WorksheetsEOC Check #1
Total questions: 10
Worksheet time: 3hrs 30mins
The object of the amendment was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law, but, in the nature of things, it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political, equality, or a commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to either. Laws permitting, and even requiring, their separation in places where they are liable to be brought into contact do not necessarily imply the inferiority of either race to the other, and have been generally, if not universally, recognized as within the competency of the state legislatures in the exercise of their police power. The most common instance of this is connected with the establishment of separate schools for white and colored [African American] children, which has been held to be a valid exercise of the legislative power even by courts of States where the political rights of the colored race have been longest and most earnestly enforced. . . . — United States Supreme Court, 1896 20 In this 1896 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of
3/5 Compromise
Affirmative Action
Jim Crow Laws
Racial integration
What was one result of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)?
Sectional tension increased.
The slave trade was abolished.
Northern states were more willing to compromise
Southern states immediately seceded from the Union.
“So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.”
Which of the following statements accurately summarizes the concept of judicial review, as established by Marbury v. Madison?
The Supreme Court should review laws that conflict with the Constitution but cannot declare a law is unconstitutional
When the law and Constitution conflict, it is impossible to know which takes precedent
When the law and Constitution conflict, the Supreme Court will always rule in favor of the law
The Supreme Court should review laws that conflict with the Constitution and can strike down a law as unconstitutional.
The principal that the National Government has certain implied powers that go beyond what the constitution grants was decided under Supreme Court Justice John Marshall in which court case?
Gibbons vs. Ogden
Dredd Scott vs. Sanford
McCullockh vs. Maryland
Marbury vs Madison
What was the result of the Supreme Court decisions made by Chief Justice John Marshall in the following cases:
- Marbury vs. Madison
- McCullough vs. Maryland
- Gibbons vs. Ogden
the court upheld the rights of the workers.
the court abolished the system of slavery.
the court protected the rights of children.
the court ruled in favor of strengthening the federal government.
