Question 4. 4. A federal court is said to have a “federal question” jurisdiction because (Points : 1)

federal courts supersede state courts.
all laws are federal.
they hear cases that touch the Constitution and other federal laws.
they hear cases that only deal with issues of constitutionality.



Question 5. 5. Article III of the Constitution establishes that (Points : 1)
the Supreme Court can invalidate laws of Congress.
the judicial powers of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court.
the Supreme Court can create inferior courts.
the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over state courts.



Question 6. 6. The American Civil Rights Movement was about (Points : 1)
ending racial discrimination and achieving equal voting rights.
achieving free speech.
ending affirmative action.
creating “separate but equal” public facilities.



Question 7. 7. The reason why the Supreme Court came around to upholding that states had an obligation to provide attorneys to those who could not afford them was (Points : 1)
attorneys were charging additional costs to poor defendants.
to provide a fair advantage to defendants.
it was something that other countries did.
to encourage defendants to plea bargain.



Question 8. 8. If the Supreme Court were to rule that marriage is a fundamental right, under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, that would mean (Points : 1)
each state would still be able to decide for itself whether it recognizes marriage or not.
no state may distinguish between marriage and heterosexual marriage because that would effectively create invidious distinctions.
that Congress must create a public assistance program for couples.
that only married people enjoy protection under the Equal Protection Clause.

5.the supreme court can invalidate laws of Congress

6. ending racial discrimination and achieving voting rights
7.to provide a fair advantage to defendants
8.each state would still be able to decide for itself whether it recognizes marriage or not

4.federal courts supersede state courts

1. Question :

Article III of the Constitution establishes that

Student Answer: the Supreme Court can invalidate laws of Congress.
CORRECT the judicial powers of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court.
the Supreme Court can create inferior courts.
the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over state courts.
Instructor Explanation: The answer can be found in the section “Article III.”
Points Received: 1 of 1
Comments:

Question 2. Question :
In Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court established the principle of constitutional review by

Student Answer: denying Marbury his right to sue.
denying the authority of the President to have made his appointment.
CORRECT claiming that Section 13 of the 1789 Judiciary Act providing that the Supreme Court will issue a writ of mandamus was unconstitutional.
lecturing the Jeffersonians on why Marbury was rightfully entitled to his appointment.
Instructor Explanation: The answer can be found in the section “Marbury v. Madison.”
Points Received: 1 of 1
Comments:

Question 3. Question :
When the Supreme Court hands down a decision, it is

Student Answer: CORRECT often a mixed decision with majority, dissenting, and even concurring opinions.
always a unanimous 9-0 decision.
a law forever and can never be overturned.
always free of politics.
Instructor Explanation: The answer can be found in the section “Writing Opinions.”
Points Received: 1 of 1
Comments:

Question 4. Question :
Alexander Hamilton said that the judiciary would be the least dangerous branch of government because

Student Answer: it has the power of the purse.
it has the power of the sword.
CORRECT it has neither the power of the purse nor the sword.
the Constitution failed to define its role.
Instructor Explanation: The answer can be found in the section “The Least Dangerous Branch.”
Points Received: 1 of 1
Comments:

Question 5. Question :
When the President appoints a nominee to the Supreme Court, he mainly

Student Answer: considers the Senate’s opinion of the nominee.
selects judges who do not share the President’s views.
selects only pro-life candidates.
CORRECT considers the nominee’s ideological orientation.
Instructor Explanation: The answer can be found in the section “The Role of Ideology.”
Points Received: 1 of 1
Comments:

Question 6. Question :
The 1964 Civil Rights Act

Student Answer: required localities to bus students in order to end racial segregation.
overturned the 1921 anti-boycotting law.
CORRECT ended racial segregation in schools, at the workplace, and by “public accommodations.”
required voters to pass a literacy test before registering.
Instructor Explanation: The answer can be found in the section “The Civil Rights Movement.”
Points Received: 1 of 1
Comments:

Question 7. Question :
Civil liberties understood in terms of negative rights means that the

Student Answer: CORRECT government has limited power and authority so that individuals can enjoy freedom.
INCORRECT government must provide things like healthcare.
government has an obligation to assist individuals in enjoying all their rights.
government is prohibited from exercising authority.
Instructor Explanation: The answer can be found in the section “”Right to Privacy.”
Points Received: 0 of 1
Comments:

Question 8. Question :
Mapp v. Ohio established

Student Answer: CORRECT the exclusionary rule, which states that material obtained from an illegally searched home could not be used against you.
that material seized from a house where a warrant was executed for specifically other material which was not seized may still be used against you.
that the police can violate one’s right to privacy as long as the individual’s Miranda rights are explained.
that illegally seized material is still admissible in trial.
Instructor Explanation: The answer can be found in the section “Rights of the Accused.”
Points Received: 1 of 1
Comments:

Question 9. Question :
The trajectory of cases from Roe v. Wade to Parenthood v. Casey appear to suggest that a woman’s right to choose

Student Answer: cannot be hindered in any way by states.
is completely subject to a state’s legislation.
CORRECT can be restricted so long as those restrictions do not create an undue burden.
may be imposed upon by undue burdens from the state.
Instructor Explanation: The answer can be found in the section “State Efforts to Roll Back Roe.”
Points Received: 1 of 1
Comments:

Question 10. Question :
If the Supreme Court were to rule that marriage is a fundamental right, under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, that would mean

Student Answer: INCORRECT each state would still be able to decide for itself whether it recognizes marriage or not.
CORRECT no state may distinguish between marriage and heterosexual marriage because that would effectively create invidious distinctions.
that Congress must create a public assistance program for couples.
that only married people enjoy protection under the Equal Protection Clause.
Instructor Explanation: The answer can be found in the section “Fourteenth Amendment’s Definition of Citizenship and Equal Protection.”
Points Received: 0 of 1
Comments:

* Times are displayed in (GMT-07:00) Mountain Time (US & Canada)

Grading Summary

These are the automatically computed results of your exam. Grades for essay questions, and comments from your instructor, are in the "Details" section below.
Date Taken: 6/1/2015
Time Spent: 23 min , 39 secs
Points Received: 10 / 10 (100%)
Question Type: # Of Questions: # Correct:
Multiple Choice 10 10
Grade Details - All Questions
Question 1. Question :
In Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court established the principle of constitutional review by

Student Answer: denying Marbury his right to sue.
denying the authority of the President to have made his appointment.
CORRECT claiming that Section 13 of the 1789 Judiciary Act providing that the Supreme Court will issue a writ of mandamus was unconstitutional.
lecturing the Jeffersonians on why Marbury was rightfully entitled to his appointment.
Instructor Explanation: The answer can be found in the section “Marbury v. Madison.”
Points Received: 1 of 1
Comments:

Question 2. Question :
In Gibbons v. Ogden, the Supreme Court held that

Student Answer: CORRECT states’ rights to regulate may not trample on powers specifically reserved for Congress.
states’ rights supersede national authority.
the national government does not have interstate commerce authority.
the 10th Amendment trumps the Interstate Commerce Clause.
Instructor Explanation: The answer can be found in “Federal Authority and the Limits to State Authority.”
Points Received: 1 of 1
Comments:

Question 3. Question :
The heart of Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee was

Student Answer: whether treaties are supreme laws of the land.
whether states’ rights trumped national authority.
the right of Virginia to seize property of traitors during war.
CORRECT whether the Supreme Court had authority to overturn decisions of state courts.
Instructor Explanation: The answer can be found in the section “Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee.”
Points Received: 1 of 1
Comments:

Question 4. Question :
Judges who practice what their critics call “judicial activism” argue that judges

Student Answer: CORRECT have a responsibility to protect individual rights and liberties.
have a responsibility to be anti-majoritarian because democracy is not always a good thing.
should ask what was the intent of the framers of the Bill of Rights when they framed our civil liberties.
are all powerful and their judgment is superior to the judgment of the people.
Instructor Explanation: The answer can be found in the section “Judicial Activism.”
Points Received: 1 of 1
Comments:

Question 5. Question :
An appellate court that hears an appeal on a money laundering case from a district court

Student Answer: is not concerned with guilt or innocence.
can only send the case back for retrial.
CORRECT is concerned with whether proper legal procedures were followed during the district court trial.
determines the constitutionality of the law.
Instructor Explanation: The answer can be found in the section “Appellate Courts.”
Points Received: 1 of 1
Comments:

Question 6. Question :
The various cases with regards to religious freedom are concerned with excessive entanglements between government and religion. This means

Student Answer: that non-denominational prayer in schools can be permitted.
CORRECT voucher systems like the one in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris created a constitutionally allowed choice between public and private schools.
local school boards can provide subsidies to church-related schools.
both religion and government are strengthened when united.
Instructor Explanation: The answer can be found in the section “Freedom of Religion.”
Points Received: 1 of 1
Comments:

Question 7. Question :
Civil rights in the United States evolved from

Student Answer: boycotts to anti-discrimination lawsuits.
CORRECT removal of barriers to access and participation to policies aimed at achieving greater equality.
matters concerning politics to matters concerning economics.
state centered policy to federal initiatives.
Instructor Explanation: The answer can be found in “Evolving Civil Rights.”
Points Received: 1 of 1
Comments:

Question 8. Question :
Civil liberties understood in terms of negative rights means that the

Student Answer: CORRECT government has limited power and authority so that individuals can enjoy freedom.
government must provide things like healthcare.
government has an obligation to assist individuals in enjoying all their rights.
government is prohibited from exercising authority.
Instructor Explanation: The answer can be found in the section “”Right to Privacy.”
Points Received: 1 of 1
Comments:

Question 9. Question :
The Supreme Court in Whitney v. California clarified clear and present danger to mean

Student Answer: CORRECT speech so dangerous that society would immediately and irreparably harmed.
speech that protested against the Supreme Court.
free speech would only be dangerous if it was followed by physical acts of violence.
that only speech concerning communism was dangerous.
Instructor Explanation: The answer can be found in the section “Abrams v. United States.”
Points Received: 1 of 1
Comments:

Question 10. Question :
Mapp v. Ohio established

Student Answer: CORRECT the exclusionary rule, which states that material obtained from an illegally searched home could not be used against you.
that material seized from a house where a warrant was executed for specifically other material which was not seized may still be used against you.
that the police can violate one’s right to privacy as long as the individual’s Miranda rights are explained.
that illegally seized material is still admissible in trial.
Instructor Explanation: The answer can be found in the section “Rights of the Accused.”

Question 4. A federal court is said to have a “federal question” jurisdiction because the correct answer is: they hear cases that touch the Constitution and other federal laws.

To get to this answer, we can analyze the options:
1. Federal courts supersede state courts: This is not the reason why federal courts have federal question jurisdiction. Federal courts and state courts operate parallel to each other with their own jurisdiction.
2. All laws are federal: This is not true as there are state laws that are separate from federal laws. Federal courts do have jurisdiction over federal laws, but this is not the reason for federal question jurisdiction.
3. They hear cases that touch the Constitution and other federal laws: This is the correct answer. Federal question jurisdiction refers to cases that involve issues related to the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. These cases involve matters of federal importance and are within the domain of federal courts.
4. They hear cases that only deal with issues of constitutionality: This is partially true, as cases involving issues of constitutionality fall under federal question jurisdiction. However, federal question jurisdiction can also include cases involving federal laws and treaties.

Question 5. Article III of the Constitution establishes that the correct answer is: the judicial powers of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court.

To get to this answer, we can analyze the options:
1. The Supreme Court can invalidate laws of Congress: While the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review to declare laws unconstitutional, this is not explicitly stated in Article III of the Constitution.
2. The judicial powers of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court: This is the correct answer. Article III establishes that the judicial powers of the United States are to be vested in one Supreme Court, which is the highest court in the land.
3. The Supreme Court can create inferior courts: The power to create inferior courts is not explicitly stated in Article III of the Constitution, although it does give Congress the authority to establish such courts.
4. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over state courts: While the Supreme Court has the power to hear cases on appeal from state courts under certain circumstances, this is not explicitly stated in Article III of the Constitution.

Question 6. The American Civil Rights Movement was about the correct answer is: ending racial discrimination and achieving equal voting rights.

To get to this answer, we can analyze the options:
1. Ending racial discrimination and achieving equal voting rights: This is the correct answer. The American Civil Rights Movement was a social and political movement in the mid-20th century that sought to end racial segregation and discrimination, and secure equal rights for African Americans, including the right to vote.
2. Achieving free speech: While the American Civil Rights Movement did advocate for free speech rights, it was primarily focused on addressing racial discrimination.
3. Ending affirmative action: This is not a goal of the American Civil Rights Movement. Affirmative action was a later policy aimed at addressing past and present discrimination against minority groups.
4. Creating “separate but equal” public facilities: The American Civil Rights Movement fought against the notion of "separate but equal" as it perpetuated racial segregation and inequality.

Question 7. The reason why the Supreme Court came around to upholding that states had an obligation to provide attorneys to those who could not afford them was the correct answer is: to provide a fair advantage to defendants.

To get to this answer, we can analyze the options:
1. Attorneys were charging additional costs to poor defendants: While the cost of legal representation can be a factor for poor defendants, it is not the primary reason why the Supreme Court upheld the obligation of states to provide attorneys.
2. To provide a fair advantage to defendants: This is the correct answer. The Supreme Court ruled in the landmark case of Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) that defendants facing serious criminal charges have a constitutional right to counsel, even if they cannot afford one. This decision was made to ensure that defendants have a fair chance in the criminal justice system.
3. It was something that other countries did: The decisions of the Supreme Court are primarily based on the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and legal principles, not on what other countries do.
4. To encourage defendants to plea bargain: While providing legal counsel can impact the plea bargaining process, it is not the primary reason why the Supreme Court upheld the obligation of states to provide attorneys.

Question 8. If the Supreme Court were to rule that marriage is a fundamental right, under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, that would mean the correct answer is: no state may distinguish between marriage and heterosexual marriage because that would effectively create invidious distinctions.

To get to this answer, we can analyze the options:
1. Each state would still be able to decide for itself whether it recognizes marriage or not: This is not the correct answer. If the Supreme Court were to rule that marriage is a fundamental right under the Equal Protection Clause, it would mean that states cannot deny marriage rights to same-sex couples.
2. No state may distinguish between marriage and heterosexual marriage because that would effectively create invidious distinctions: This is the correct answer. If marriage were recognized as a fundamental right under the Equal Protection Clause, it would mean that states cannot treat same-sex marriages differently from opposite-sex marriages as it would create unfair and discriminatory distinctions.
3. That Congress must create a public assistance program for couples: The ruling on marriage as a fundamental right under the Equal Protection Clause does not require Congress to create a public assistance program for couples. This is unrelated to the issue of marriage rights.
4. That only married people enjoy protection under the Equal Protection Clause: This is not the correct answer. The Equal Protection Clause applies to all individuals and protects against discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, and other protected characteristics. It is not limited to married individuals.