Founding Documents and Landmark Supreme Court Cases Flashcards

In Marbury v. Madison (1803), Chief Justice John Marshall established judicial review, but which specific section of which act did the Court strike down as unconstitutional?

Answer: Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which granted the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus

Marshall ruled that Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional because it expanded the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction beyond what Article III of the Constitution permits. The Constitution itself defines the Court's original jurisdiction, and Congress cannot expand it by statute. This was the specific legal hook Marshall used to assert the power of judicial review.

The Federalist No. 51, authored by James Madison, argues that the separation of powers is self-enforcing. Which phrase best captures its central mechanism for preventing tyranny?

Answer: Ambition must be made to counteract ambition through the structure of government itself

Federalist No. 51 argues that the Constitution's system of checks and balances works because each branch is given the tools and incentives to resist encroachments by the others — 'ambition must be made to counteract ambition.' Madison trusted the institutional self-interest of officeholders more than relying on virtue alone, making this a structural, not a moral, solution to tyranny.

The Third Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the quartering of soldiers in private homes without consent during peacetime. In which landmark Supreme Court case was the Third Amendment used as part of the constitutional basis for recognizing a right to privacy?

Answer: Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Justice Douglas argued that the Bill of Rights creates 'penumbras' and 'emanations' that together establish a right to privacy. The Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments were among the specific amendments cited as contributing to this penumbral right, which the Court used to strike down a Connecticut law banning contraception for married couples.

Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution contains a clause suspending the writ of habeas corpus. Under what precise condition does the Constitution permit this suspension?

Answer: In cases of rebellion or invasion when public safety may require it

Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 states: 'The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.' Because this clause appears in Article I (the legislative article), it is widely understood that only Congress — not the President — holds this suspension power, though this was contested during the Civil War.

In McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the Supreme Court ruled that Maryland could not tax the Second Bank of the United States. Beyond upholding the bank's constitutionality, what broader constitutional doctrine did Chief Justice Marshall most definitively establish in this ruling?

Answer: The Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress implied powers beyond those explicitly enumerated

While McCulloch did apply the Supremacy Clause to void Maryland's tax, its most lasting doctrinal contribution was Marshall's expansive interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause. Marshall rejected a strict reading (that 'necessary' meant 'absolutely indispensable') in favor of a broad reading: Congress may employ any means reasonably adapted to a legitimate constitutional end. This gave Congress vast implied powers that shape federal authority to this day.

The Declaration of Independence lists 27 specific grievances against King George III. Which of the following grievances most directly anticipates the Third Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

Answer: He has kept among us in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures

The Third Amendment directly prohibits peacetime quartering of soldiers in private homes without consent — a response to British practices under the Quartering Acts. The grievance about maintaining standing armies 'in times of peace' without legislative consent is the Declaration's closest analogue, reflecting colonial outrage at troops being stationed among civilians as instruments of control rather than legitimate defense.