Substantive Law Study Support

Questions for Analysis and Responses

1. Read the Articles of Confederation found in Appendix B and answer the following questions. For each question, state which specific article(s) controls.

a. What do the Articles of Confederation provide regarding extradition of criminals from one state to another?
“[H]e shall, upon demand of the Governor or executive power of the State from which he fled, be delivered up and removed to the State having jurisdiction of his offense.” Article IV.

b. What limit was placed on the right of the federal government to enter into treaties?
“No State, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any embassy from, or enter into any conference, agreement, alliance or treaty with any King.” Article VI.

c. How many states had to agree for the Committee of States to take action?
“The Committee of the States, or any nine of them, shall be authorized to execute, in the recess of Congress, such of the powers of Congress as the United States in Congress assembled.” Article X.

d. What do the Articles of Confederation state regarding the power of the federal government to tax?
“The taxes for paying that proportion shall be laid and levied by the authority and direction of the legislatures of the several States within the time agreed upon by the United States in Congress assembled.” Article VIII.

2. Review the summary of the English Bill of Rights (Exhibit 1-2) and the Declaration of Independence (Exhibit 1-3 and Appendix B). What do they have in common?
Both list several abuses by the king, including quartering of soldiers without consent of homeowners, unfair application of law, and unfair trials.

3. Review Article VI of the Constitution found in Appendix A. Do you think that Dr. Bruce Springer (see Living with the Constitution at the beginning of the chapter) could be forced to sign a loyalty oath? Read the U.S. Supreme Court case of Cole v. Richardson, 405 U.S. 676 (1972). Write a short summary of the case. This case can be found in print or on the Internet. (Try searching legal opinions on Google Scholar.).

Article VI provides: “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution.” In Cole v. Richardson, the plaintiff was discharged from her job in a hospital because of her refusal to subscribe to the Massachusetts statutory loyalty oath requiring public employees to swear or affirm, upon the penalty of perjury, to “uphold and defend” the federal and state constitutions, and to “oppose the overthrow” of the federal or state government “by force, violence, or by any illegal or unconstitutional method.” The Supreme Court held that the requirement of taking the oath was constitutionally permissible.

4. In the case of Ontario v. Quon, the Court decided the case without determining if Quon had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his text messages. Why did the Court not want to address this issue?

The Court determined that they should determine an expectation of privacy in light of the specific facts of each particular search in a work setting, rather than by announcing a categorical standard (e.g., for text messages).