Constitutional Law
Exams with Correct
Solutions
1. Modalities of interpretation correct answer:
Textual - words of the con Structural - how the con. fits
together (separation of powers)
Historical - Original intent of the frmaers. (original meaning and traditions) (interpreted in accordance with
history or background)
Doctrine/precedent - what the court's have generally
decided Ethical/National values/moral - Moral values
Prudential/practical/pragmatic- What are the consequences of the ruling? (pragmatic consequences)
2. Three functions of the constitution correct answer: Sets
up limited enumerated powers Article 1 correct answer: sets out congress
and grants them power to legislate and make laws.
Article 2 correct answer: executive branch, President, qualifications correct answer: Commander in
chief, veto, appointments, treaties etc. Article 3 correct answer: Judicial branch, creates the SC,
defines SC jurisdiction
3. Marbury v. Madison correct answer: First decision to declare a federal law
unconstitutional
Established principle of judicial review - ability of courts to engage in review of legislative and
executive actions SC has the power to review the constitutionality of the other branches
The judiciary can compel the executive what to do if it concerns an administrative duty that the prez.
owes Constitution is regulatory and limits congress
Constitution is regulatory and imposes meaningful limits on the government
Article 3 limits judicial power - court cannot exceed the constraints of article 3 even if congress says it ca
1/
54
,Judiciary can compel executive action of those things that are ministerial (when there is a duty owed to
some person)
Holding correct answer: marbury loses out b/c scotus said they couldn't rule on the case b/c they only had
appellate jurisdiction and the case should have been in the lower court first. However section 13 was
unconstitutional b/c he should not have been allowed to file directly in the SC.
reasoning correct answer: Appointments
never got delivered. Marshall makes an
ethical argument
Marshall's statement in Marbury v. Madison that it is "emphatically the province and duty of the judicial
department to say what the law is," is perhaps the most oft-cited passage in the opinion.
2/
54
,4. Martin v. Hunter's Lessee correct answer: The supreme court has the power to review
state court decisions.
Article 3 says the judicial power shall be vested into one supreme court and judicial power includes
reviewing determinations of federal questions
Sct. makes a textual argument (power vested in ONE supreme court) must hear all
cases Theorizes that S. Ct can hear cases from state court
5. Supremacy clause correct answer: Constitution is the supreme law of the land
6. Uniformity of decision correct answer: Needs to ensure uniformity in the interpretation of
federal law
For a state decision to go to the SC it must be a federal issue
7. Federal issue correct answer: Statute, treaty, compact between states, administrative regulation,
constitutional issue etc.
SC can't review state court decision concerning state law
8. Adequate state grounds correct answer: If there are adequate and independent state
grounds for a decision the SC cannot review it
State court could have been totally wrong on the federal issue
4 corners - not adequate and independent if they didn't in the four corners of the document specifically
state that they weren't relying on state law
Virginia state cort. ruled on 2 state grounds (fed treaty does not apply, you didn't raise the federal treaty
properly Adequate means the state law part would sustain judgment.
Independent - want a plain statement of independence if there is some plain meaning
9. Justiciability doctrine correct answer: Places a limit on
the federal judicial power determines which matters the FC can
hear and which must be dismissed
Prohibition against advisory opinions, standing, ripeness, mootness, and PQ doctrine
10. two limitations of the Justic. doctrine correct answer: Must be an actual
3/
54
, case or controversy (must be true lawsuits between individuals with a personal stake in the
outcome) to achieve some personal right or remedy
Prudential - policy goes against judicial review sometimes
4/
54
Exams with Correct
Solutions
1. Modalities of interpretation correct answer:
Textual - words of the con Structural - how the con. fits
together (separation of powers)
Historical - Original intent of the frmaers. (original meaning and traditions) (interpreted in accordance with
history or background)
Doctrine/precedent - what the court's have generally
decided Ethical/National values/moral - Moral values
Prudential/practical/pragmatic- What are the consequences of the ruling? (pragmatic consequences)
2. Three functions of the constitution correct answer: Sets
up limited enumerated powers Article 1 correct answer: sets out congress
and grants them power to legislate and make laws.
Article 2 correct answer: executive branch, President, qualifications correct answer: Commander in
chief, veto, appointments, treaties etc. Article 3 correct answer: Judicial branch, creates the SC,
defines SC jurisdiction
3. Marbury v. Madison correct answer: First decision to declare a federal law
unconstitutional
Established principle of judicial review - ability of courts to engage in review of legislative and
executive actions SC has the power to review the constitutionality of the other branches
The judiciary can compel the executive what to do if it concerns an administrative duty that the prez.
owes Constitution is regulatory and limits congress
Constitution is regulatory and imposes meaningful limits on the government
Article 3 limits judicial power - court cannot exceed the constraints of article 3 even if congress says it ca
1/
54
,Judiciary can compel executive action of those things that are ministerial (when there is a duty owed to
some person)
Holding correct answer: marbury loses out b/c scotus said they couldn't rule on the case b/c they only had
appellate jurisdiction and the case should have been in the lower court first. However section 13 was
unconstitutional b/c he should not have been allowed to file directly in the SC.
reasoning correct answer: Appointments
never got delivered. Marshall makes an
ethical argument
Marshall's statement in Marbury v. Madison that it is "emphatically the province and duty of the judicial
department to say what the law is," is perhaps the most oft-cited passage in the opinion.
2/
54
,4. Martin v. Hunter's Lessee correct answer: The supreme court has the power to review
state court decisions.
Article 3 says the judicial power shall be vested into one supreme court and judicial power includes
reviewing determinations of federal questions
Sct. makes a textual argument (power vested in ONE supreme court) must hear all
cases Theorizes that S. Ct can hear cases from state court
5. Supremacy clause correct answer: Constitution is the supreme law of the land
6. Uniformity of decision correct answer: Needs to ensure uniformity in the interpretation of
federal law
For a state decision to go to the SC it must be a federal issue
7. Federal issue correct answer: Statute, treaty, compact between states, administrative regulation,
constitutional issue etc.
SC can't review state court decision concerning state law
8. Adequate state grounds correct answer: If there are adequate and independent state
grounds for a decision the SC cannot review it
State court could have been totally wrong on the federal issue
4 corners - not adequate and independent if they didn't in the four corners of the document specifically
state that they weren't relying on state law
Virginia state cort. ruled on 2 state grounds (fed treaty does not apply, you didn't raise the federal treaty
properly Adequate means the state law part would sustain judgment.
Independent - want a plain statement of independence if there is some plain meaning
9. Justiciability doctrine correct answer: Places a limit on
the federal judicial power determines which matters the FC can
hear and which must be dismissed
Prohibition against advisory opinions, standing, ripeness, mootness, and PQ doctrine
10. two limitations of the Justic. doctrine correct answer: Must be an actual
3/
54
, case or controversy (must be true lawsuits between individuals with a personal stake in the
outcome) to achieve some personal right or remedy
Prudential - policy goes against judicial review sometimes
4/
54
