Constitution Flashcards

The Constitution's Supremacy Clause in Article VI establishes federal law as supreme over state law. Which scenario BEST illustrates a constitutional limitation on this supremacy?

Answer: Federal law cannot commandeer state executive officials to enforce federal regulatory programs

The anti-commandeering doctrine, established in Printz v. United States (1997), holds that the federal government cannot compel state or local officials to enforce federal law or administer federal regulatory programs. This is a genuine constitutional limit on federal supremacy rooted in the 10th Amendment and structural federalism.

Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution contains several explicit limits on Congress. Which of the following is NOT among those enumerated prohibitions?

Answer: Congress may not establish a national religion

The prohibition on establishing a national religion appears in the First Amendment, not Article I, Section 9. Article I, Section 9 limits Congress through prohibitions on suspending habeas corpus (except in rebellion/invasion), bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and titles of nobility, among others.

The Constitution's Take Care Clause requires the President to 'faithfully execute' the laws. How did the Supreme Court interpret presidential discretion under this clause in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952)?

Answer: Presidential power is at its highest when acting pursuant to express or implied congressional authorization

Justice Jackson's concurrence in Youngstown established the famous tripartite framework: presidential power is strongest (Category 1) when Congress has authorized the action, in a 'zone of twilight' (Category 2) when Congress is silent, and at its 'lowest ebb' (Category 3) when Congress has prohibited the action. This framework remains the leading precedent on separation of powers.

Under Article V, constitutional amendments can be proposed by two-thirds of both houses of Congress OR by a convention called by two-thirds of state legislatures. Which statement accurately describes the convention method?

Answer: No amendment has ever been ratified using the convention method, and there is significant legal uncertainty about whether a convention could be limited in scope

All 27 constitutional amendments have been proposed by Congress, never by a constitutional convention under Article V. Significant legal uncertainty exists about whether a convention could be limited to a specific subject (a 'runaway convention' concern) or whether it would be a plenary body. The requirement is two-thirds of state legislatures to call a convention, not all 50.

The Constitution's Contracts Clause in Article I, Section 10 prohibits states from impairing the obligation of contracts. The Supreme Court has interpreted this clause to allow some state interference with contracts under what condition?

Answer: When a reasonable and necessary law serves a legitimate public purpose, and the impairment is narrowly tailored

In Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus (1978) and Energy Reserves Group v. Kansas Power & Light (1983), the Court established that state laws impairing private contracts must serve a significant and legitimate public purpose, and the adjustment must be reasonable and narrowly tailored. The Contracts Clause applies to private contracts but is not absolute.

The Non-Delegation Doctrine holds that Congress cannot delegate its core legislative power to the executive branch without an 'intelligible principle.' Which historical application of this doctrine is MOST accurate?

Answer: The Court struck down two New Deal statutes in 1935 for lacking an intelligible principle, but has not struck down another federal law on this basis since

The non-delegation doctrine reached its high point in 1935 when the Supreme Court struck down the National Industrial Recovery Act in A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States and Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan. Since then, despite broad delegations to agencies, the Court has not struck down another federal statute on non-delegation grounds, though the doctrine has seen renewed scholarly and judicial interest.