Stats: con law special cases

General Stats

This quiz has been taken 1 time
The average score is 0 of 52

Answer Stats

Case	Opinion	Reasoning	% Correct
Youngstown Sheet and Tube - Majority	Black	Clear lines on what each branch of the government has the power to do.	0%
Griswold v. Connecticut - Dissent	Black	A right to privacy is not in the constitution and we should not read the constitution as a living document.	0%
Roe v. Wade - Majority	Blackmun	The right to an abortion fits under the right to privacy. Creates a trimester framework to illustrate when states can impose restrictions.	0%
DeShaney v. Winnebago Social Services - Dissent	Blackmun	A natural level of sympathy should be applied to the case and this level of strict formalism goes against the 14A.	0%
Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways - Concurrence	Brennan	The actual purpose behind the statute is protectionist and should therefore be impermissible.	0%
McClesky v. Kemp - Dissent	Brennan	Statistical evidence is not enough on its own, but Georgia's racist history should also be taken into consideration. Majority fears "too much justice".	0%
DeShaney v. Winnebago Social Services - Dissent	Brennan	The state DID take action. They documented Josh's injuries and took steps that made other bystanders believe they did not need to help anymore.	0%
US v. Lopez - Dissent	Breyer	Use rational basis test because Congress deserves leeway. Using rational basis, there is clearly a rational relationship between gun violence in schools and interstate commerce.	0%
Parents Involved v. Seattle School District - Dissent	Breyer	Schools should be able to adopt race-conscious measures if they are inclusionary. This is narrowly tailored and there are more than 2 compelling interests.	0%
US v. Nixon - Majority	Burger	It is the court's duty to say what the law is. If there is no claim of a need to protect military, diplomatic, or national security interests, there cannot be absolute, unqualified POTUS immunity.	0%
Carter v. Carter Coal - Dissent	Cardozo	"The power is as broad as the need that evokes it"	0%
Griswold v. Connecticut - Majority	Douglas	The right to privacy is within the penumbra of the BOR within amendments 1,3,4,5, and 9.	0%
Youngstown Sheet and Tube - Concurrence	Frankfurter	Look to history! History is the gloss with which life has written on the Constitution.	0%
Sebelius - Concurrence	Ginsburg	This is not inactivity because everyone will interact with the healthcare system at some point.	0%
Griswold v. Connecticut - Concurrence	Goldberg	The 9th amendment provides for implied rights and the right of privacy within the marriage is a long held belief.	0%
Griswold v. Connecticut - Concurrence	Harlan II	DP and the BOR do not need to be interconnected. The BOR can stand on its own by judging if something violates the basic values implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.	0%
Youngstown Sheet and Tube - Concurrence	Jackson	Creates the three ebbs of Presidential power	0%
US v. Lopez - Concurrence	Kennedy	If the regulation is going towards an activity traditionally seen as under state control, Congress should be more restricted. Fed/state balance must be respected.	0%
Parents Involved v. Seattle School District - Concurrence	Kennedy	Plurality is simplifying the issue. Schools should use race-conscious decision-making like where to build schools or allocate funds, not based on individual children.	0%
Lawrence v. Texas - Majority	Kennedy	Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds and includes an autonomy of self. Look at history and societal views in America and abroad.	0%
McCulloch v. Maryland - Majority	Marshall	The Constitution is a living document that gives implied powers to Congress under the necessary and proper clause. The sovereignty of the state is subordinate to the constitution.	0%
Marbury v. Madison - Majority	Marshall	Constitution is the supreme law of the land. SCOTUS can review laws and deem them unconstitutional.	0%
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - Plurality	O'Connor	POTUS can detain citizens and some DP is required. Cites Youngstown saying we cannot give POTUS unlimited powers during war.	0%
Lawrence v. Texas - Concurrence	O'Connor	This is an EPC issue, not DP. Morality is not sufficient to pass rational basis+ test.	0%
Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways - Plurality	Powell	Balancing test between the state interest and the burden on interstate commerce	0%
McClesky v. Kemp - Majority	Powell	Must prove discriminatory intent, discriminatory impact is not enough.	0%
US v. Lopez - Majority	Rehnquist	The activity being regulated is not substantially related to interstate commerce.	0%
Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways - Dissent	Rehnquist	Balancing test does not allow for nuance. Must look at whether the asserted justification is pretext for discrimination. If it isn't, there should be a rational basis test applied.	0%
Morrison v. Olson - Majority	Rehnquist	The statute does not take power from the Executive and give it to Congress. It simply limits the Executive's power which is not a SOP issue.	0%
Roe v. Wade - Dissent	Rehnquist	Abortions aren't private in a way that would include them in the quasi-right to privacy.	0%
DeShaney v. Winnebago Social Services - Majority	Rehnquist	The purpose of the DP clause is to protect people from the state, not to protect private individuals from each other. The state has no affirmative duty to protect except for those whose freedom they limit (prisoners).	0%
Parents Involved v. Seattle School District - Plurality	Roberts	There are only two compelling interest for race-based decision-making in education and neither are present here. EPC protects people not groups.	0%
Sebelius - Plurality	Roberts	Individual mandate goes against the CC because Congress cannot force someone to operate in an economic activity.	0%
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - Dissent	Scalia	Habeas Corpus has not been suspended, so Hamdi should get a full trial. Narrow ruling.	0%
Morrison v. Olson - Dissent	Scalia	This is a purely executive power and the statute is depriving POTUS of exclusive control. So, the act is definitely unconstitutional.	0%
Lawrence v. Texas - Dissent	Scalia	Morality is a legitimate government interest. This should be decided democratically.	0%
Sebelius - Dissent	Scalia	This is inactivity and cannot be regulated. The whole of ACA should be struck down.	0%
US v. Lopez - Dissent	Souter	Rational basis test should be used because Congress deserves deference. Creating a distinction between economic/noneconomic reverts the court back to the direct/indirect conflict.	0%
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - Concurrence	Souter	AUMF does not give the power to detain.	0%
US v. Lopez - Dissent	Stevens	Guns are articles of commerce that the government has a substantial interest in regulating.	0%
Parents Involved v. Seattle School District - Dissent	Stevens	Court is reading Brown in a color-blind way that goes against what it stands for.	0%
Griswold v. Connecticut - Dissent	Stewart	The law is silly but that does not make it unconstitutional.	0%
Carter v. Carter Coal - Majority	Sutherland	Local activites, no matter how great the effect on interstate commerce, are inherently secondary and indirect to it.	0%
Dred Scott v. Sanford - Majority	Taney	Black people were not included in the "citizens" described in the Constitution, so they can't be citizens. Federal law cannot deprive someone of their property without due process so the LT law was unconstitutional.	0%
US v. Lopez - Concurrence	Thomas	Substantial effects test is too broad and we should be using the original meaning of commerce.	0%
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - Dissent	Thomas	Federal government is acting within the bounds of its war powers and should get deference.	0%
Parents Involved v. Seattle School District - Concurrence	Thomas	Racial imbalance is not segregation. Constitution is color-blind.	0%
Lawrence v. Texas - Dissent	Thomas	The law is silly but not unconstitutional. Just like Stewart in Griswold.	0%
Youngstown Sheet and Tube - Dissent	Vinson	The immediacy and threat of the danger must be considered. POTUS should be able to take these actions because Congress does not act fast enough.	0%
Brown v. Board of Ed - Majority	Warren	Intangible factors must be considered when determining if things are equal. One intangible factor is the psychological toll that segregation causes, so schools can never be separate but equal. Schools must desegregate with "all deliberate speed".	0%
Griswold v. Connecticut - Concurrence	White	The state's stated interest for the law does not logically follow from the restriction.	0%
Roe v. Wade - Dissent	White	Misuse of judicial review	0%

Score Distribution

Percent of People with Each Score

Percentile by Number Answered

Your Score History

You have not taken this quiz

con law special cases - Statistics