Substantive Law Study Support

Questions for Analysis and Responses

1. Refer to the situation described in Living with the Constitution at the beginning of the chapter.
a. If Tomas wanted to run for election to the U.S. House of Representatives, could he do so? If so, when?
Membership in the House of Representatives is limited to individuals who (1) are at least 25 years of age, (2) have been U.S. citizens for at least seven years, and
(3) are inhabitants of the state they represent.
b. If Tomas wanted to run for election to the U.S. Senate, could he do so? If so, when?
Membership in the Senate is limited to individuals who (1) are at least 30 years of age, (2) have been U.S. citizens for at least nine years, and (3) are inhabitants of the state they represent.
c. Could Tomas eventually run for president of the United States?
The president must be a natural-born citizen and be at least 35 years old. Tomas was not born in the United States and therefore could not run for president.
d. Could Tomas become a federal judge? If so, when?
The Constitution does not establish qualifications for federal judges.
e. Does the Constitution limit Tomas’s ability to run for any state office?
State office qualifications are determined by state law.

2. Answer the following questions regarding the Clinton case.

a. Why did the U.S. Supreme Court hold that the cancellation procedures authorized by the act were not authorized by the Constitution?
It allowed the president to amend legislation after it took effect and resulted in the president having legislative power. It violated the separation of powers doctrine because the resulting legislation would not be the product of the legislature.

b. Discuss the two related government arguments that were rejected by the Court.
The first argument was that the Act represented a legislative effort to provide the president with the power to give effect to some, but not to all, the expenditure and revenue-diminishing provisions contained in a single massive appropriations bill. The government argued that the Court should consider how the country and the government had grown since the Constitution was written and how this was a practical way to handle the government budget. The second argument was that the Act did not violate separation of powers—it was a proper delegation by Congress.

3. Answer the following questions regarding the Thornton case:

a. On what grounds did the respondent seek to challenge the Arkansas amendment?
The state constitution imposing term limits violated the U.S. Constitution.

b. According to the Thornton Court, how may changes with respect to term limits be made?
Changes with respect to term limits may be made by constitutional amendment.

4. Why were there different results in Nixon v. Fitzgerald and Clinton v. Jones?

The Court determined that a president may not be held liable for civil damages on official actions taken during his term; presidential immunity would apply in instances where a civil lawsuit interfered with the president’s constitutionally allocated duties. This applied to Nixon but not Clinton.

5. The electoral college generally works with a two-party system. What happens if a powerful third party develops? NOTE: This is not directly addressed in the text.
An individual needs to receive a majority of the electoral votes to become president. If any candidate fails to receive a majority of electoral votes, the House of Representatives will select the president. If a third powerful party develops, then one party will still be required to receive a majority of the electoral votes.

Assignments and Projects

1. In a recent case, Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U.S. (2010), the Supreme Court discussed the issue of separation of powers as it relates to the power of the president to remove members of a board created in response to the national financial crisis. Locate the case in print or on the Internet and briefly summarize why the Court believed that the doctrine of separation of powers was violated.

The Court believed that the doctrine of separation of powers was violated by the dual for-cause limitations on the removal of board members because it conflicted with the Constitution’s separation of powers and the Appointments Clause. The Sarbanes- Oxley Act protected board members from removal except for good cause; it also withdrew from the president any decision on whether that good cause existed, instead placing that responsibility with the Securities and Exchange Board. This insulation of board members from the president was in conflict with the remainder of the statute.
2. Find and access the Web site for the Supreme Court. Search the site for information about the traditions of the court. Summarize.

Traditions that students may discuss include:

- the longevity of tenure

- the nine justices are seated by seniority on the Bench, and their location on the Bench
- the attire of justices while in Court (black robes)

- the unofficial requirement for attorneys wearing formal “morning clothes” when appearing before the Court
- quill pens

- the “Conference handshake”

- the traditional seal of the Supreme Court

3. Complete the missing parts of the following case brief.

Gregory v. Ashcroft

501 U.S. 452 (1991)

Judicial History [not provided]

Facts: The Missouri constitution mandated that all state judges retire at age seventy. Several judges filed a lawsuit claiming that this rule violated the federal age discrimination laws as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The

Age Discrimination in Employment Act excluded employees who worked as government employees on a policy-making level.
Issue: Whether the Age Discrimination in Employment Act may be applied to the mandatory retirement of Missouri judges.

Holding: No. Missouri law requiring that judges retire at age seventy did not violate the ADEA because the judges came within an exclusion applying to government employees who worked on a policy-making level.

Rationale: The state retains substantial sovereign authority under the constitutional system of the United States, and the federal government is careful not to “tread” on state rights. In this case, the Court would not interpret the ambiguous language of the ADEA as being plain enough for Congress to effect such a broad exercise of power over the state.