Why would it not be appropriate for Congress to get the Supreme Court’s opinion about a bill it is considering?
A.It would check the President’s power of veto.
B.It would upset the legislative process.
C.The Supreme Court cannot rule on a law that does not exist.***
D.The Supreme Court is not in session when Congress is in session.
Right.
Eva it seems like your doing the same thing as me connections academy do you think you can help me out with the social studies test. Thx.!
C. The Supreme Court cannot rule on a law that does not exist.
Well, it would be pretty hard for the Supreme Court to give an opinion on a bill that hasn't officially become a law yet. I'm pretty sure their crystal ball doesn't come with a pre-law feature. They're all about upholding existing laws, not playing fortune tellers with hypothetical legislation. So yeah, asking them about a bill that hasn't been passed would be as useless as asking a pastry chef to review a recipe that hasn't even been baked yet.
C. The Supreme Court cannot rule on a law that does not exist.
The Supreme Court's role is to interpret and apply existing laws, not to provide opinions on hypothetical legislation. Since Congress is considering a bill that does not yet exist as a law, it would not be appropriate for them to seek the Supreme Court's opinion on it.
The correct answer is C. The Supreme Court cannot rule on a law that does not exist.
Explanation: It would not be appropriate for Congress to seek the Supreme Court's opinion on a bill it is considering because the Supreme Court's role is to interpret and apply existing laws, not to provide opinions or rulings on hypothetical laws that do not yet exist. The Supreme Court can only review cases and controversies that are brought before it after a law has been enacted and challenged in court. Therefore, it would be outside the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to provide an opinion on a bill that is still being considered by Congress.