POLI 411 MIDTERM EXAM QUESTIONS WITH CORRECT ANSWERS LATEST UPDATE 2026

POLI 411 MIDTERM EXAM QUESTIONS WITH CORRECT ANSWERS LATEST UPDATE 2026 Why no protections in the original Constitution? - Answers 1. Not the purpose of the Constitutional Convention - Mainly to create a stronger government than the AOC, not one with limits 2. Enumerated powers limited power - The Constitution listed what the government could do, they could not do anything not listed 3. Separation of powers - Makes it difficult for the government to abuse its powers 4. States protected liberties and rights - One does not need a nation to give rights if they already have them as a state resident Why a Bill of Rights? - Answers Two basic viewpoints on whether explicit rights were needed: - Madison: A belief in the constitution's division of authority, with checking powers, balanced by officials at different levels - we can't take away power from the government never given to them - Jefferson: A belief that no matter how constituted, government would abuse rights without specific protections - Inspired by the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, and state constitutions To whom would Bill of Rights apply? - Answers Congress alone or both Congress and states? Marshall says: intent - if there is no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments, the court cannot apply them. Said there was no intention to apply the Bill of Rights to the states, purpose was to limit Congress - General language means Congress, specific mentions states to limit them Ex Cases: Barron, Hurtado, Slaughterhouse, Palko Barron v. Baltimore - Answers - Where does the Constitution apply - federal government or all? - Baltimore was a major economic hub and construction altered the flow of streams coming into the harbor, accumulating sand and earth that caused it to become too shallow for large ships - Owners wanted the city to pay to dredge the harbor but the city did not - Does the 5th Amendment guarantee that private property be taken for public use without just compensation? - Only the 1st Amendment mentions the Bill of Rights applies to Congress. If the language is general, can it apply to Maryland? - Case dismissed on lack of jurisdiction - the Bill of Rights intended only to protect the people against abusive actions of the federal government, not the state - state violations must be found in the laws and constitutions of the respective individual states - The Bill of Rights applies only to the national government Selective Incorporation - Answers State governments must abide by "select" guarantees contained in the first eight amendments to the federal Constitution, even if those guarantees did not appear in their own constitutions Privileges or Immunities Clause - Answers Prohibits states from making or enforcing laws that abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. States cannot violate national rights. Two views: - Miller: there are few national rights that owe their existence to national citizenship - Field: the 14th Amendment does protect a much broader set of fundamental rights Slaughterhouse Cases - Answers - Louisiana claimed the Mississppi River had become polluted because New Orleans butchers dumped garbage - The legislature created the (monopoly) Slaughter-House Company to slaughter all city livestock, charging top dollar - The butchers formed the Butcher's Benevolent Association, sueing the corporation for the right to pursue business given in the 14th Amendment privileges or immunities clause - Court ruled against, saying the right to practice trade wasn't a federal privilege - the clause only covers a very narrow set of rights, such as the right to travel between states, access federal courts, and use seaports Hurtado v. California - Answers - Does the "due process" that states are prohibited from denying include the Bill of Rights? - Estuardo was having an affair with Hurtado's wife. Hurtado was arrested on battery charges and killed Estuardo while charges were pending. The state charged him with murder. - The 5th Amendment states no person shall be held for a capital crime unless on indictment of a Grand Jury. The California Constitution says they can also be prosecued by information, telling a judge there is probable cause. - Hurtado says the use of information instead of Grand Jury violates the 14th Amendment due process - Court rules the right to indictment by the Grand Jury is not part of the due process of law - due process and right to grand jury are separate. Any legal proceeding that protects liberty and justice is due process - which means the information is a valid form of due process. States can use methods different from the federal government. Maxwell v. Dow - Answers - Maxwell robbed a bank in Utah. The state's new constitution said an individual charged with a noncapital offense like armed robbery could be tried by an eight-person grand jury instead of twelve, and there was no provision for the right to a grand jury - Lawyer argued the denial of grand jury and the trial system deprived Maxwell of his 5th and 6th Amendment rights that should be incorporated under the 14th due process and Privileges or Immunities Clause Twining v. New Jersey - Answers - State fraud charges against Twining and other officers of a bank trust - Twining refused to take the stand at trial, invoking his guarantee against self-incrimination. The judge implied guilt. - The Court rejected the claim that the 14th Amendment's due process clause prohibited a state from denying a criminal defendant the right against compulsory self-incrimination. - Opened the door for the future application of some Bill of Rights provisions to the states. Palko v. Connecticut - Answers - Palko robbed a store and shot and killed two police offiers. He confessed to the killings. - At his arrest, the Connecticut judge refused to admit the confession and he was found only guilty of second-degree murder - State proseuctors appealed due to the error and reversed the trial judge's exclusion of Palko's confession with a new trial. Palka's attorney claimed the new trial violated the 5th's prohibition of double jeopardy. He was tried again and sentenced to death. - The Supreme Court ruled the Fifth Amendments protection against double jeopardy was not applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause, upholding the new conviction. - Some things are valid against the federal government if they are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty Duncan v. Louisiana - Answers - Gary Duncan pulled over to pick up his cousins hanging out with white children. The white kids asserted Duncan slapped one of them, while Duncan and family said he "touched" him - Principal Lathum, of a private school formed in response to desegregation, alleged that Duncan hit the child - The police arrested Duncan and later arrested him on charge of cruelty - Lawyer said "cruelty to juveniles" only applies to an individual having supervision over the juveniles, so he was tried on charges of battery without a jury - The Court held that the 6th Amendment guarantee of trial by jury in criminal cases was fundamental and states were obligated under the 14th Amendment. Petty crimes were not subject to the jury trial provision - The court has read the Constitution to ensure that almost all civil liberties are supposed to be uniformly protected against infringement by any government entity. What constitutes an establishment of religion? (3 eras) - Answers Strict separation - government should be as secular as possible, wholly removed from consideration of religion - skeptical support of religion - no test Neutrality - government can enact policies that touch upon religion, as long as religion is treated no differently than secular interests - Lemon test Accomodation - government can recognize the importance of religion to society but cannot encourage religious practices or endorse doctrines - emphasizes free exercise and role of religion in society - historical practices and understandings test Strict scrutiny - Answers must have a compelling state interest AND pursue it with means that impose the least burden How does the Constitution protect the free exercise of religion? - Answers 1. The government prohibits behavior that a religion requires - prohibiting polygamy 2. The government requires behavior that a religion protects - vaccines to attend public schools 3. The government makes more difficult the exercise of faith - requiring businesses to close on Sundays Laws Designed to Burden Religion: - Answers Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah - Answers - Santerians engage in animal sacrifice. When they tried to open a church in Hialeah, the city enacted regulations to guard against animal cruelty and limit public health risks. This prohibits the killing of animals when the primary purpose was not for consumption as food. - This effectively outlawed the practice of Santeria. Those who might kill animals for sport, medical research, or food were not effected. - The court ruled the ordinance violated the free exercise clause because the ordinances were neither neutral nor generally applicable. There needed to be a compelling government interest, but only conduct tied to religiosu belief was burdened. - The law excluded orthodox Jews that did similar rituals. The law must be neutral towards religion and must be generally applicable. Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer - Answers - State of Missouri program used old tires for playground surfacing - Offered reduced rates for non-profit and charitable organizations, excluding religious orgs - worried about funds going from the state to a religious institution. - The court says the state can't deny a generally available public benefit simply on account of this non-profit's religious identity. They can't discriminate against them only because they are religious and prevent them from competing with other non-profits Secular laws that burden religion incidentally - Answers Reynolds v. U.S. - Answers - Congress passed an Anti-Bigamy Act that targeted Mormons by prohibiting plural marriages and limiting property ownership by churches - Reynolds was challenged the law on First Amendment free exercise grounds, arrested after marrying his second wife and arguing that he was following his faith, a right reserved under the free exercise clause - Justice upheld the conviction, drawing a distinction between an abstract religious faith and the practices associated with it - could not outlaw devotion but could forbid practices regarded as inconsistent with public welfare - The practice had historically been frowned upon, even before Mormonism Employment Division v. Smith - Answers - The Native American ingests peyote as a sacramental substance - Two members of the Native American church were fired from a private drug and alcohol abuse clinic for peyote use. The state of Oregon denied unemployment benefits because they were fired for misconduct - The Court ruled the state could deny unemployment benefits to a worker fired for illegal drug use for religiou purposes. Religious beliefs do not excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct the government is free to regulate. Exemptions here would open up exemptions from other civic obligations. Rational basis/Smith Standard - Answers Upholds laws burdening religion if they are neutral, generally applicable, and rationally related to government interest Tandon v. Newsom - Answers - important for Smith Test - California imposed a limit to how many people could meet in certain settings - no more than 3 different households in one house