Question 1
A toy manufacturer that has its
headquarters and sole manufacturing plant in the state of Green
developed a "Martian" toy that simulates the exploration of Mars by a
remote-controlled vehicle. It accurately depicts the Martian landscape
and the unmanned exploratory vehicle traversing it. The toy is of high
quality, safe, durable, and has sold very well. Other toy
manufacturers, all located outside Green, developed similar toys that
are lower in price. These manufacturers have contracts to sell their
Martian toys to outlets in Green. Although these toys are safe and
durable, they depict the Martian landscape less realistically than the
toys manufactured in Green. Nevertheless, because of the price
difference, sales of these toys have cut severely into the sales of the
Martian toys manufactured in Green. The Green legislature subsequently
enacted a law "to protect the children of Green from faulty science and
to protect Green toy manufacturers from unfair competition." This law
forbids the sale in Green of any toy that purports to represent
extraterrestrial objects and does not satisfy specified scientific
criteria. The Martian toy manufactured in Green satisfies all of these
criteria; none of the Martian toys of the competing manufacturers meets
the requirements.
Is the Green law constitutional?
(A) No, because it abrogates the
obligations of the contracts between the other toy manufacturers and
their Green outlets who have agreed to sell their Martian toys.
(B) No, because it imposes an undue
burden on interstate commerce.
(C) Yes, because it deals only with a
local matter, the sale of toys in Green stores.
(D) Yes, because the state's interest
in protecting the state's children from faulty science justifies this
burden on interstate commerce.
Question 2
The United States Congress enacted a
federal statute providing that any state may "require labeling to show
the state or other geographic origin of citrus fruit that is imported
into the receiving state." Pursuant to the federal statute, a state
that produced large quantities of citrus fruit enacted a law requiring
all citrus fruit imported into the state to be stamped with a
two-letter postal abbreviation signifying the state of the fruit's
origin. The law did not impose any such requirement for citrus fruit
grown within the state. When it adopted the law, the state legislature
declared that its purpose was to reduce the risks of infection of local
citrus crops by itinerant diseases that have been found to attack
citrus fruit. A national association of citrus growers sued to have the
state law declared unconstitutional. The association claims that the
law is prohibited by the negative implications of the commerce clause
of the Constitution.
Which of the following is the best
argument in favor of the state's effort to have this lawsuit dismissed?
(A) Any burden on interstate commerce
imposed by the state law is outweighed by a legitimate state interest.
(B) Congress has the authority to
authorize specified state regulations that would otherwise be
prohibited by the negative implications of the commerce clause, and it
has done so in this situation.
(C) The state law does not
discriminate against out-of-state citrus growers or producers.
(D) The state law furthers
a legitimate state interest, the burden it imposes on interstate
commerce is only incidental, and the state's interest cannot be
satisfied by other means that are less burdensome to interstate
commerce.
Question 3
Florida Airlines flight #1286 was scheduled to fly from Los Angeles,
California to Miami, Florida on October 16. Jennie, a resident of
California, was scheduled to visit her grandmother in Miami, Florida
for a one week vacation. Jennie was scheduled to fly on Florida
Airlines flight #1286. The Florida bound plane departed on time
and began its flight toward the southeast. There was one stop in
Houston, Texas and another in New Orleans, Louisiana. Once the
plane had completed its stop in New Orleans, Jennie felt the strong
desire to smoke a cigarette. As such, she went back to the rear
of the plane and lit up.
As Jennie was enjoying her cigarette, she noticed a sign on the ceiling
overhead which read, “Cigarette Smoking Is Illegal On This
Flight.” Unbeknownst to Jennie, Congress had passed a statute,
only two months prior to her flight, which banned cigarette smoking on
“all passenger and commercial airline flights within the United
States.” Congress, en enacting the statute, felt that flights
would be safer as the potential of starting an unwanted fire would be
eliminated, or at least reduced. Congress was presented results
from a study which showed that eighty-seven percent of all fires on
board aircraft resulted from the butts of cigarettes being disposed of
in an improper fashion. Congress also recognized and cited the
Surgeon General’s studies which indicated that “Quitting smoking now
greatly reduces serious risks to your health.” Furthermore,
Congress stated, “There is no inherent right to smoke which is granted
to citizens by the United States Constitution.”
Jennie is charged with violating the statute making smoking illegal on
the flight. If Jennie challenges this statute on constitutional
grounds, the court should find the statute:
(A) Unconstitutional, as it takes away ones right to
life, liberty, and property in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to
the United States Constitution.
(B) Unconstitutional, as it takes away ones right to
life, liberty, and property in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the
United States Constitution.
(C) Constitutional, because Congress could find that
the statute is in the public interest as it acts to protect the health,
safety, and welfare of airlines passengers.
(D) Constitutional, because Congress is exercising
its federal commerce power.
Question 4
The Privileges and Immunities Clause is found at Article IV, Section 2
of the United States Constitution. To which of the following
groups does this section apply?
I. United States Citizens
II. Aliens
III. Corporations
IV. A three year old girl of Mexican descent, born in San Diego,
California and currently residing in Arizona.
(A) I only.
(B) I and IV
(C) I, II, and IV.
(D) I, II, III, and IV.
Question 5
A recently enacted federal statute requires the President to make each
appointment of a United States ambassador to a foreign country from a
list of three individuals. The list is to be compiled by the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee and approved by the full Senate in advance
of the appointment. The statute also provides that Senate confirmation
of the appointment is deemed to occur automatically 30 days after the
time the President names an appointee from the list, unless the full
Senate determines otherwise within the 30-day period.
Is this statute constitutional?
(A) No, because the statute violates the constitutional requirements
for appointment of principal officers of the United States.
(B) No, because the statute impermissibly restricts the plenary foreign
affairs powers of the President.
(C) Yes, because the statute is consistent with the constitutional
requirement that the presidential appointment of ambassadors be with
the advice and consent of the Senate.
(D) Yes, because the statute is a necessary and proper measure in
furtherance of Congress’s power to regulate commerce with foreign
states.