Professor Peter Woll

Politics 115a

Fall, 2000

Final Examination Study Guide

Your examination will consist two parts. Part I will be five short essay questions each of which will be 10 percent of your grade. The questions will ask you to analyze and compare important constitutional law cases and concepts. Part II will be a broad essay question that will count for the remaining 50 percent of your exam grade .

Special Focus for Question I

For the short essays pay particular attention to the following cases and areas in constitutional law:

The following cases and sample questions will also help you review for the exam:

Cases to Study

Note: You are not responsible for cases we did not discuss in class .

The Civil Rights Cases (1883)Reed v. Reed (1971)City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center (1985)Palko v. Connecticut (1937)Texas v. Johnson (1989)
Shelley v. Kraemer (1948)Frontiero v. Richardson (1973)San Antonio v. Rodriguez (1973)Adamson v. CA (1947)Abrams v. U.S. (1919)
Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis (1972)Craig v. Boren (1976)Plyler v. Doe (1982)Powell v. Alabama (1932) and Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) Gitlow v. NY (1925)
Washington v. Davis (1976)Michael v. Sup. Ct. of Sonoma County (1981)Shapiro v. Thompson (1969)Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
Brown v. Board of Education (1954)Rostker v. Goldberg (1981)Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)
Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co. (1991)Personnel Administrator of MA v. Feeney (1979)Roe v. Wade (1973)Schenck v. US (1919)
Railway Express Agency Inc. v. New York (1949)Mississippi Univ. of Women v. Hogan (1982)Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)
Katzenbach v. Morgan (1966)Barron v. Baltimore (1833)
City of Rome v. U.S. (1980)Fletcher v. Peck (1810)
Regents of U. of CA v. Bakke (1978)Twining v. NJ (1908)
City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. (1989)Lochner v. New York (1905)
Metro Broadcasting Inc. v. FCC (1990)Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
Adarand Constructors Inc. v. Pena (1995)Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918)
Reynolds v. Sims (1964)Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)
Palmer v. Thompson (1971)U.S. v. Lopez (1995)
Loving v. Virginia (1967)Morrison v. Olson (1988)
Oregon v. Mitchell (1970) Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer (1952)
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)Dames & Moore v. Regan (1981)
Slaughterhouse Cases (1873)Schechter v. U.S. (1935)
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

Sample Questions

Although the multiple choice format will not be used for the identification questions the following will help you review for the final examination.

* 1) Section V of the 14th amendment, the so-called "enforcement" clause, most closely resembles:
a. the commerce clause of Article I
b. the necessary and proper clause
c. the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment
d. the due process clause

* 2) In ruling that the Court cannot determine the "sole" or "dominant" motivation behind a legislative decision, Palmer v. Thompson most closely follows:
a. Fletcher v. Peck
b. Reed v. Reed
c. Craig v. Boren
d. Adarand Contructors v. Pena

* 3) After Frontiero v. Richardson, the Court's plurality viewed gender classifications as:
a. suspect
b. subject to rational basis scrutiny
c. semi-suspect
d. in the same category as economic classifications

* 4) Justice Brennan's dissent in Michael M. v. Sonoma County:
a. maintained that the burden of proof is on the state to show that the discrimination involved in the case upholds the purpose of the statute
b. is an example of formalist judicial review
c. maintained that discrimination between genders in favor of women is an acceptable statutory feature because women historically have been discriminated against
d. all of the above

* 5) In Oregon v. Mitchell, Justice Douglas:
a. argued that the Court should review legislative facts
b. supported Lochner v. New York
c. applied rational basis judicial reivew
d.held that the Court and not Congress should determine what is appropriate legislation under #5 of the 14th amendment

* 6) Which of the following is the best matched pair in which the Court uses a consistent approach to constitutional interpretation of cases:
a. Lochner v. New York and Roe v. Wade
b. Gibbons v. Ogden and Hammer v. Dagenhart
c. Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education
d. Metro Broadcasting v. FCC and Adarand Constructors v. Pena

*7) In Reynolds v. Sims the Court held that the prime reason for bicameralism in a contemporary context is:
a. to secure geographical representation
b. to insure the representation of groups in the political process
c. to insure mature and deliberate consideration of, and to prevent precipitate action on, proposed legislative measures
d. all of the above

* 8) In Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), the Court's approach can best be described as:
a. strict construction
b. substantive due process
c. heightened scrutiny
d. all of the above

* 9) Which of the following statements does Justice Reed not make in Adamson v. California:
a. on the state level, the 5th amendment protection against self-incrimination is not applicable
b. it is unacceptable for a federal prosecutor to suggest to a jury that a defendant's failure to testify in his own defense might be an indication of guilt
c. no clause of the 5th amendment has been incorporated by the 14th amendment
d. none of the above

*10) Justice O'Connor's analysis of due process in her Planned Parenthood v. Casey opinion agrees most with that of:
a. Justice Miller in the Slaughterhouse Cases
b. Justice Warren in Brown v. Board of Education
c. Justice Brennan in Frontiero v. Richardson
d. Justice Blackmun in Roe v. Wade

blue line

Essay Question

The essay question will focus on judicial activism, substantive judical review, and judicial self-restraint, strict construction, and ask you to discuss examples of each in reference to cases in the commerce clause , equal protection, and due process areas.

Study the following cases for this question:
Gibbons v. Ogden
U.S. v. E.C. Knight
Wickard v. Filburn
United States v. Lopez
Slaughterhouse Cases
Muller v. Oregon (Brandeis brief)
Lochner v. New York
Griswold v. Connecticut
Roe v. Wade
Brown v. Board of Education (1954, 1955)
The Civil Rights Cases
Plessy v. Ferguson
Katzenbach v. Morgan
City of Rome v. United States
City of Boerne v. Flores
Fullilove v. Klutznick
Adarand Constructors v. Pena

Special Focus for the Essay Question

II. Essay Question (50%)

By the time you write this essay the Supreme Court will have heard arguments and possibly have made it's decision on Governor Bush's Appeal from the Florida Supreme Court.

John P. Roche suggests that the Supreme Court will not be activist when it confronts a monolithic political majority, or a strong political majority. Judicial self-restraint is the safety valve that saves the Court's credibility in times of political crisis and controversy. Judicial activism is possible only when the political branches and the states are not unified, causing a power vacuum.

Discuss the Supreme Court's willingness to hear the Bush appeal in these terms, and compare that case to other Court decisions on controversial questions of federalism. Using Commerce Clause,equal protection, and civil liberties cases assess the validity of the Roche thesis.

Can judicial activism and self-restraint in commerce clause jurisprudence be explained in Roche's terms?

Does the Carolene Products Footnote fit Roche's thesis?

Did the different political environment at the time of Schenck (1919) and Gitlow (1925) on the one hand, and Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) on the other, help to explain judicial self-restraint and activism in those cases?

Finally,does Roche help us to understand the process of incorporation of most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights under the 14th amendment's due process clause?

blue line

Good Luck to One and All!!

pic of smiling sun

blue line