What was the legal arguement in a nutshell that explains how a taxpayer can have standing in this case? And how does it affect future cases?

Anonymous said...

what does the guarantee clause say?

Anonymous said...

Flast v. Cohen

In order to show standing the plaintiff must prove a "nexus" (link) between the stake of their status and the law challenged. -can be referred to as "double nexus"

The plaintiff (taxpayer) has to challenge the type of legislation; in this case the actual tax or flow passed in Article III Section 8 of the Constitution as well as the limitations outlined in the First Amendment.

*This affects future cases because it stresses the importance of the party, not the issue. Taxpayers have standing to sue to prevent the disbursement of federal funds in contravention to constitutional prohibitions.

Anonymous said...

Article IV, Section 4
Guarantee Clause:

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

Hima Raviprakash said...

Hey guys sorry my internet was giving me alot of trouble.

Ok starting with the fourth post:

No, a political question is a question that the Exec or legis branch should answer and the court should stay out of it.

yes you can use logical reasoning its simply a if then statement.

The court did have jurisdiction in Marbury the problem was that the law enacted by the congress was uncon because the constitution does not allow for the congress to set the Supreme Courts original jurisdiction.

Hima Raviprakash said...

Yes McCardle significance is that the congress can decide the jurisdiction on the courts apellate juris.

Anonymous said...

What is the guarantee clause? How does it affect the Baker v. Carr case?

Hima Raviprakash said...

Textually committed just means that the text of the con. reserves somthing to the other brances, so the Supreme court can't touch it.

Hima Raviprakash said...

In flast basically what the court holds is that for a tax payer to show standing they have to show that they effected by the legislation and the constitutional violation. So, they just have to link themselves with these two factors.

Hima Raviprakash said...

The Guarantee Clause provides the right to a republican form of government

Anonymous said...

Nixon v. US

Textually demonstrable commitment can be understood in a way that prohibits deep consideration of the words in the Constitution. Rather than trying to invoke numerous definitions (what Nixon did) you literalize the meaning of the words (what Rehnquist did)

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?

Hima Raviprakash said...

The court basically agreed about the colgrove decision that the gurantee clause goes into a poltical question territory because it a requirement based on the other branches.

Hima Raviprakash said...

The three justifications are
1. Art III allows court to hear all cases arising under the con.
2. allows gov't to be limited
3. oath of office allows the judge to strike down laws that aren't constitutional.

I am pretty sure Dr. Davis put up the Con. Interp.

Anonymous said...

What are the limits on the Supreme Court?

Hima Raviprakash said...

The limits are:
Jurisdiction
justicibility
advisory opinion
mootness
ripeness
standing
political question

Anonymous said...

In the political question test from Baker v. Carr, what does it mean by, "Lack of judicial standards?"

Hima Raviprakash said...

I believe that it means that the court doesnt have the tools to resolve the conflict.