Constitutional Law Keyed to Choperback
0 of 5 questions completed
You have already completed the quiz before. Hence you can not start it again.
Quiz is loading…
You must sign in or sign up to start the quiz.
You have to pass the previous Module’s quiz in order to start this quiz:
you have successfully completed the quiz.
In response to lobbying, Congress passed legislation appropriating $200 million for grants in-aid to domestic horse liniment manufacturers and providing some degree of protection from foreign competition. However, because of concern about inefficiencies in the industry, the legislation was amended to allow the Secretary of Commerce the authority to deny grants to horse liniment manufacturers who failed to meet certain “management efficiency standards” outlined in the legislation.
One liniment manufacturer and a member of the trade association petitioned the Secretary of Commerce for a $15 million grant. This figure equaled the amount it would be entitled to under the legislation, based on the number of its employees, plants, and upon its average production of horse liniment over a 10-year period.The Secretary of Commerce refused to award the funds, because she determined that the liniment manufacturer was making no attempt to improve its management efficiency. The liniment manufacturer filed suit against the Secretary of Commerce, asserting that the power granted to the Secretary was unconstitutional.
Is the legislation constitutional?CorrectIncorrect
Congress passed a law mandating standards for hybrid automobiles in an effort to encourage more citizens to purchase hybrid cars so as to improve environmental conditions. The same law established a commission, consisting solely of members of Congress, whose purpose was to obtain information from manufacturers of hybrid automobiles regarding the number, type, and costs to the consumer of hybrid automobiles used in the United States and report its findings on an annual basis to Congress. A manufacturer of hybrid cars objects to having to supply the government with any information about its cars and so resists a subpoena for its chief executive officer to testify before the commission.
Insofar as Congress’s power to investigate is concerned, the general rule is that:CorrectIncorrect
A privately-owned corporation contracted with the United States to construct a dam across a river in a state other than that in which it was incorporated. The state imposed a gross receipts tax on all business conducted within it. The state sued the corporation to collect that tax on the receipts the corporation received under this federal contract. No federal statutes or administrative rules are applicable, and the contract between the United States and the corporation does not mention state taxation.
The court should hold the state tax, as applied here, to be:CorrectIncorrect
Pursuant to its power under the Commerce Clause, Congress adopted legislation prohibiting employers from requiring any employee to work more than a 12-hour day. The legislation also provided that any employee whose rights under the legislation were violated by his employer could bring a cause of action for damages against the employer in the federal district court in the district where the employee resided. The legislation defined “employer” to include “all commercial employers, all charities that compensate workers for their time, and all state and local governments.”
A state required its police department’s paramedics to work a 24-hour shift because of the nature of the job. They would then be off for 48 hours. A paramedic for the state’s police department was unhappy with this arrangement and preferred to work a regular 10- or 12-hour day. A friend of the paramedic told him about the federal legislation discussed above, and the paramedic immediately brought an action against the state in federal district court.
The district court should hold:CorrectIncorrect
Federal law provides employees of foreign embassies and consulates with “diplomatic immunity.” Under the law, employees are immune from prosecution for any offense. An employee of an embassy was arrested and incarcerated, pursuant to a city statute that provides, “Diplomats may be prosecuted for constant disregard of the law.” The employee was arrested after repeatedly shooting the lights out at local bars.
If the employee attacks the constitutionality of the city statute, his best argument will be based upon:CorrectIncorrect