Cases 1-9 FAC P3

Analyze how the decision in Schenck v. United States reflects the balance between free speech and national security. Provide examples from the case to support your reasoning.

• The decision prioritized free speech over national security, allowing all forms of speech during wartime.

• The decision established that free speech could be limited during wartime if it posed a "clear and present danger" to national security.

• The decision had no impact on the balance between free speech and national security.

• The decision allowed for unrestricted free speech regardless of the context.

Evaluate the impact of the US v. Lopez decision on the interpretation of the Commerce Clause. How did this case change the understanding of federal power?

• It expanded federal power by allowing Congress to regulate any activity that could affect interstate commerce.

• It limited federal power by ruling that Congress could not regulate non-economic activities under the Commerce Clause.

• It had no impact on the interpretation of the Commerce Clause.

• It allowed states to regulate all forms of commerce without federal interference.

Discuss the significance of Marbury v. Madison in establishing the principle of judicial review. How did this case shape the role of the Supreme Court?

• It established the principle of judicial review, allowing the Supreme Court to declare laws unconstitutional.

• It limited the power of the Supreme Court by removing its ability to interpret the Constitution.

• It had no significant impact on the role of the Supreme Court.

• It allowed Congress to override Supreme Court decisions.

Analyze how McCulloch v. Maryland reinforced both of its constitutional connections. What implications did this have for federal and state power?

• It weakened federal power by allowing states to tax federal institutions.

• It reinforced federal power by upholding the supremacy of federal laws over state laws and confirming the implied powers of Congress.

• It had no impact on the balance of power between federal and state governments.

• It allowed states to nullify federal laws they disagreed with.

Evaluate the impact of Citizens United v. FEC on the concept of free speech in the context of campaign finance. How did this decision alter the landscape of political spending?

• It restricted free speech by limiting corporate and union spending in elections.

• It expanded free speech by allowing unlimited independent political expenditures by corporations and unions.

• It had no impact on campaign finance laws.

• It banned all forms of political spending by corporations and unions.

Critically assess the reasoning used by the Supreme Court in Schenck v. United States to justify limitations on free speech. How does this reasoning apply to modern contexts?

• The reasoning was based on the idea that all speech is protected, regardless of context.

• The reasoning was based on the "clear and present danger" test, which allows for limitations on speech that poses a significant threat to national security.

• The reasoning was based on the idea that free speech should never be limited.

• The reasoning was based on the idea that only political speech can be limited.

Analyze the strategic reasoning behind the Supreme Court's decision in US v. Lopez. How did the Court's interpretation of the Commerce Clause reflect a shift in judicial philosophy?

• The decision reflected a shift towards expanding federal power over state power.

• The decision reflected a shift towards limiting federal power and emphasizing states' rights.

• The decision had no strategic reasoning and was purely arbitrary.

• The decision reflected a shift towards allowing Congress to regulate all aspects of life.

Discuss the implications of Marbury v. Madison for the balance of power among the three branches of government. How did this case influence the system of checks and balances?

• It weakened the judicial branch by removing its power to interpret laws.

• It strengthened the judicial branch by establishing its role as the arbiter of constitutional interpretation, thus enhancing the system of checks and balances.

• It had no impact on the balance of power among the branches of government.

• It allowed the executive branch to override judicial decisions.

A group of high school students in California decides to stage a silent protest by wearing T-shirts with political slogans criticizing government policies on immigration. The school bans the shirts, claiming they could cause disruption. The students sue, citing their First Amendment rights. Which case would apply?

• NY Times v. US

• Tinker v. Des Moines

• Wisconsin v. Yoder

• Engel v. Vitale

A whistleblower leaks classified government documents revealing possible misconduct in foreign policy decisions. The federal government moves to stop a major news outlet from publishing the documents, arguing that national security is at risk. Based on the ruling in New York Times Co. v. United States, which of the following will they use to rule for the paper?

• Prior restraint is illegal

• Freedom of the press is a conditional right and not absolute

• Slander is not a protected right.

• Libel is a protected right.