Con Law Cases Exams with Correct Solutions
1. Calder v. Bull (1798) correct answer *Justice Chase* correct answer If a law violated a "natural
principle", then it's void even if not expressly prohibited by the Constitution. "Great principles in the
social compact:" Canonical/traditional list that could not be permitted by common law (inherited
principles of right reason) - external limits
*Justice Iredell* correct answer Focuses on text of the Constitution. Very hard to enforce natural justice.
2. Marbury v. Madison (1803) correct answer *Holding* correct answer The courts have the
power to say "a law that Congress enacted is not valid authority over us" -> judicial review
*Rationale* correct answer The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and SCOTUS has the power to
interpret it
*Add'l thoughts* correct answer Mandamus not granted (these are not the writs you are looking for)
3. McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) - Question 1 correct answer *Holding* correct answer
Congress has the power to incorporate a bank (indirectly given by the Const.)
*Rationale* correct answer If the gov't is doing something to perform one of their Constitutional
powers, the means to the end is also constitutional
*Add'l thoughts* correct answer See file w/ arguments used
4. McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) - Question 2 correct answer *Holding* correct answer
The state of Maryland does not have the power to tax the BUS
*Rationale* correct answer Structure of the gov't -Given the way this union is constituted, it doesn't make
sense to let the few (citizens of the state) govern the many (citizens of the whole country) - and taxation
w/out representation
*Add'l thoughts* correct answer See notes for more in-depth analysis
5. Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842) correct answer *Holding* correct answer The Pennsylvania
Personal Liberty Law is unconstitutional
*Rationale* correct answer Congress has exclusive power over this subject matter (Article 4 §2 gives
the slave owners a right that creates a duty on the national government to protect those rights) &
,Congress has occupied the field (States don't have the power to pass a law that frustrates the purpose
of federal law - McCulloch 2) and
*Add'l thoughts* correct answer Why does the court get to read into the alleged intent of the framers?
Taney's concurrence correct answer duty to enforce Fugitive Slave Act falls on the states (wants to protect
slave owners)
,6. Barron v. Baltimore (1833) correct answer *Holding* correct answer The restrictions found
in the 5A(and the rest of the bill of rights 1A-8A) restrict the federal gov't, and not state gov'ts.
*Rationale* correct answer Constitution meant to empower and limit federal government, not states, unless
explicitly stated (Originalist argument 1780s).
*Add'l thoughts* correct answer Const has state limits in Art 1, § 10, doesn't say anything about states in
BoR
7. Scott v. Sandford (1857) correct answer *Holding* correct answer (1) Dred Scott is not a citizen
of Missouri, and therefore cannot bring this suit. (2) Law enacted by Congress prohibiting slavery is
unconstitutional.
*Rationale*:
Originalist argument - understanding that AAs were not included, and they could not be citizens/ founders
are ditterent from us and we are stuck with their ideas
Textual - Preamble of constitution "we the people" is the sovereignty that creates the Constitution.
*Add'l thoughts* correct answer 9 ditterent opinions in this case
8. The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) correct answer *Holding* correct answer Louisiana law
does not constitute a violation of 13A and 14A. The privileges and immunities clause of 14A protects
the rights of federal citizens, not of the states (and federal and state citizens have ditterent rights).
*Rationale* correct answer To say that the federal government protects P/Is of citizens of the states would
allow Congress to control the entire domain of civil rights that had previously belonged to the states,
would make Court a perpetual censor upon all legislation of the States, and would change the whole
theory of the relations between Federal Gov't and States.
*Add'l thoughts*:
Dissent (Field) - P/I clause redundant if it isn't possible for states to violate it. Constitution already protect
P/I of federal citizens so no need a constitutional amendment to protect them.
Dissent (Bradley) - States can regulate behavior of its citizens, but there are fundamental rights that states
can't infringe. Fear of Congress interfering wterm-40ith internal attairs of states won't happen.
9. The Civil Rights Cases (1883) correct answer *Holding*:
Broad - 14A only applies to states and not private actors.
, Narrow - The Civil Rights Acts of 1875 is unconstitutional, as it was not authorized by any grant of power
the federal government - only considering 13A and 14A, not Commerce Clause. (good law)
1. Calder v. Bull (1798) correct answer *Justice Chase* correct answer If a law violated a "natural
principle", then it's void even if not expressly prohibited by the Constitution. "Great principles in the
social compact:" Canonical/traditional list that could not be permitted by common law (inherited
principles of right reason) - external limits
*Justice Iredell* correct answer Focuses on text of the Constitution. Very hard to enforce natural justice.
2. Marbury v. Madison (1803) correct answer *Holding* correct answer The courts have the
power to say "a law that Congress enacted is not valid authority over us" -> judicial review
*Rationale* correct answer The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and SCOTUS has the power to
interpret it
*Add'l thoughts* correct answer Mandamus not granted (these are not the writs you are looking for)
3. McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) - Question 1 correct answer *Holding* correct answer
Congress has the power to incorporate a bank (indirectly given by the Const.)
*Rationale* correct answer If the gov't is doing something to perform one of their Constitutional
powers, the means to the end is also constitutional
*Add'l thoughts* correct answer See file w/ arguments used
4. McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) - Question 2 correct answer *Holding* correct answer
The state of Maryland does not have the power to tax the BUS
*Rationale* correct answer Structure of the gov't -Given the way this union is constituted, it doesn't make
sense to let the few (citizens of the state) govern the many (citizens of the whole country) - and taxation
w/out representation
*Add'l thoughts* correct answer See notes for more in-depth analysis
5. Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842) correct answer *Holding* correct answer The Pennsylvania
Personal Liberty Law is unconstitutional
*Rationale* correct answer Congress has exclusive power over this subject matter (Article 4 §2 gives
the slave owners a right that creates a duty on the national government to protect those rights) &
,Congress has occupied the field (States don't have the power to pass a law that frustrates the purpose
of federal law - McCulloch 2) and
*Add'l thoughts* correct answer Why does the court get to read into the alleged intent of the framers?
Taney's concurrence correct answer duty to enforce Fugitive Slave Act falls on the states (wants to protect
slave owners)
,6. Barron v. Baltimore (1833) correct answer *Holding* correct answer The restrictions found
in the 5A(and the rest of the bill of rights 1A-8A) restrict the federal gov't, and not state gov'ts.
*Rationale* correct answer Constitution meant to empower and limit federal government, not states, unless
explicitly stated (Originalist argument 1780s).
*Add'l thoughts* correct answer Const has state limits in Art 1, § 10, doesn't say anything about states in
BoR
7. Scott v. Sandford (1857) correct answer *Holding* correct answer (1) Dred Scott is not a citizen
of Missouri, and therefore cannot bring this suit. (2) Law enacted by Congress prohibiting slavery is
unconstitutional.
*Rationale*:
Originalist argument - understanding that AAs were not included, and they could not be citizens/ founders
are ditterent from us and we are stuck with their ideas
Textual - Preamble of constitution "we the people" is the sovereignty that creates the Constitution.
*Add'l thoughts* correct answer 9 ditterent opinions in this case
8. The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) correct answer *Holding* correct answer Louisiana law
does not constitute a violation of 13A and 14A. The privileges and immunities clause of 14A protects
the rights of federal citizens, not of the states (and federal and state citizens have ditterent rights).
*Rationale* correct answer To say that the federal government protects P/Is of citizens of the states would
allow Congress to control the entire domain of civil rights that had previously belonged to the states,
would make Court a perpetual censor upon all legislation of the States, and would change the whole
theory of the relations between Federal Gov't and States.
*Add'l thoughts*:
Dissent (Field) - P/I clause redundant if it isn't possible for states to violate it. Constitution already protect
P/I of federal citizens so no need a constitutional amendment to protect them.
Dissent (Bradley) - States can regulate behavior of its citizens, but there are fundamental rights that states
can't infringe. Fear of Congress interfering wterm-40ith internal attairs of states won't happen.
9. The Civil Rights Cases (1883) correct answer *Holding*:
Broad - 14A only applies to states and not private actors.
, Narrow - The Civil Rights Acts of 1875 is unconstitutional, as it was not authorized by any grant of power
the federal government - only considering 13A and 14A, not Commerce Clause. (good law)
