Court Case Review Quiz
Test your understanding of legal proceedings with our Court Case Review Quiz! The Court Case Review Quiz is designed to assess your knowledge of legal matters by reviewing various court cases. It's an opportunity to test your understanding of legal proceedings, case outcomes, and key legal concepts.
By participating in this quiz, you can enhance your comprehension of how the law operates in different scenarios and gain insights into the complexities of the judicial system. Whether you're a law student, legal professional, or simply interested in learning more about court cases, this quiz offers a valuable opportunity to expand your Read morelegal knowledge in an engaging and interactive way. So, get ready to explore the world of jurisprudence and challenge yourself with the Court Case Review Quiz!
Court Case Review Questions and Answers
- 1.
In its McCulloch v. Maryland decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of
- A.
Maryland in a dispute with the national government.
- B.
The supremacy of the states over the national government.
- C.
Judicial review
- D.
Judicial restraint
- E.
The supremacy of the national government over the states.
Correct Answer
E. The supremacy of the national government over the states.Explanation
In the McCulloch v. Maryland decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the supremacy of the national government over the states. This means that the national government holds ultimate authority and power over the states, and the states must comply with federal laws and regulations. The ruling established the concept of federal supremacy, which has been a fundamental principle in the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.Rate this question:
-
- 2.
The principle that the national government has certain implied powers that go beyond its enumerated powers was first collaborated in the Supreme Court's decision in ________.
- A.
McCulloch v. Maryland
- B.
Gibbons V ogden
- C.
Marbury V. Madison
- D.
Miranda V. Arizona
- E.
United states V. the States
Correct Answer
B. Gibbons V ogdenExplanation
The correct answer is Gibbons V. Ogden. This case, decided in 1824, involved a dispute over steamboat navigation on interstate waters. The Supreme Court held that Congress had the power to regulate interstate commerce, even if it was not explicitly listed in the Constitution. This decision established the principle of implied powers, which means that the national government has the authority to take actions necessary to carry out its enumerated powers.Rate this question:
-
- 3.
The Supreme Court case of Gibbons v. Ogden ________________.
- A.
Defined the meaning of the elastic clause.
- B.
Defined commerce as virtually ever form of commercial activity.
- C.
Established the principle of implied powers.
- D.
Established the supremacy of the national government.
- E.
Settled the contested presidnetial election of 1824.
Correct Answer
B. Defined commerce as virtually ever form of commercial activity.Explanation
The correct answer is "defined commerce as virtually every form of commercial activity." This is because the Supreme Court case of Gibbons v. Ogden played a significant role in shaping the interpretation of the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The case involved a dispute over a steamboat monopoly, and the Court's decision broadened the definition of commerce to include not just the exchange of goods, but also various commercial activities. This interpretation has had a lasting impact on the scope of federal regulatory power over economic activities.Rate this question:
-
- 4.
In Gitlow v. New York (1925), the decision that states could not abridge the freedoms of expression protected by the First Amendment was based on the _____________________.
- A.
New York State Constitution.
- B.
First Amendment.
- C.
Fifth Amendment.
- D.
Exclusionary rule of the judiciary.
- E.
14th Amendment.
Correct Answer
E. 14th Amendment.Explanation
The correct answer is the 14th Amendment. In Gitlow v. New York (1925), the Supreme Court held that the protections of the First Amendment, which include freedom of speech and expression, apply to the states through the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment provides equal protection under the law and prohibits states from depriving individuals of their fundamental rights. This decision established the incorporation doctrine, which holds that the Bill of Rights applies to the states as well as the federal government.Rate this question:
-
- 5.
The significance of Gitlow v. New York (1925) was that ____________________.
- A.
A provision of the Bill of Rights was applied to the states for the first time.
- B.
The Bill of Rights was interpreted as restraining only the national government and not cities or states.
- C.
A state constitution had precedence over the United States Constitution within that state.
- D.
The national government was prevented from violating the Bill of Rights.
Correct Answer
A. A provision of the Bill of Rights was applied to the states for the first time.Explanation
The significance of Gitlow v. New York (1925) was that it marked the first time that a provision of the Bill of Rights was applied to the states. This case established the doctrine of selective incorporation, which held that certain protections in the Bill of Rights were fundamental and should also apply to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Prior to this decision, the Bill of Rights only restrained the national government, but Gitlow v. New York expanded its reach to also limit state actions.Rate this question:
-
- 6.
In the Lemon v. Kurtzman decision of 1971, the Supreme Court ruled that ___________________.
- A.
Devotional Bible-reading in public schools was unconstitutional.
- B.
Any aid of any sort to church-related schools is not constitutional, because it violates church-state separation.
- C.
Spoken prayers in public schools were unconstitutional.
- D.
Aid to church-related schools must be for secular purposes only, and cannot be used to advance or inhibit religion.
- E.
Aid to church-related schools is fully constitutional, and can be used for any purposes needed by the schools.
Correct Answer
D. Aid to church-related schools must be for secular purposes only, and cannot be used to advance or inhibit religion.Explanation
The Lemon v. Kurtzman decision of 1971 established the Lemon test, which set criteria for determining whether government aid to religious institutions is constitutional. According to this decision, aid to church-related schools must be for secular purposes only and cannot be used to advance or inhibit religion. This ruling was made to uphold the principle of church-state separation and ensure that government support does not favor or promote any particular religion.Rate this question:
-
- 7.
In the Engel v. Vitale case of 1962, the Supreme Court ruled that _________ was (were) unconstitutional.
- A.
The Connecticut statute barring the distribution of birth control information.
- B.
Segregation.
- C.
Prayers done as classroom exercises in public schools.
- D.
Prior restraint.
- E.
Police search or seizure without an authorized warrant.
Correct Answer
C. Prayers done as classroom exercises in public schools.Explanation
In the Engel v. Vitale case of 1962, the Supreme Court ruled that prayers done as classroom exercises in public schools were unconstitutional. This decision was based on the principle of the separation of church and state, as the Court found that the inclusion of organized prayer in public schools violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Court held that the state-sponsored prayer was a religious activity that endorsed a particular religious belief, thus infringing upon the rights of individuals who may hold different religious or non-religious beliefs.Rate this question:
-
- 8.
In its Near v. Minnesota decision of 1931, the Supreme Court ruled that _____________________.
- A.
A CIA agent could not publish a personal memoir without clearing it through the agency.
- B.
States had the power to use prior restraint broadly, but the national government did not.
- C.
A school newspaper was not a public forum and could be regulated "in any reasonable manner" by school officials.
- D.
States were prohibited from publishing newspapers because that amounted to government censorship of the press and constituted the establishment of a government monopoly.
- E.
The state government could not use prior restraint to shut down an outspoken newspaper.
Correct Answer
E. The state government could not use prior restraint to shut down an outspoken newspaper.Explanation
The correct answer is that the state government could not use prior restraint to shut down an outspoken newspaper. This means that the government cannot prevent a newspaper from publishing information or expressing its opinions, even if they are critical or controversial. The Supreme Court's ruling in Near v. Minnesota established that prior restraint, or censorship before publication, is generally unconstitutional and goes against the freedom of the press protected by the First Amendment. This decision limited the power of state governments to control or suppress newspapers based on their content.Rate this question:
-
- 9.
In the case of New York Times v. United States in 1971, the Supreme Court ruled _________________.
- A.
Against prior restraint in the case of the Pentagon Papers, which allowed them to be published.
- B.
Against permitting racy advertisements for massage parlors, saunas, and escort services which could be deemed obscene.
- C.
That the government cannot file libel suits against newspapers, because, it would result in government censorship.
- D.
In favor of permitting racy advertisements for massage parlors, saunas, and escort services as freedom of speech.
- E.
In favor of prior restraint in order to prevent publication of the Pentagon Papers.
Correct Answer
A. Against prior restraint in the case of the Pentagon Papers, which allowed them to be published.Explanation
In the case of New York Times v. United States in 1971, the Supreme Court ruled against prior restraint in the case of the Pentagon Papers, which allowed them to be published. This means that the government cannot prevent the publication of information or documents, even if they may be sensitive or classified. The ruling upheld the freedom of the press and protected the public's right to access information.Rate this question:
-
- 10.
In Schenck v. United States (1919), Justice Holmes said that speech can be restricted when it ______________________.
- A.
Provokes "a clear and present danger" to people.
- B.
Is spoken rather than non-verbal or symbolic.
- C.
Is expressed on private property.
- D.
Advocates the violent overthrow of the United States.
- E.
Is uttered by government officials in an effort to establish a religion.
Correct Answer
A. Provokes "a clear and present danger" to people.Explanation
In Schenck v. United States (1919), Justice Holmes established the principle that speech can be restricted if it poses a "clear and present danger" to people. This means that if the speech has the potential to cause immediate harm or danger to individuals, it can be limited or prohibited by the government. This ruling recognized that there are certain circumstances where the protection of free speech may need to be balanced with the need to safeguard public safety and well-being.Rate this question:
-
- 11.
In Roth v. United States, the Supreme Court held that _________________.
- A.
The film Carnal Knowledge, which had critical acclaim but a sexual theme and explicit scenes, could not be banned.
- B.
The government cannot prohibit discrimination against women priests by churches because it would violate the free exercise of religion.
- C.
Outdoor drive-ins could not be barred from showing a film which included nudity.
- D.
The possession of child pornography was not covered by any right to free speech or press, and could be made a crime.
- E.
Obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally protected free speech.
Correct Answer
E. Obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally protected free speech.Explanation
The Supreme Court's decision in Roth v. United States established that obscenity is not protected under the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. This means that the government can legally restrict or ban the distribution of materials deemed obscene. In the case of the film Carnal Knowledge, despite its critical acclaim, the Court ruled that its sexual theme and explicit scenes did not make it obscene and therefore it could not be banned. This decision reaffirms the principle that while freedom of speech is protected, it does not extend to obscenity.Rate this question:
-
- 12.
In the Case of New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), the Supreme Court ruled that ______________.
- A.
Statements made about political figures, however malicious, can never be deemed libelous.
- B.
The publication of the Pentagon Papers could be legally barred as a matter of national security.
- C.
Government officials cannot sue newspapers for libel since this would entail prior restraint of the press.
- D.
The Pentagon Papers could be legally published despite the government's desire to keep the material secret.
- E.
Statements made about political figures are libelous only if made with malice and reckless disregard for the truth.
Correct Answer
E. Statements made about political figures are libelous only if made with malice and reckless disregard for the truth.Explanation
The Supreme Court ruled in the case of New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) that statements made about political figures are libelous only if made with malice and reckless disregard for the truth. This means that in order for a statement to be considered libelous, it must be made with the intention of harming the reputation of the political figure and with a blatant disregard for whether the statement is true or false. This ruling protects freedom of speech and prevents government officials from suing newspapers for libel, as long as the statements are not made with malicious intent or reckless disregard for the truth.Rate this question:
-
- 13.
The exclusionary rule, which was applied to state governments, as well as the federal government in Mapp v. Ohio (1961), meant that ________________.
- A.
Federal agents may make arrests for state crimes.
- B.
Searches by police could not be made without a legal search warrant.
- C.
Probable cause must be established prior to arrest.
- D.
Unlawfully obtained evidence could not be used in court
- E.
State governments are exluded from prosecuting federal crimes.
Correct Answer
D. Unlawfully obtained evidence could not be used in courtExplanation
The exclusionary rule, as established in Mapp v. Ohio (1961), states that unlawfully obtained evidence cannot be used in court. This means that if the police conduct a search without a legal search warrant or without probable cause, any evidence they find during that search cannot be used as evidence in a court of law. This rule applies to both state and federal governments, ensuring that individuals' Fourth Amendment rights are protected and that evidence obtained through illegal means is not admissible in court.Rate this question:
-
- 14.
In what case did the Supreme Court rule that suspects must be told of their constitutional rights to remain silent, that what they say can be used against them, and of their right to have an attorney present during any questioning?
- A.
Mapp v. Ohio
- B.
Plucennik v. United States
- C.
Near v. Minnesota
- D.
Miranda v. Arizona
- E.
Gideon v. Wainwright
Correct Answer
D. Miranda v. ArizonaExplanation
In the case of Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court ruled that suspects must be informed of their constitutional rights before being interrogated by law enforcement. This includes the right to remain silent, the understanding that anything they say can be used against them in court, and the right to have an attorney present during questioning. This landmark decision established what is now known as the "Miranda rights" or "Miranda warnings," ensuring that individuals are aware of their legal protections when in police custody.Rate this question:
-
- 15.
The Supreme Court case of Gideon v. Wainwright _______________________.
- A.
Gave only those accused of capital crimes the right to counsel.
- B.
Ruled that illegally siezed evidence can not be used in court.
- C.
Prohibited government officals from issuing gag orders to the media.
- D.
Set guidelines for police questioning of suspects.
- E.
Extended the right to counsel to everyone accused of a felony
Correct Answer
E. Extended the right to counsel to everyone accused of a felonyExplanation
The correct answer is that the Supreme Court case of Gideon v. Wainwright extended the right to counsel to everyone accused of a felony. This landmark case held that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel applies to criminal defendants in state courts, not just federal courts. The decision established the principle that individuals who cannot afford an attorney should have one provided for them by the state. This ruling significantly expanded the right to legal representation and ensured fairer trials for all felony defendants, regardless of their financial means.Rate this question:
-
- 16.
In Gregg v. Georgia (1976), concerning applications of the Eighth Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled that ____________________________.
- A.
Georgia's death penalty law was "freakish" and "random".
- B.
The death penalty constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
- C.
Execution by electrocution is cruel and unusual punishment.
- D.
Only the federal government, and not the states, can impose the Death penalty
- E.
Capital punishment is an extreme sanctioin, but it is suitable to the most extreme crimes.
Correct Answer
E. Capital punishment is an extreme sanctioin, but it is suitable to the most extreme crimes.Explanation
The Supreme Court ruled in Gregg v. Georgia (1976) that capital punishment is an extreme sanction, but it is suitable for the most extreme crimes. This means that while the Court acknowledged that the death penalty is a severe punishment, it is still considered appropriate for the most heinous offenses. The ruling suggests that the Court believes there are certain crimes that warrant the ultimate punishment of death, despite the argument that it may constitute cruel and unusual punishment.Rate this question:
-
- 17.
The Supreme Court ruled in its Roe v. Wade decision that _________________.
- A.
All restrictioins on abortions at any stage of a pregnancy were a violation of a woman's right to privacy.
- B.
Each state and not the federal government has authority to determine whether to permit or prohibit abortion in that state.
- C.
Abortion was to be allowed only in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the pregnant woman was in danger.
- D.
Abortion was murder.
- E.
Abortion could not be prohibited by any state during the first trimester of pregnancy.
Correct Answer
E. Abortion could not be prohibited by any state during the first trimester of pregnancy.Explanation
The Supreme Court ruled in its Roe v. Wade decision that abortion could not be prohibited by any state during the first trimester of pregnancy. This means that the court determined that a woman has a constitutional right to choose to have an abortion during the early stages of pregnancy, and that states cannot pass laws to ban or restrict access to abortion during this time period. This ruling established the legal framework for abortion rights in the United States and has been a source of ongoing debate and controversy.Rate this question:
-
- 18.
In the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court ruled that abortion ________________.
- A.
Was a fundamental right, and any restrictions on such a right had to be judged by a "strict scrutiny."
- B.
Must be funded by state governments when the mother cannot afford it, or it would be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
- C.
Funding by any level of government was unconstitutional.
- D.
Could be completely outlawed by individual states.
- E.
Restrictions could be imposed by states if they did not involve "undue burdens" on the women seeking abortions.
Correct Answer
E. Restrictions could be imposed by states if they did not involve "undue burdens" on the women seeking abortions.Explanation
In the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court ruled that states could impose restrictions on abortion as long as they did not create "undue burdens" for women seeking abortions. This means that states have the authority to regulate abortion, but they cannot impose restrictions that place an excessive burden on women's access to the procedure. The Court's decision recognized that while states have an interest in regulating abortion, they must also respect women's constitutional right to access safe and legal abortions.Rate this question:
-
- 19.
In the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford, the United States Supreme Court ________________.
- A.
Voted unanimously to declare slavery unconstitutional and "barbaric," thus cause the southern states to secede.
- B.
For the first time placed a geographic limit on the expansion of slavery, banning it west of the Mississippi River.
- C.
Outlawed segregation laws which separated blacks and whites in all public places.
- D.
Ruled that all adult African-American men had a right to vote under the Constitution.
- E.
Ruled that a black man, slave or free, was "chattel," and upheld slavery itself as constitutional.
Correct Answer
E. Ruled that a black man, slave or free, was "chattel," and upheld slavery itself as constitutional.Explanation
The correct answer is that the Supreme Court ruled that a black man, slave or free, was "chattel," and upheld slavery itself as constitutional. This means that the court considered black individuals as property and not as citizens with rights. They affirmed the legality of slavery, which had significant implications for the institution and the rights of African Americans at the time.Rate this question:
-
- 20.
The Supreme Court's decision in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson. __________________.
- A.
For the first time established race as a suspect classification and ruled that former slaves must be granted land or otherwise compensated for their years of forced labor.
- B.
Ruled that slaves were chattel property and entitled to no rights under the Constitution.
- C.
Stated that the principle of separate but equal public facilities for African Americans was constitutional.
- D.
Stated that the principle of separate but equal public facilities for African Americans was unconstitutional.
- E.
Outlawed slavery.
Correct Answer
C. Stated that the principle of separate but equal public facilities for African Americans was constitutional.Explanation
The correct answer is that the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson stated that the principle of separate but equal public facilities for African Americans was constitutional. This decision, made in 1896, upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation under the "separate but equal" doctrine. It allowed for the establishment of racially segregated facilities, such as schools and transportation, as long as they were deemed to be equal in quality. This decision had a significant impact on civil rights in the United States and was later overturned by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.Rate this question:
-
- 21.
In Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court __________________.
- A.
Ruled that the visible signs of education were substantially equal between black schools and white ones.
- B.
Enunciated the principle of separate but equal.
- C.
Ordered the Topeka school district to spend more money on black schools.
- D.
Enunciated the principle of equal but separate.
- E.
Ruled that school segregation was inherently unequal.
Correct Answer
E. Ruled that school segregation was inherently unequal.Explanation
The correct answer is that the Supreme Court ruled that school segregation was inherently unequal. This decision in Brown v. Board of Education overturned the "separate but equal" doctrine established in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) and declared that racial segregation in public schools violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The Court recognized that segregation inherently created a sense of inferiority and unequal treatment for African American students, and therefore, it was deemed unconstitutional. This landmark ruling played a significant role in the Civil Rights Movement and paved the way for desegregation in schools.Rate this question:
-
- 22.
The immediate reaction to Brown v. Board of Education (1954) was ______________________.
- A.
The desegregation of public schools in the south.
- B.
Passage of the 23rd Amendment to overturn the Brown decision.
- C.
The closing of schools in Topeka, Kansas.
- D.
Increased enrollment in private schools by whites in the South and a threat to close public schools.
- E.
The busing of students to achieve racially balanced schools.
Correct Answer
D. Increased enrollment in private schools by whites in the South and a threat to close public schools.Explanation
The immediate reaction to Brown v. Board of Education (1954) was increased enrollment in private schools by whites in the South and a threat to close public schools. This can be understood as a response from white families who opposed the desegregation of public schools. They chose to enroll their children in private schools to maintain racial segregation. Additionally, the threat to close public schools may have been a tactic used by segregationists to resist integration. This reaction highlights the resistance and backlash faced by the civil rights movement in their efforts to end segregation in education.Rate this question:
-
- 23.
In the case of Korematsu v. United States, the Supreme Court _______________________.
- A.
Ruled that the removal of Japanese Americans from the west coast and their placement in internment camps during World War II was barbaric and unconstitutional.
- B.
Upheld the constitutionality of the United States atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
- C.
Ruled just prior to World War II that Japanese Americans from the west coast had to be repatriated to Japan.
- D.
Upheld the constitutionality of the removal of Japanese Americans from the west coast and their placement in internment camps during World War II.
- E.
Ruled that restrictions on Japanese ownership of land in the United States was unconstitutional.
Correct Answer
D. Upheld the constitutionality of the removal of Japanese Americans from the west coast and their placement in internment camps during World War II.Explanation
The Supreme Court's ruling in Korematsu v. United States upheld the constitutionality of the removal of Japanese Americans from the west coast and their placement in internment camps during World War II. This means that the court deemed the government's actions as legal and within its powers, despite the fact that it resulted in the violation of the civil rights of Japanese Americans. The decision has been widely criticized as a grave injustice and a violation of the principles of equal protection under the law.Rate this question:
-
- 24.
In the case of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the United States Supreme Court ______________________.
- A.
Ruled that state-run nursing schools could not discriminate against men in admissions to their programs.
- B.
Upheld all affirmative action programs as justified and constitutional.
- C.
Ruled that the University of California-Davis medical school could not discriminate against women, African-Americans, or other minority groups.
- D.
Upheld affirmative action programs, but limited their scope, and outlawed racial quota set-asides.
- E.
Outlawed all affirmative action programs as unconstitutional.
Correct Answer
D. Upheld affirmative action programs, but limited their scope, and outlawed racial quota set-asides.Explanation
In the case of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the United States Supreme Court upheld affirmative action programs, but limited their scope, and outlawed racial quota set-asides. This means that while the Court allowed the use of affirmative action in college admissions, it placed restrictions on how it could be implemented. The Court ruled that using racial quotas to set aside a certain number of spots for minority applicants was unconstitutional, but schools could still consider race as a factor in admissions decisions in order to promote diversity.Rate this question:
-
- 25.
In the 1975 case of Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court ruled that _______________________.
- A.
The limitation on the amount of money people could contribute to their own election campaigns was not a violation of free speech, and was constitutional.
- B.
The limitation on the amount of money persons could contribute to their own election campaigns violated free speech, and was unconstitutional.
- C.
Presidential election campaigns could not be paid for by tax dollars.
- D.
Congressional and state legislative districts must be of equal population and reapportioned every ten years.
- E.
The forced disclosure of contributions to federal elections violated freedom of association, and was therefore unconstitutional.
Correct Answer
B. The limitation on the amount of money persons could contribute to their own election campaigns violated free speech, and was unconstitutional.Explanation
In the 1975 case of Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court ruled that the limitation on the amount of money persons could contribute to their own election campaigns violated free speech, and was unconstitutional. This means that individuals should have the freedom to spend their own money on their election campaigns without restrictions, as it is considered a form of expression protected by the First Amendment. The court found that limiting self-funding would hinder individuals' ability to effectively communicate their political messages, thus infringing on their constitutional rights.Rate this question:
-
- 26.
In 1998, the Supreme Court ruled in Clinton v. City of New York that
- A.
A 1996 law granting the President the authority to propose rescinding funds in appropriation bills was unconstitutional.
- B.
The pocket veto was unconstitutional.
- C.
That the Clinton impeachment was unconstitutional.
- D.
The line item veto was unconstitutional.
- E.
None of the above
Correct Answer
D. The line item veto was unconstitutional.Explanation
In Clinton v. City of New York (1998), the Supreme Court deemed the line item veto, which allowed the President to veto specific provisions within a bill without rejecting it entirely, as unconstitutional. The Court held that it violated the Presentment Clause of the U.S. Constitution by altering the legislative process.Rate this question:
-
- 27.
In the case of Munn v. Illinois, decided in 1877, the United States Supreme Court __________________.
- A.
Outlawed the patronage system.
- B.
Ruled the states could not impose corporate income taxes.
- C.
Upheld the right of government to regulate the business operations of a firm.
- D.
Ruled that the Civil Service System was unconstitutional.
- E.
Held that government had no right to regulate the business operations of a firm.
Correct Answer
C. Upheld the right of government to regulate the business operations of a firm.Explanation
In the case of Munn v. Illinois, the United States Supreme Court upheld the right of government to regulate the business operations of a firm. This decision established the principle that government has the authority to regulate private businesses in the interest of public welfare. The case involved the regulation of grain elevators and set a precedent for government intervention in industries that affect the public welfare. This ruling allowed the government to impose regulations on businesses to protect consumers and ensure fair business practices.Rate this question:
-
- 28.
In the case of United States v. Nixon, the Supreme Court ruled that _________________.
- A.
John Kennedy had lawfully won the Presidential election of 1960, and Richard Nixon's challenge was unfounded.
- B.
Celebrated the fact that the Supreme Court had now joined them in supporting swift compliance with a new federal law.
- C.
Proposed a Constitutional amendment to overturn the Court's decision, although the amendment was never ratified by the states.
- D.
Overruled the Supreme Court is a rare instance of judicial review.
- E.
Worked quickly to implement the decision nationwide.
Correct Answer
A. John Kennedy had lawfully won the Presidential election of 1960, and Richard Nixon's challenge was unfounded.Explanation
In the case of United States v. Nixon, the Supreme Court ruled that President Richard Nixon was obligated to release certain recordings related to the Watergate scandal. The ruling upheld the principle that the President is not above the law and must comply with judicial orders, ensuring transparency and accountability in government affairs. This landmark decision affirmed the separation of powers and the importance of checks and balances in the American political system.Rate this question:
-
- 29.
The Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison (1803) asserted the power of the Court to __________________.
- A.
Check the actions of the other branches through judicial review.
- B.
Determine its own size and makeup.
- C.
Confirm presidential appointments.
- D.
Nullify constitutional amendments.
- E.
Impeach the President.
Correct Answer
A. Check the actions of the other branches through judicial review.Explanation
In Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Supreme Court established the principle of judicial review, which grants the Court the power to review and invalidate actions taken by the other branches of government if they are found to be unconstitutional. This landmark case solidified the Court's authority to check the actions of the executive and legislative branches, ensuring that they adhere to the Constitution.Rate this question:
-
- 30.
In the immediate aftermath of the Supreme Court's famous Brown v. Board of Education decision, the President and Congress ______________________.
- A.
Refused to enforce speedy compliance with the ruling, thus severely weakening implementation over the next decade.
- B.
Celebrated the fact that the Supreme Court had now joined them in supporting swift compliance with a new federal law.
- C.
Proposed a Constitutional amendment to overturn the Court's decision, although the amendment was never ratified by the states.
- D.
Overrulled the Supreme Court in a rare instance of judicial review.
- E.
Worked quickly to implement the decision nationwide.
Correct Answer
A. Refused to enforce speedy compliance with the ruling, thus severely weakening implementation over the next decade.Explanation
After the Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision, the President and Congress chose not to enforce the ruling promptly, which had a significant impact on its implementation over the following ten years. This suggests that they did not support or prioritize the swift compliance with the new federal law, thereby weakening its effectiveness.Rate this question:
-
Quiz Review Timeline +
Our quizzes are rigorously reviewed, monitored and continuously updated by our expert board to maintain accuracy, relevance, and timeliness.
-
Current Version
-
Feb 08, 2024Quiz Edited by
ProProfs Editorial Team -
Apr 20, 2009Quiz Created by
Mr.sideburns
Back to top