1. A Supreme Court that demonstrates a willingness to change public policy and alter judicial precedent is said to be engaging in

a) judicial activism
b) due process
c) judicial restraint
d) ex post facto lawmaking
e) judicial review

The answer is A because judicial activism implies that the Court uses its power to overturn existing law or legislate new policy if it believes it is necessary.

2. A writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court indicates that the Court

a) Will review a lower decision

b) Has rendered a decision on a case

c) Has decided not to hear an appeal

d) Will recess until the end of the calendar year

e) Plans to overturn one of its previous rulings

The answer is A because when a writ of certiorari is delivered by the Supreme Court, it is asking a lower court to deliver its records from a case so that the Supreme Court can use review it. This is usually used to pick cases.

3. The Supreme Court holds original jurisdiction in all of the following types of cases EXCEPT

a) If the United States is a party in the case

b) In controversies in criminal law between a citizen and a state

c) In controversies under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties

d) if a case is between citizens of different states

e) If cases arise under admirality and maritime laws

The answer is B because the state holds original jurisdiction in this case. The Supreme Court is given original jurisdiction for all of the other options by the Constitution.

4. All of the following are specifically mentioned in the Constitution EXCEPT

a) judicial review

b) the national census

c) rules of impeachment

d) the State of the Union address

e) length of term if federal judgeships

The answer is A because the power of judicial review was not officially established until the Supreme Court's ruling in Marbury v Madison.

5. Which of the following correctly states the relationship between the federal and state judiciaries?

a) Federal courts are higher courts than state courts and may overturn state decisions on any grounds.

b)The two are entirely autonomous, and neither ever hears cases that originate in the other.

c) The two are generally autonomous, although federal courts may rule on the constitutionality of state court decisions.

d) State courts are trial courts; federal courts are appeals courts.

e) State courts try all cases except those that involve conflicts between two states, which are tried in 
federal courts.

The answer is C because state and federal courts hear different types of cases unless the Supreme Court decides to occasionally hear a matter that was appealed from a state court.

6. The Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona was based mainly on the

a) Constitutional prohibition of ex post facto laws

b) Incorporation of the Fifth Amendment through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

c) Eighth Amendment restriction against cruel and unusual punishment

d) Abolition of slavery by the Fourteenth Amendment

e) full faith and credit clause of the Constitution

The answer is B because the Court ruled that based on the Fifth Amendment, law enforcement is required to read those taken into custody their rights and give them the right to remain silent.

7. The Supreme Court has used the practice of selective incorporation to

a) Limit the number of appeals filed by defendants in state courts

b) Extend voting rights to racial minorities and women
c) apply most Bill of Rights protections to state law

d) Hasten the integration of public schools

e) Prevent the states from calling a constitutional convention

The answer is B because selective incorporation protects citizens' rights under the Constitution so that states cannot withhold these rights (like not giving blacks and women equality).

8. Which of the following cases extended the Fourth Amendment’s protection against 
unreasonable searches and seizures to the states?

a) Gideon v. Wainwright

b) Schneck v. United States
c) Miranda v. Arizona

d) Mapp v. Ohio

e) Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States

The answer is B because the ruling in Mapp v Ohio was that according to the Fourth Amendment, evidence produced through illegal search and seizure cannot be used in court to prosecute the defendant.

9. Which of the following is true of court cases in which one private party is suing another?

A) They are tried in civil court

B) The federal court system has exclusive jurisdiction over them

C) They are tried in criminal court

D) The state court system has exclusive jurisdiction over them.

E) They are tried before a grand jury.

The answer is A because cases heard in civil court are those in which a party is suing another party, a party is using an individual, or an individual is using a party.

10. Which of the following is an accurate statement about the federal court system?

a) The creation of new federal courts requires a constitutional amendment

b) The creation of new federal courts requires the unanimous consent of all 50 states

c) The Supreme Court has the sole power to create new federal courts.

d) Congress had the power to create new federal courts

e) The number of federal courts if fixed by the Constitution and cannot be changed.

The answer is D because Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to establish federal courts.

After Homer Plessy attempted to sit in an all-white railroad car and refused to sit in the railroad car designated for Blacks, he was arrested and his case eventually reached the Supreme Court.  In Plessy v Ferguson, the Court's holding and majority opinion was that it was constitutional for states to require people of different races to use "separate but equal" facilities.  They ruled that this practice did not conflict with the 13th Amendment, which outlawed involuntary servitude. According to the Court, it also did not conflict with the 14th Amendment (which established equality between the two races) because separate facilities did not necessarily imply the inferiority of either race. In this case, Judge Harlan dissented, claiming that the decision was inconsistent with the equality of rights of citizens. Taking into account that whites were obviously the dominant race in society, he viewed these separate facilities as discrimination and an infringement upon freedom of choice. Plessy v Ferguson reflects the philosophy of judicial restraint because the Court upheld existing law. It chose to simply interpret the Constitution instead of legislate new policies. Personally, I disagree with this decision. I believe that everyone, regardless of race, should be treated equally by society.  For this to occur, everyone must have access to the same amenities.  Especially within the context of the 14th Amendment, which clearly established equality, it is clear that this Court had its own predisposition that Blacks were inferior to Whites.

In the 1961 Supreme Court case Mapp v Ohio, police officers went into Dollree Mapp's house without a search warrant.  They discovered illegal materials that they then arrested her for. She claimed that these materials should not be used against her in court because they were obtained through illegal search and seizure.  The Court's holding and majority opinion was that illegally obtained material cannot be used in a criminal trial.  Its argument was that this violated the Fourth Amendment. Judge Harlan delivered the dissenting opinion, claiming that states are constitutionally free to follow their own methods for dealing with criminal problems.  This ruling demonstrates judicial activism because the Court used its power to legislate a new policy.  I agree with this decision because it is logical that law enforcement must operate according to the law in prosecuting criminals. Since the police officers entered Mapp's house without a warrant, she should not be prosecuted using these materials.  Because the police officers' actions were not in line with the Fourth Amendment, the evidence was obtained illegally.

In the the aftermath of the infamous Watergate scandal that took place under the Nixon Administration, the special prosecutor requested audio tapes that were recorded in the Oval Office.  President Nixon refused to turn over these tapes, claiming executive privilege. This matter was taken to the Supreme Court in U.S. v Nixon, where the holding and majority opinion was that the President is not above the law.  Its justification was that this evidence, which had the potential to prove Nixon guilty, outweighed executive privilege because national security was not at state.  The Court ruled against Nixon 8-0, so there were no dissenting opinions.  U.S. v Nixon reflects the philosophy of judicial restraint because the Court chose to interpret the Constitution exactly how it was written, where the President is not above the law.  I agree with this decision because I believe that the President should not be exempt from any laws that everyone else is subjected to.  This is part of the idea that everyone is equal under the law, and it is important that the President set this example.

The point of view of the cartoonist is that the Supreme Court is a a very activist court.  It often takes advantage of its power of judicial review to rule laws that are brought to court unconstitutional.  Also, judging from the caption, the cartoonist believes that the Court has a tendency to want to rule against pre-existing law.  I agree with the cartoonist's view because the Supreme Court has played such an important role in overturning unjust laws and, in turn, transforming American society.  For example, Roe v Wade was a landmark case regarding abortion.  In this case, the court ruled that the 14th Amendment gave women the right to privacy that extended to their right to an abortion.  Although abortion is still a hotly debated topic in many states, this case provided the crucial first step in giving women an important right to choice that they are entitled to.  In addition, the Supreme Court's ruling in Brown v Board played a crucial role in the pursuit of racial equality.  In this case, the Court ruled that segregation in schools was unconstitutional.  This decision broke the racial barrier in education and provided black students with a more equal opportunity for success as that of their white counterparts.  These cases, among many others dealing with important social problems, demonstrate the Supreme Court's willingness to assume its constitutional power of judicial review and declare laws unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court has the power of judicial review, which allows it to to rule on whether laws are unconstitutional.  It also interprets the U.S. Constitution and the nation's laws and makes sure they are applied correctly.  The cases it hears include ones involving the Constitution, federal laws, treaties, and disputes between states.  All of these powers are derived from the Constitution.  Lastly, according to the Rule of Four, if four justices decide the case is worthy of a trial, the Supreme Court will hear it.

I'm Natalie.  I've never blogged before, but I think I'd prefer blogging over writing in a notebook.  That's because I usually like to type instead of handwrite since it goes faster.  I think one main difference is that a notebook is more personal while a blog is public, making it easier to share thoughts with a large group of people using a blog.