Chapter 16 Rippee 4th
Spell correctly-use only lowercase
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 enacted by Congress. It involves examining the language, structure, and purpose of the statute to determine its scope and application. In cases where the meaning of a law is unclear or ambiguous, judicial interpretation plays a crucial role. Courts may interpret the statute and provide guidance on its implementation. Additionally, when Congress feels that existing laws need further clarification, they can pass new legislation to address any ambiguities or gaps in the law.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 a formal party to the case. These briefs serve the purpose of presenting additional points of view and information that may not be included in the formal parties' briefs. The intention behind submitting amicus curiae briefs is to influence the court's decision by providing alternative perspectives and relevant information that may aid in the decision-making process.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 the language and intent of a law passed by Congress. It involves examining the legislative history, purpose, and context of the statute to determine its meaning and how it should be applied in specific cases. This process is necessary when there is ambiguity or confusion in the language of the law, and Congress may pass new legislation to provide further clarification in such situations.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 by a court of law. These disputes are capable of being settled based on legal principles and arguments, rather than being resolved through political or legislative processes. The requirement for a case to be justiciable means that it must involve a legal matter that can be decided by a court, rather than being a political or non-legal issue. Therefore, the answer "justiciable disputes" aligns with the given explanation.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 hear appeals from lower courts. In cases involving legal issues rather than factual records, these higher courts have the power to review the decisions made by lower courts. They focus on the legal aspects of the case and determine if any errors were made in the application or interpretation of the law. Appellate jurisdiction allows for a thorough examination of the legal issues involved, ensuring fair and consistent 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 and decide a case for the first time. In other words, it is the power of a court to initially hear and determine the facts of a case. Courts with original jurisdiction are the ones that have the first opportunity to hear a case, typically in a trial setting. This term is commonly used in legal systems to distinguish between courts that have the authority to hear cases for the first time and appellate courts that review decisions made by lower courts.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 in which judges make bold policy decisions, even charting new constitutional ground. Advocates of this approach believe that the courts can correct pressing needs, especially those unmet by the majoritarian political process. Judicial activism emphasizes the importance of judges taking an active role in shaping and interpreting the law to address societal issues and promote justice.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-highest position in the Department of Justice. Their main responsibility is to handle the appellate court litigation for the federal government. This means that they represent the government's interests in cases that are being appealed to higher courts. They play a crucial role in shaping the government's legal arguments and presenting them before the courts.Rate this question:
- 10.
Judicial philosophy in which judges play minimal roles, leaving that duty strictly to the legislatures
Explanation
Judicial restraint refers to a judicial philosophy where judges limit their role in decision-making and defer to the decisions made by the legislatures. This approach emphasizes the importance of respecting the separation of powers and allowing elected representatives to make laws and policies. Judges practicing judicial restraint believe that they should not actively interpret or expand upon the law, but rather focus on applying existing laws as written. This philosophy aims to maintain a balance between the branches of government and avoid judicial activism, ensuring that the majority's will is respected.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 refers to the practice of courts adhering to precedent and making decisions based on previous rulings. It promotes consistency and stability in the legal system by ensuring that similar cases are decided in a similar manner. By following stare decisis, courts respect and uphold the decisions made by higher courts, creating a sense of predictability and fairness in the judicial process.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. Essentially, it is a practice of deferring to the senatorial preferences of the president's own party when it comes to judicial appointments within 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 established the Supreme Court as the highest court in the federal system, and also gave Congress the power to create additional federal courts as needed. This reflects the idea of separation of powers, with the Constitution granting different branches of government specific roles and responsibilities.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 federal district courts. These courts are the trial courts in the federal system and are responsible for hearing and deciding the majority of cases that are brought before the federal judiciary. They have original jurisdiction, meaning they are the first courts to hear and decide cases, before any appeals are made to higher courts such as appellate courts or the Supreme Court. Therefore, 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 court is specifically designated to handle appeals related to these specific areas of law, which require specialized knowledge and expertise. It is not a court of original jurisdiction, meaning it does not hear cases for the first time, and it does not conduct oversight on the Supreme Court. 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. This means that in addition to the Chief Justice, there are eight other justices who serve on the Supreme Court.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 have been previously decided by lower federal courts. These cases involve various legal issues and can have significant implications for the interpretation and application of federal law. By hearing these cases, the Supreme Court ensures consistency and uniformity in the interpretation of federal law 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
Federal judges do not have to be natural citizens born in the United States. The Constitution only requires that federal judges be appointed by the president, have life tenure (with a few exceptions), and be confirmed by the Senate. The requirement of being a natural citizen born in the United States does not apply 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 and evaluating the qualifications and suitability of the nominee for the position. They review the nominee's background, legal experience, and past decisions to determine their fitness for the role. The committee plays a crucial role in the confirmation process and ultimately makes a recommendation to the full Senate for a final vote on the nominee's confirmation.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 established the principle of judicial review, which gives the Supreme Court the authority to declare laws unconstitutional. This landmark case solidified the Court's power by asserting its ability to interpret the Constitution and determine the constitutionality of legislative acts. By invoking judicial review, Marshall ensured that the Supreme Court would have the final say on matters of constitutional interpretation, effectively strengthening its authority and role in the American 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, surprising many who expected him to align with his past beliefs. This example highlights the unpredictable nature of Supreme Court justices and how their actions can deviate from their previous positions.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
The most common manner for a case to come before the court is on a writ of certiorari. This is a legal document issued by a higher court, usually the Supreme Court, to review a case that has already been decided by a lower court. The Supreme Court has the discretion to decide which cases it wants to hear, and the majority of cases that come before the Court do so through this process. The writ of certiorari allows the Court to review the lower court's decision and determine if there were any errors of law or procedure that need to be corrected.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 intentions of the framers and the original meaning of the text. By understanding the original intent, judges can apply the Constitution in a way that aligns with the intentions of the Founding Fathers and ensures consistency in the interpretation of the law. This approach is often contrasted with other interpretive methods, such as a focus on contemporary societal values or a more flexible approach to constitutional interpretation.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 in the hopes of moving 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
Judicial activism refers to the idea that the Supreme Court should actively interpret the Constitution and laws in order to protect the rights of the under-represented and politically weak. This approach allows the Court to take a more active role in shaping public policy and promoting social justice. By advocating for the under-represented, the Court can use its power to address social inequalities and protect individual rights. Therefore, the argument for the Supreme Court being an advocate for the under-represented and politically weak aligns with the concept of judicial activism.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's statement suggests that he was advocating for strict construction by the Courts. He believed that the Constitution should serve as the ultimate guide for interpreting and applying laws, and that laws should be set aside if they clearly contradict the Constitution. This approach emphasizes a narrow and literal interpretation of the Constitution, limiting the powers of the Courts to only what is explicitly stated in 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 used as points of argument for those favoring loose constructionism. Loose constructionism is an approach to interpreting the Constitution that allows for a broader interpretation of its provisions, giving the government more flexibility in addressing societal needs. The general welfare clause, which grants Congress the power to make laws for the general welfare of the country, and the necessary and proper clause, which grants Congress the power to make laws that are necessary and proper for carrying out its other powers, can be used to justify expansive interpretations of federal power and the ability to address evolving societal needs.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 final decision of the Court but wishes to provide a separate or additional legal basis for that decision. This allows the justice to express their own reasoning or interpretation of the Constitution or law, even though they agree with the outcome reached by the majority of the Court. A concurring opinion can provide alternative perspectives or arguments that may influence future legal interpretations or decisions.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
To ensure that a case is heard by the Supreme Court, it is necessary for four of the justices to agree to hear the case. This requirement ensures that there is a sufficient level of interest and support among the justices to warrant the case being heard at the highest level of the judicial system. It also helps to prevent the Court from being overwhelmed with cases, as only those with the agreement of a significant number of justices are given consideration. This requirement helps to maintain the integrity and efficiency of the Supreme Court's decision-making process.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
Most judges are selected by Presidents based on ideology because the President wants to appoint judges who share their political beliefs and will interpret the law in a way that aligns with their own agenda. This ensures that the judge's decisions will be in line with the President's policies and priorities. Additionally, selecting judges with a particular ideology can also help to shape the direction of the judiciary and influence legal decisions for years to come.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
Senatorial courtesy is an old-fashioned tradition that is not always followed by Presidents today. This means that while Senatorial courtesy used to be a common practice, it is not consistently followed by modern Presidents.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 16, 2023Quiz Edited by
ProProfs Editorial Team -
Feb 13, 2012Quiz Created by
Arippee
Back to top