Blog 5

1. A Supreme Court that demonstrates a willingness to change public policy and alter judicial precedent is said to be engaging in

a) judicial activismb) due process
c) judicial restraint
d) ex post facto lawmaking
e) judicial review

The answer is A because an activist means is one who is engaged in promoting change in policy, which is definition of activism. 

2. A writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court indicates that the Court

a) Will review a lower decision

b) Has rendered a decision on a case

c) Has decided not to hear an appeal

d) Will recess until the end of the calendar year

e) Plans to overturn one of its previous rulings

The answer is A because Certiorari is when the supreme court orders a lower court to deliver its records in order for the supreme court to review it.

3. The Supreme Court holds original jurisdiction in all of the following types of cases EXCEPT

a) If the United States is a party in the case

b) In controversies in criminal law between a citizen and a state

c) In controversies under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties

d) if a case is between citizens of different states

e) If cases arise under admirality and maritime laws

The answer is B because this is the only case out of the options that state/ federal courts have original Jurisdiction, not the Supreme court. 

4. All of the following are specifically mentioned in the Constitution EXCEPT

a) judicial review

b) the national census

c) rules of impeachment

d) the State of the Union address

e) length of term if federal judgeships

The answer is A because Judicial review was not considered a judiciary power until Mardbury vs Madison case ruling.  It is also an implied power. 

5. Which of the following correctly states the relationship between the federal and state judiciaries?

a) Federal courts are higher courts than state courts and may overturn state decisions on any grounds.

b)The two are entirely autonomous, and neither ever hears cases that originate in the other.

c) The two are generally autonomous, although federal courts may rule on the constitutionality of state court decisions.

d) State courts are trial courts; federal courts are appeals courts.

e) State courts try all cases except those that involve conflicts between two states, which are tried in federal courts.

The answer is C because state and federal courts only have cause for a relationship if federal courts must decide the legality of the state cases. 

6. The Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona was based mainly on the

a) Constitutional prohibition of ex post facto laws

b) Incorporation of the Fifth Amendment through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

c) Eighth Amendment restriction against cruel and unusual punishment

d) Abolition of slavery by the Fourteenth Amendment

e) full faith and credit clause of the Constitution

The answer is B because  the police had failed to first inform Miranda of his right to an attorney and against self-incrimination. The police's duty to give these warnings is compelled by the Constitution's Fifth Amendment, which gives a criminal suspect the right to refuse "to be a witness against himself."

7. The Supreme Court has used the practice of selective incorporation to

a) Limit the number of appeals filed by defendants in state courts

b) Extend voting rights to racial minorities and womenc) apply most Bill of Rights protections to state law

d) Hasten the integration of public schools

e) Prevent the states from calling a constitutional convention

The answer is B because initially the Constitution and bill of rights were binding to the federal government, but not the states, which caused problems in racially and gender  oppressive states. 

8. Which of the following cases extended the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures to the states?

a) Gideon v. Wainwright

b) Schneck v. United States
c) Miranda v. Arizona

d) Mapp v. Ohio

e) Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States

The answer is D because Mapp vs Ohio placed the requirement of excluding illegally obtained evidence from court at all levels of the government.

9. Which of the following is true of court cases in which one private party is suing another?

A) They are tried in civil court

B) The federal court system has exclusive jurisdiction over them

C) They are tried in criminal court

D) The state court system has exclusive jurisdiction over them.

E) They are tried before a grand jury.

The answer is A because private parties suing other private parties is, by definition, a civil case which is ruled in civil courts. 

10. Which of the following is an accurate statement about the federal court system?

a) The creation of new federal courts requires a constitutional amendment

b) The creation of new federal courts requires the unanimous consent of all 50 states

c) The Supreme Court has the sole power to create new federal courts.

d) Congress had the power to create new federal courts

e) The number of federal courts if fixed by the Constitution and cannot be changed.

The answer is D because the Constitution grants Congress to create new Federal courts under Article I sec 8. 

Blog 4

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
The statute provided that all banks who were taxed were prohibited from issuing bank notes except upon stamped paper issued by the state. The statute set forth the fees to be paid for the paper and established penalties for violations. Congress has the power under the Constitution to incorporate a bank pursuant to the Necessary and Proper clause in Article I, section 8. Marshall, the chief justice, held that while the states retained the power of taxation, "the constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme. . .they control the constitution and laws of the respective states, and cannot be controlled by them." I agree with this decision because 

Palko v. Connecticut (1938)

Frank Palko was convicted and found guilty of second degree murder and sentenced to life in prison. However, The state of Connecticut appealed and won a new trial; this time the court found Palko guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced him to death. The supreme court upheld the second conviction, with 8 votes for Connecticut to 1 vote against. The simple explanation of this case is that protection against double jeopardy, which is a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal or conviction or multiple punishments for same offense, was not a fundamental right, which was addressed in 14th and 5 the amendment. This is also example of activist court decision. I do not agree of this decision because life imprisonment was sufficient and could not be convicted twice and charged differently. 

Schenck v. U.S. ( 1918 )

Schenck was convicted of great resistance to the military draft during WWI. The main problem was Schenck's actions (words, expression)  and was he protected by the free speech clause of the First Amendment. During wartime, utterances, words and expressions, tolerable in peacetime can be punished. Of course time and situation is crucial, but every individual should have the right to express their opinion without punishment. 

Blog 3

The author of this cartoon illustrates that the Supreme Court takes vigorous action on controversial cases. The supreme court takes advantage of its power of Judicial review to rule laws unconstitutional. From the caption, the author also illustrates that the supreme court focuses on ruling current preexisting laws. I agree with author of this cartoon because the supreme court does play an integral role in implementing, or rather ruling, laws that cause reform in America. For example, Brown vs Board played an important role in determining racial equality. In the case, segregation of schools was ruled unconstitutional. The racial separation and buffer in school was broken which provided African American students with more equal opportunities of education. Also, the United States vs Nixon, when President Richard Nixon claimed executive privilege over taped conversations regarding the Watergate scandal, the Supreme Court ruled that he had to turn over the tapes and other documents. This ruling set a precedent limiting the power of the president of the United States from there on. These cases, along with others of great cultural significance, illustrate the Supreme court's determination to assume constitutional review and rule laws unconstitutional.

Blog #2: Judicial powers of US Supreme Court

Judicial powers of U.S. Supreme Court

Supreme Court is the supreme law in the Land. Like the foundation of America, the constitution grants a large amount of the Supreme Court's powers. Specifically, Supreme court's powers are granted in Article III section 2 of the constitution.

The first power granted is that the Supreme court reviews all cases that are treaties and laws that are referenced in the Constitution. The second power granted is that it is obligated to review all cases in which the U.S is party[in a lawsuit]. The third power granted is the power to Judge all cases of admiralty and maritime.

Fourth power granted is review a controversy of a state and a citizen of another state[ which was later modified in eleventh amendment] as well as controversies between two or more states. Other controversies of which the Supreme court is granted by the constitution to review are between citizens of same state claiming lands of different states, and controversies of citizens of states and that of foreign states. Finally, last power granted is all cases affecting ambassadors or other public ministers.

The Intro

I am a high school senior who wishes to get into college. In order to do that and complete high school successfully, I need finish tedious assignments in all of my classes that could not be any less useless. I do not have any experience blogging and do not wish to change that, but only temporary for school. Again, another tedious step towards college, but I have to go through it. I definitely prefer writing information down as it is how I think and see.