Civic Literacy Flashcards

Under the U.S. Constitution, which scenario correctly describes a situation where Congress may override a presidential veto?

Answer: Two-thirds of both the House and Senate vote to override, sending the bill into law without presidential signature

Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution requires a two-thirds supermajority in BOTH the House of Representatives and the Senate to override a presidential veto. A simple majority is insufficient, only the Senate is insufficient, and the three-fourths threshold applies to ratifying constitutional amendments, not vetoes.

The Florida Constitution differs from the U.S. Constitution in that it requires a ballot initiative for constitutional amendment to receive what minimum level of voter approval?

Answer: 60 percent of votes cast on the measure

Florida's Constitution Revision Commission process and citizen initiative amendments both require 60 percent approval from voters who cast a ballot on that measure — a threshold deliberately higher than a simple majority to protect the state constitution from frequent or narrow-margin changes. This was established by Amendment 3 (2006).

Which of the following best describes the constitutional doctrine of 'incorporation' as applied to the Bill of Rights?

Answer: The Supreme Court's use of the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause to apply most federal Bill of Rights protections against state governments

Selective incorporation is the doctrine by which the Supreme Court, through the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause ('nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law'), has applied most—but not all—provisions of the federal Bill of Rights to the states. Originally the Bill of Rights only restrained the federal government (Barron v. Baltimore, 1833). Cases like McDonald v. Chicago (2010) and Mapp v. Ohio (1961) exemplify selective incorporation.

A U.S. Senator completes a term and is then convicted of a felony in state court. Which statement accurately reflects the constitutional consequences for that senator's eligibility?

Answer: The Senate may vote by a simple majority to expel the senator, but the conviction alone does not trigger automatic removal or a bar on future candidacy

The U.S. Constitution does not make a state felony conviction an automatic disqualifier for federal office. The qualifications for Senate service (age 30, U.S. citizen for 9 years, inhabitant of the state) are set in Article I and cannot be supplemented by Congress per Powell v. McCormack (1969). However, the Senate can expel a member by a two-thirds vote (Article I, Sec. 5). A state felony conviction alone neither removes a sitting senator nor bars future candidacy. A presidential pardon applies only to federal offenses.

Which historical precedent most directly established that the Supreme Court has the authority to strike down acts of Congress as unconstitutional?

Answer: Marbury v. Madison (1803), in which Chief Justice Marshall claimed the power of judicial review for the Court

Marbury v. Madison (1803) is the foundational case for judicial review of federal legislation. Chief Justice John Marshall reasoned that because the Constitution is the supreme law, any act of Congress contrary to it is void, and it is 'emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.' This power is not explicitly stated in the Constitution; Marshall derived it through textual and structural reasoning. Fletcher v. Peck (1810) first applied judicial review to strike down a state law, but Marbury established the core doctrine for federal legislation.

Under the Supremacy Clause and the doctrine of federal preemption, which scenario would most likely result in a state law being struck down?

Answer: A state law regulating intrastate commerce in a field where Congress has expressly occupied the entire regulatory domain, leaving no room for state action

Federal preemption under the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) occurs in several forms, but 'field preemption' — where Congress has so thoroughly regulated a subject that it has left no room for states to act — is the clearest basis for striking down a state law. When Congress expressly occupies an entire regulatory field (e.g., certain aspects of immigration, as reinforced in Arizona v. United States, 2012), any state law in that field is preempted regardless of whether it conflicts with specific federal provisions. Stricter environmental standards may be permissible where federal law sets a floor, not a ceiling, and simply mirroring federal law still can be preempted in fields of exclusive federal jurisdiction.