Chapter 16 Kennedy 2nd Block
Welcome to a quiz on American government, with elements from modern day and that of the past. We’ll have topics up for grabs like Congress, legal reasoning, briefs, judicial interpretation, jurisdiction of courts and much more. Let’s see how much you can tell us! Good luck!
Questions and Answers
- 1.
Judicial interpretation of an act of Congress; Congress occasionally passes new legislation to clarify existing laws when this is an issue
Explanation
Statutory construction refers to the process of interpreting and analyzing the meaning and intent of a law passed by Congress. It involves examining the language, structure, and purpose of the legislation to determine its scope and application. When Congress passes new legislation to clarify existing laws, it is engaging in statutory construction to provide guidance and resolve any ambiguities or uncertainties in the original law. This process is important in ensuring that laws are properly understood and applied by the judiciary.Rate this question:
- 2.
Legal briefs submitted by a "friend of the court" for the purpose of raising additional points of view and presenting information not contained in the briefs of the formal parties; attempt to influence a court's decision
Explanation
Amicus curiae briefs are legal documents submitted by a "friend of the court" who is not directly involved in the case but has a strong interest in the outcome. These briefs aim to provide additional perspectives and present information that may not be included in the formal parties' briefs. The purpose of amicus curiae briefs is to influence the court's decision by offering alternative viewpoints and supporting arguments.Rate this question:
- 3.
Judicial interpretation of an act of Congress; Congress occasionally passes new legislation to clarify existing laws when this is an issue
Explanation
Statutory construction refers to the process of interpreting and analyzing laws passed by Congress. In some cases, the language of a law may be unclear or ambiguous, requiring the courts to interpret its meaning. This process involves examining the legislative intent, historical context, and purpose of the law to determine its correct interpretation. Congress may also pass new legislation to provide clarification on existing laws when there is confusion or ambiguity. Therefore, statutory construction is the appropriate term to describe the judicial interpretation of an act of Congress and the subsequent legislative actions taken to clarify it.Rate this question:
- 4.
Requirement that to be heard a case must be capable of being settled as a matter of law rather than on other grounds as is commonly the case in legislative bodies
Explanation
Justiciable disputes refer to legal issues or conflicts that can be resolved through the application of law. These cases are capable of being settled based on legal principles and precedents, rather than being resolved through political or legislative means. In other words, justiciable disputes are those that fall within the jurisdiction of the courts and can be adjudicated upon by a judge or jury. This requirement ensures that the judiciary focuses on interpreting and applying the law, rather than getting involved in political or policy matters that are better suited for legislative bodies.Rate this question:
- 5.
Statement of legal reasoning
- 6.
Jurisdiction of courts, who view the legal issues involved rather than the factual record, that hear cases brought to them on appeal from lower courts
Explanation
Appellate jurisdiction refers to the authority of higher courts to review and decide on legal issues raised in cases that have been appealed from lower courts. These higher courts focus on examining the legal aspects of the case rather than reevaluating the factual evidence. They have the power to affirm, reverse, or modify the decisions made by the lower courts. Appellate jurisdiction allows for a thorough review of legal arguments and ensures consistency and fairness in the application of the law.Rate this question:
- 7.
Jurisdiction of courts, who are the ones that determine the facts about a case, that hear a case first, usually in a trial
Explanation
Original jurisdiction refers to the authority of a court to hear a case for the first time, usually in a trial. This means that the court has the power to determine the facts about a case and make a decision based on those facts. The concept of original jurisdiction is important because it establishes which court has the initial authority to hear a case, before it can be appealed to a higher court.Rate this question:
- 8.
Judicial philosophy in which judges make bold policy decisions, even charting new constitutional ground; emphasis that the courts can correct pressing needs, especially those unmet by the majoritarian political process, is important to advocates of this approach
Explanation
Judicial activism refers to a judicial philosophy where judges make bold policy decisions and even establish new constitutional grounds. Advocates of this approach believe that the courts have the power to address urgent needs that are not being met by the majority political process. This means that judges actively interpret and apply the law to promote social change and correct perceived injustices. Judicial activism is seen as an important tool to bring about necessary reforms and protect individual rights.Rate this question:
- 9.
Presidential appointee and the third-ranking office in the Department of Justice; in charge of the appellate court litigation of the federal government
Explanation
The solicitor general is a presidential appointee and holds the third-ranking position in the Department of Justice. This individual is responsible for handling appellate court litigation for the federal government. They represent the government's interests in cases before the Supreme Court and other appellate courts, presenting arguments and advocating for the government's position. The solicitor general plays a crucial role in shaping legal policy and defending the government's actions in court.Rate this question:
- 10.
Judicial philosophy in which judges play minimal roles, leaving that duty strictly to the legislatures
Explanation
Judicial restraint is a judicial philosophy that advocates for judges to exercise minimal roles in decision-making, instead deferring to the legislatures to make laws and policies. This approach believes in strict interpretation of the Constitution and limited judicial intervention in order to preserve the separation of powers and respect the democratic process. It emphasizes the importance of judicial self-restraint and avoiding activism, allowing elected representatives to address societal issues through legislation. This philosophy aims to maintain the balance of power among the branches of government and uphold the principle of limited government intervention in individual rights and liberties.Rate this question:
- 11.
Latin phrase meaning "let the decision stand"; principle on which most cases reaching appellate courts are settled
Explanation
Stare decisis is a Latin phrase that means "let the decision stand." It is a principle on which most cases reaching appellate courts are settled. This principle dictates that courts should adhere to precedent and follow previous decisions made by higher courts. It promotes consistency and stability in the legal system, as it ensures that similar cases are treated similarly. By relying on stare decisis, courts are able to maintain predictability and fairness in their rulings, as well as respect the authority of previous decisions.Rate this question:
- 12.
Unwritten tradition whereby nominations for state-level federal judicial posts are not confirmed if they are opposed by a senator of the president's party from the state in which the nominee will serve; tradition applies to courts of appeal when there is opposition from the nominee's state senator
Explanation
Senatorial courtesy is an unwritten tradition in the United States whereby nominations for state-level federal judicial posts are not confirmed if they are opposed by a senator of the president's party from the state in which the nominee will serve. This tradition also applies to courts of appeal when there is opposition from the nominee's state senator. In other words, if a senator from the president's party in the nominee's state objects to the nomination, it is unlikely to be confirmed. This tradition is a way for senators to have influence over judicial appointments in their respective states.Rate this question:
- 13.
The Constitution provided for:
- A.
A Supreme Court and an intricate system of lower federal courts
- B.
A Supreme Court, federal courts, and state courts all connected in one federal system
- C.
A federal court system that could include a Supreme Court and appellate courts
- D.
State courts and the ability of Congress to create whatever federal courts it deemed necessary
- E.
A Supreme Court and whatever other courts Congress deemed necessary and proper
Correct Answer
E. A Supreme Court and whatever other courts Congress deemed necessary and properExplanation
The correct answer states that the Constitution provided for a Supreme Court and whatever other courts Congress deemed necessary and proper. This means that the Constitution allowed for the creation of additional federal courts, giving Congress the authority to establish and determine the need for these courts. This provision demonstrates the flexibility of the Constitution in allowing for the establishment of a federal court system that can adapt to the changing needs of the country.Rate this question:
-
- 14.
The point of origin for most cases in the federal system would be:
- A.
Legislative courts
- B.
Appellate courts
- C.
The Supreme Court
- D.
Federal district courts
- E.
Specialized courts
Correct Answer
D. Federal district courtsExplanation
The point of origin for most cases in the federal system would be the federal district courts. These courts are the trial courts in the federal system and are responsible for hearing and deciding both civil and criminal cases. They are the first level of federal courts where cases are filed and initial decisions are made. Cases can then be appealed to higher courts such as the appellate courts and ultimately the Supreme Court. However, the federal district courts serve as the starting point for most cases in the federal system.Rate this question:
-
- 15.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit:
- A.
Hears appeals in specialized cases such as copyright law, patents, and tariffs
- B.
Hears appeals from all federal district courts
- C.
Conducts oversight on the Supreme Court
- D.
Is a court of original jurisdiction
- E.
Hears only military appeals resulting from court martial proceedings
Correct Answer
A. Hears appeals in specialized cases such as copyright law, patents, and tariffsExplanation
The correct answer is that the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit hears appeals in specialized cases such as copyright law, patents, and tariffs. This means that if a case involves any of these areas of law and is being appealed, it would be heard by this court. The court has jurisdiction over these specific types of cases, indicating its expertise and focus in these areas of law. It does not hear appeals from all federal district courts or conduct oversight on the Supreme Court. It is also not a court of original jurisdiction, meaning it does not hear cases for the first time. Additionally, it does not exclusively hear military appeals resulting from court martial proceedings.Rate this question:
-
- 16.
The Supreme Court today consists of a Chief Justice and:
- A.
Nine associate justices
- B.
Two assistant chief justices and six associate justices
- C.
Eight associate justices
- D.
Twelve associate justices, one of which is designated as assistant to the Chief Justice
- E.
Four assistant justices making a total of five
Correct Answer
C. Eight associate justicesExplanation
The correct answer is eight associate justices. The Supreme Court currently consists of a Chief Justice and eight associate justices. This composition allows for a total of nine justices who make up the highest court in the United States.Rate this question:
-
- 17.
The Supreme Court’s docket is mainly comprised of cases from:
- A.
State criminal courts
- B.
Law suits from state civil courts
- C.
Civil cases from federal courts
- D.
Original jurisdiction
- E.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Correct Answer
C. Civil cases from federal courtsExplanation
The Supreme Court's docket is mainly comprised of civil cases from federal courts. This means that the majority of the cases that the Supreme Court hears are disputes between parties that arise under federal law or involve the interpretation of the United States Constitution. These cases can involve a wide range of issues, such as constitutional rights, federal statutes, or conflicts between different federal laws. The Supreme Court's role in hearing these cases is to provide the final interpretation of federal law and ensure its uniform application throughout the country.Rate this question:
-
- 18.
Which of the following statements concerning federal judges is NOT true?
- A.
Federal judges are appointed by the president
- B.
Federal judges, with the exception of a few specialized courts, have life tenure
- C.
Federal judges cannot have their salaries reduced while in office
- D.
Federal judges require confirmation by the Senate once appointed by the President
- E.
Federal judges must be natural citizens born the United States
Correct Answer
E. Federal judges must be natural citizens born the United StatesExplanation
The statement "federal judges must be natural citizens born the United States" is NOT true. Federal judges do not have to be natural citizens born in the United States. They only need to be appointed by the president, have life tenure (with a few exceptions), and require confirmation by the Senate. The requirement of being a natural citizen born in the United States is not applicable to federal judges.Rate this question:
-
- 19.
After being appointed by the President, a Supreme Court nominee is investigated by:
- A.
The House Committee on Judges and Justices
- B.
The Senate Judiciary Committee
- C.
The FBI and the Justice Department
- D.
The Attorney General
- E.
The House Rules Committee
Correct Answer
B. The Senate Judiciary CommitteeExplanation
After being appointed by the President, a Supreme Court nominee is investigated by the Senate Judiciary Committee. This committee is responsible for conducting hearings to evaluate the qualifications and suitability of the nominee. They review the nominee's background, legal experience, and judicial philosophy. The committee also investigates any potential ethical or legal issues that may arise. This thorough investigation helps to ensure that only qualified and deserving individuals are appointed to the Supreme Court.Rate this question:
-
- 20.
John Marshall strengthened the power of the Supreme Court by invoking judicial review in:
- A.
McCulloch v. Maryland
- B.
Gibbons v. Ogden
- C.
Marbury v. Madison
- D.
Brown v. Board of Education
- E.
Scott v. Stanford
Correct Answer
C. Marbury v. MadisonExplanation
In Marbury v. Madison, John Marshall, as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, established the principle of judicial review. This landmark case solidified the Court's authority to interpret the Constitution and declare laws unconstitutional. By asserting this power, Marshall significantly strengthened the role of the Supreme Court and its ability to check the actions of the other branches of government.Rate this question:
-
- 21.
The example of Eisenhower selecting Earl Warren to the Supreme Court demonstrates:
- A.
The wisdom of putting a friend on the Court
- B.
The ability of a President to select the right man for the administrations purposes
- C.
The importance of partisanship in Court selection
- D.
The possibility that a persons past record might not reflect his or her actions on the Court once appointed
- E.
How a President can get his nominee rejected by the Senate Judiciary Committee
Correct Answer
D. The possibility that a persons past record might not reflect his or her actions on the Court once appointedExplanation
The example of Eisenhower selecting Earl Warren to the Supreme Court demonstrates the possibility that a person's past record might not reflect his or her actions on the Court once appointed. This is because Earl Warren, who had a conservative record as a governor, ended up leading the Court in a more liberal direction, especially in landmark cases such as Brown v. Board of Education. This shows that a person's ideology and approach to decision-making can evolve or change once they are appointed to the Court.Rate this question:
-
- 22.
The most common manner for a case to come before the court is:
- A.
On a writ of certiorari
- B.
On a writ of mandamus
- C.
As an amicus curiae brief
- D.
As a stare decisis case
- E.
On a per curiam decision
Correct Answer
A. On a writ of certiorariExplanation
Cases most commonly come before the court on a writ of certiorari. A writ of certiorari is a request made by a party to a higher court asking that the lower court's decision be reviewed. The higher court has discretion to grant or deny the writ, and if granted, it allows the higher court to review the lower court's decision and potentially overturn or modify it. This is the most common way for cases to be brought before the court for review.Rate this question:
-
- 23.
The concept of original intent means:
- A.
The Supreme Court must decided cases as the original court of jurisdiction intended them to be decided
- B.
All cases must be decided based on stare decisis
- C.
The 14thAmendment must be considered in all cases dealing with the Bill of Rights as originally written by the Founders
- D.
Judges should determine the purposes of the writers of the Constitution when deciding the outcome of cases
- E.
Amicus curiae briefs must be the original basis of the Supreme Court’s rulings
Correct Answer
D. Judges should determine the purposes of the writers of the Constitution when deciding the outcome of casesExplanation
The concept of original intent means that judges should determine the purposes of the writers of the Constitution when deciding the outcome of cases. This approach suggests that the Constitution should be interpreted based on the original understanding and intentions of its framers. By considering the original intent, judges aim to apply the Constitution in a way that aligns with the framers' intentions and the historical context in which it was written. This approach is often contrasted with other methods of constitutional interpretation, such as a focus on contemporary societal values or a more flexible approach that adapts to changing circumstances.Rate this question:
-
- 24.
President Nixon, hoping to move the court toward an attitude of strict construction selected ________________ as the Chief Justice in 1969.
- A.
Earl Warren
- B.
John Marshall
- C.
Warren Burger
- D.
William Rehnquist
- E.
Sandra Day O’Connor
Correct Answer
C. Warren BurgerExplanation
President Nixon selected Warren Burger as the Chief Justice in 1969 because he hoped to move the court toward an attitude of strict construction.Rate this question:
-
- 25.
That the Supreme Court should be an advocate for the under-represented and politically weak would be an argument for:
- A.
Judicial activism
- B.
Judicial restraint
- C.
Judicial review
- D.
Original intent
- E.
Stare decisis
Correct Answer
A. Judicial activismExplanation
An argument for judicial activism is that the Supreme Court should actively advocate for the under-represented and politically weak. This means that the Court should use its power to interpret the Constitution and laws in a way that protects and promotes the rights of marginalized groups, even if it means going beyond the literal text of the law. Judicial activism emphasizes the Court's role in shaping social and political change, rather than strictly adhering to original intent or precedent.Rate this question:
-
- 26.
When Alexander Hamilton stated that “the Constitution ought to be the standard of construction for the laws, and ... wherever there is an evident opposition; the laws ought to give place to the Constitution…” he was advocating for:
- A.
Loose construction by the Courts
- B.
Strict construction by the Courts
- C.
The Courts to disregard the Constitution and do what they saw as correct
- D.
Stare decisis in all cases
- E.
Judicial activism
Correct Answer
B. Strict construction by the CourtsExplanation
Alexander Hamilton was advocating for strict construction by the Courts. He believed that the Constitution should be the ultimate guide for interpreting and applying laws. According to Hamilton, if there is a clear conflict between a law and the Constitution, the law should be set aside and the Constitution should prevail. This approach emphasizes a narrow interpretation of the Constitution, limiting the powers of the government and protecting individual rights. Hamilton's stance supports the idea of judicial restraint, where the Courts should exercise caution and deference to the original intent of the Constitution.Rate this question:
-
- 27.
The general welfare clause and the necessary and proper clause are used as points of argument for those favoring:
- A.
Judicial professionalism
- B.
Judicial constraint
- C.
Original intent
- D.
Constitutionalism
- E.
Loose constructionism
Correct Answer
E. Loose constructionismExplanation
The general welfare clause and the necessary and proper clause are often cited by those favoring loose constructionism. Loose constructionism is an approach to interpreting the Constitution that allows for a broader interpretation of its language and grants more flexibility to the government in exercising its powers. The general welfare clause, found in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, grants Congress the power to make laws that promote the general welfare of the country. The necessary and proper clause, also known as the elastic clause, found in Article I, Section 8, gives Congress the authority to pass laws that are necessary and proper for carrying out its other powers. Advocates of loose constructionism argue that these clauses provide a basis for interpreting the Constitution in a way that allows for a more expansive role for the federal government.Rate this question:
-
- 28.
When a justice on the Supreme Court agrees with the opinion of the Court but wishes to announce a different Constitutional or legal basis for the decision, the justice would write a:
- A.
Majority opinion
- B.
Minority opinion
- C.
Concurring opinion
- D.
Dissenting opinion
- E.
Opinion of the Court
Correct Answer
C. Concurring opinionExplanation
A concurring opinion is written by a justice on the Supreme Court who agrees with the opinion of the Court but wishes to provide a different Constitutional or legal basis for the decision. This means that while they agree with the outcome of the case, they have their own reasons for reaching that conclusion. A concurring opinion allows the justice to express their viewpoint and provide additional analysis or arguments that may differ from the majority opinion.Rate this question:
-
- 29.
In order for the Supreme Court to hear a case:
- A.
A lower court must request the hearing
- B.
Four of the justices must agree to hear the case
- C.
A major Constitutional issue must be questioned
- D.
The President must ask for the hearing
- E.
The Chief Justice must want the case to appear on the Court’s Docket
Correct Answer
B. Four of the justices must agree to hear the caseExplanation
For the Supreme Court to hear a case, it is necessary for four of the justices to agree to hear the case. This means that a majority of the justices must be in favor of granting the request for a hearing. This requirement ensures that there is a sufficient level of support within the Court before a case is taken up for consideration. It also helps to prevent any one justice from unilaterally deciding which cases the Court will hear, promoting a more balanced and collaborative approach to case selection.Rate this question:
-
- 30.
Today, most judges are selected by Presidents based on:
- A.
Ideology
- B.
Partisanship
- C.
Judicial experience
- D.
Credentials and their resume
- E.
Friendship with the President before the nomination
Correct Answer
A. IdeologyExplanation
Judges are selected by Presidents based on ideology because it is important for the President to appoint judges who align with their own political beliefs and values. This ensures that the judges will interpret and apply the law in a way that is consistent with the President's agenda and policy goals. Ideology plays a significant role in shaping judicial decisions and can have a long-lasting impact on the legal system. Therefore, Presidents prioritize ideology when selecting judges to ensure that their policies are upheld and advanced through the judiciary.Rate this question:
-
- 31.
Which of the following is NOT true concerning Senatorial courtesy?
- A.
Nominees for the federal bench are not confirmed if opposed by the senator of the President’s party from the home state of the nominee
- B.
Presidents usually contact the Senators from a nominee’s home state prior to making the official announcement to avoid later problems with Senatorial courtesy
- C.
The tradition of Senatorial courtesy places a great amount of power for the nomination process in the hands of the Senators
- D.
Senatorial courtesy is an old fashion tradition which is not always followed by Presidents today
- E.
Senators may invoke Senatorial courtesy without documentation or proof of why a nominee is unfit for the job
Correct Answer
D. Senatorial courtesy is an old fashion tradition which is not always followed by Presidents todayExplanation
The correct answer states that Senatorial courtesy is an old-fashioned tradition which is not always followed by Presidents today. This implies that while Senatorial courtesy was once a common practice, it is now less frequently observed by Presidents. This suggests that the power dynamics and nomination processes have evolved over time, and the tradition of Senatorial courtesy may not hold the same level of influence as it once did.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
-
Mar 21, 2023Quiz Edited by
ProProfs Editorial Team -
Feb 14, 2012Quiz Created by
Arippee
- Cartography Quizzes
- Civics Quizzes
- Economics Quizzes
- El112 Quizzes
- English Quizzes
- Geography Quizzes
- History Quizzes
- Humanities Quizzes
- Law Quizzes
- Linguistics Quizzes
- Logic Quizzes
- Math Quizzes
- Political Science Quizzes
- Politics Quizzes
- Science Quizzes
- Social Science Quizzes
- Sociology Quizzes
Back to top