Chapter 16 Quiz Rippee 1st Block
Spell correctly-use only lowercase
- 1.
Judicial interpretation of an act of Congress; Congress occasionally passes new legislation to clarify existing laws when this is an issue
Explanation
Statutory construction refers to the process of interpreting and analyzing the language and intent of a law passed by Congress. It involves determining the meaning of ambiguous or unclear provisions in the legislation. In cases where there is confusion or uncertainty regarding the interpretation of a law, Congress may pass new legislation to provide clarification. Therefore, statutory construction is the appropriate term to describe the judicial interpretation of an act of Congress and the subsequent legislative action taken to clarify existing laws.Rate this question:
- 2.
Legal briefs submitted by a "friend of the court" for the purpose of raising additional points of view and presenting information not contained in the briefs of the formal parties; attempt to influence a court's decision
Explanation
Amicus curiae briefs are legal briefs submitted by a "friend of the court" with the purpose of presenting additional points of view and information that may not be included in the formal parties' briefs. These briefs are aimed at influencing the court's decision by providing a different perspective or supporting a particular argument. Amicus curiae briefs allow individuals or organizations who are not directly involved in the case to contribute their expertise or opinions, providing the court with a broader understanding of the legal issues at hand.Rate this question:
- 3.
Judicial interpretation of an act of Congress; Congress occasionally passes new legislation to clarify existing laws when this is an issue
Explanation
Statutory construction refers to the process of interpreting and analyzing the meaning of a law passed by Congress. Sometimes, laws may be unclear or ambiguous, and it becomes necessary for the judiciary to interpret and apply them correctly. In such cases, Congress may pass new legislation to provide clarification and resolve any confusion. This process of interpreting and clarifying existing laws is known as statutory construction.Rate this question:
- 4.
Requirement that to be heard a case must be capable of being settled as a matter of law rather than on other grounds as is commonly the case in legislative bodies
Explanation
Justiciable disputes refer to conflicts or issues that can be resolved through legal means, specifically in a court of law. These disputes typically involve legal rights and obligations that can be determined and enforced by a judge or jury. In this context, the requirement mentioned in the question suggests that for a case to be heard, it must be capable of being resolved based on legal principles and statutes, rather than being resolved through political or legislative processes. Therefore, the correct answer, "justiciable disputes," aligns with the requirement of resolving cases through legal means.Rate this question:
- 5.
Statement of legal reasoning
- 6.
Jurisdiction of courts, who view the legal issues involved rather than the factual record, that hear cases brought to them on appeal from lower courts
Explanation
Appellate jurisdiction refers to the authority of higher courts to review and revise decisions made by lower courts. In this context, it means that the courts with appellate jurisdiction focus on the legal issues of a case rather than re-examining the factual evidence. These courts hear appeals brought to them from lower courts, allowing for a review of the legal aspects of a case and potentially overturning or modifying previous decisions. This allows for a system of checks and balances in the judicial system, ensuring that legal errors or inconsistencies can be corrected.Rate this question:
- 7.
Jurisdiction of courts, who are the ones that determine the facts about a case, that hear a case first, usually in a trial
Explanation
Original jurisdiction refers to the authority of a court to hear and decide a case for the first time. This means that the court has the power to determine the facts of the case and make a judgment without any prior decisions or rulings from other courts. Courts with original jurisdiction are typically the ones that hear a case initially, often in a trial setting. They have the ability to gather evidence, hear testimonies, and make a final decision based on the facts presented before them.Rate this question:
- 8.
Judicial philosophy in which judges make bold policy decisions, even charting new constitutional ground; emphasis that the courts can correct pressing needs, especially those unmet by the majoritarian political process, is important to advocates of this approach
Explanation
Judicial activism refers to a judicial philosophy where judges make bold policy decisions and interpret the constitution in a way that addresses pressing needs, even if it means charting new constitutional ground. Advocates of this approach believe that the courts have the power to correct issues that are not being addressed by the majoritarian political process. This term is used to describe a proactive role of the judiciary in shaping and influencing public policy.Rate this question:
- 9.
Presidential appointee and the third-ranking office in the Department of Justice; in charge of the appellate court litigation of the federal government
Explanation
The solicitor general is a presidential appointee and holds the third-highest position in the Department of Justice. They are responsible for handling the appellate court litigation on behalf of the federal government. This role involves representing the government's interests and arguing cases before the Supreme Court. The solicitor general plays a crucial role in shaping the government's legal strategy and defending its policies in the highest court of the land.Rate this question:
- 10.
Judicial philosophy in which judges play minimal roles, leaving that duty strictly to the legislatures
Explanation
Judicial restraint is a judicial philosophy that advocates for judges to exercise minimal intervention in legal and policy matters, instead deferring to the decisions made by legislatures. It emphasizes the importance of respecting the separation of powers and allowing elected representatives to make laws and policies. This approach believes that judges should interpret the law as it is written, without imposing their own personal beliefs or agendas. By practicing judicial restraint, judges aim to maintain the balance of power between the judicial and legislative branches of government.Rate this question:
- 11.
Latin phrase meaning "let the decision stand"; principle on which most cases reaching appellate courts are settled
Explanation
Stare decisis is a Latin phrase that means "let the decision stand." It is a principle that refers to the practice of courts adhering to precedent and making decisions based on previous rulings. This principle is crucial in maintaining consistency and stability in the legal system, as it ensures that similar cases are decided in a similar manner. Stare decisis is particularly important in appellate courts, where most cases are settled based on this principle.Rate this question:
- 12.
Unwritten tradition whereby nominations for state-level federal judicial posts are not confirmed if they are opposed by a senator of the president's party from the state in which the nominee will serve; tradition applies to courts of appeal when there is opposition from the nominee's state senator
Explanation
Senatorial courtesy is an unwritten tradition in the United States whereby nominations for state-level federal judicial posts are not confirmed if they are opposed by a senator of the president's party from the state in which the nominee will serve. This tradition also applies to courts of appeal when there is opposition from the nominee's state senator. In other words, if a senator from the president's party in the nominee's state opposes the nomination, it is likely to be rejected. This tradition is a way for senators to have influence over judicial appointments in their respective states.Rate this question:
- 13.
The Constitution provided for:
- A.
A Supreme Court and an intricate system of lower federal courts
- B.
A Supreme Court, federal courts, and state courts all connected in one federal system
- C.
A federal court system that could include a Supreme Court and appellate courts
- D.
State courts and the ability of Congress to create whatever federal courts it deemed necessary
- E.
A Supreme Court and whatever other courts Congress deemed necessary and proper
Correct Answer
E. A Supreme Court and whatever other courts Congress deemed necessary and properExplanation
The correct answer states that the Constitution provided for a Supreme Court and whatever other courts Congress deemed necessary and proper. This means that while the Constitution specifically established the Supreme Court, it also gave Congress the power to create additional federal courts as they saw fit. This allowed for flexibility in the court system and the ability to adapt to changing needs and circumstances.Rate this question:
-
- 14.
The point of origin for most cases in the federal system would be:
- A.
Legislative courts
- B.
Appellate courts
- C.
The Supreme Court
- D.
Federal district courts
- E.
Specialized courts
Correct Answer
D. Federal district courtsExplanation
The point of origin for most cases in the federal system would be federal district courts. These courts are the trial courts of the federal system and are responsible for hearing and deciding a wide range of cases, including civil and criminal matters. They have original jurisdiction, meaning that they are the first courts to hear and decide on cases. Appellate courts, including the Supreme Court, review decisions made by lower courts, while legislative courts and specialized courts have limited jurisdiction and deal with specific types of cases. Therefore, federal district courts serve as the starting point for most cases in the federal system.Rate this question:
-
- 15.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit:
- A.
Hears appeals in specialized cases such as copyright law, patents, and tariffs
- B.
Hears appeals from all federal district courts
- C.
Conducts oversight on the Supreme Court
- D.
Is a court of original jurisdiction
- E.
Hears only military appeals resulting from court martial proceedings
Correct Answer
A. Hears appeals in specialized cases such as copyright law, patents, and tariffsExplanation
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit hears appeals in specialized cases such as copyright law, patents, and tariffs. This means that if a case involving copyright law, patents, or tariffs has been decided in a lower court, the parties involved can appeal the decision to the Federal Circuit for review. The Federal Circuit is specifically designated to handle these types of cases, ensuring a consistent and specialized approach to the interpretation and application of laws in these areas.Rate this question:
-
- 16.
The Supreme Court today consists of a Chief Justice and:
- A.
Nine associate justices
- B.
Two assistant chief justices and six associate justices
- C.
Eight associate justices
- D.
Twelve associate justices, one of which is designated as assistant to the Chief Justice
- E.
Four assistant justices making a total of five
Correct Answer
C. Eight associate justicesExplanation
The correct answer is eight associate justices. The Supreme Court consists of a Chief Justice and eight associate justices.Rate this question:
-
- 17.
The Supreme Court’s docket is mainly comprised of cases from:
- A.
State criminal courts
- B.
Law suits from state civil courts
- C.
Civil cases from federal courts
- D.
Original jurisdiction
- E.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Correct Answer
C. Civil cases from federal courtsExplanation
The Supreme Court's docket is mainly comprised of civil cases from federal courts. This means that the majority of the cases that the Supreme Court hears are appeals from lower federal courts, rather than cases from state criminal courts or state civil courts. The Supreme Court has the power of "certiorari," which allows it to select which cases it wants to hear. It typically chooses cases that involve important constitutional questions or that have conflicting interpretations of federal law. By focusing on civil cases from federal courts, the Supreme Court plays a crucial role in interpreting and shaping federal law.Rate this question:
-
- 18.
Which of the following statements concerning federal judges is NOT true?
- A.
Federal judges are appointed by the president
- B.
Federal judges, with the exception of a few specialized courts, have life tenure
- C.
Federal judges cannot have their salaries reduced while in office
- D.
Federal judges require confirmation by the Senate once appointed by the President
- E.
Federal judges must be natural citizens born the United States
Correct Answer
E. Federal judges must be natural citizens born the United StatesExplanation
Federal judges do not have to be natural citizens born in the United States. The Constitution only requires that federal judges be appointed by the president, have life tenure (with the exception of a few specialized courts), and require confirmation by the Senate once appointed. Additionally, federal judges cannot have their salaries reduced while in office.Rate this question:
-
- 19.
After being appointed by the President, a Supreme Court nominee is investigated by:
- A.
The House Committee on Judges and Justices
- B.
The Senate Judiciary Committee
- C.
The FBI and the Justice Department
- D.
The Attorney General
- E.
The House Rules Committee
Correct Answer
B. The Senate Judiciary CommitteeExplanation
After being appointed by the President, a Supreme Court nominee is investigated by the Senate Judiciary Committee. This committee is responsible for conducting hearings and reviewing the background and qualifications of the nominee. They examine the nominee's legal expertise, past rulings, and personal integrity to determine their suitability for the position. The committee plays a crucial role in the confirmation process and provides a recommendation to the full Senate, which then votes on whether to confirm the nominee.Rate this question:
-
- 20.
John Marshall strengthened the power of the Supreme Court by invoking judicial review in:
- A.
McCulloch v. Maryland
- B.
Gibbons v. Ogden
- C.
Marbury v. Madison
- D.
Brown v. Board of Education
- E.
Scott v. Stanford
Correct Answer
C. Marbury v. MadisonExplanation
In Marbury v. Madison, John Marshall, as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, established the principle of judicial review. This landmark case solidified the Court's authority to interpret the Constitution and declare acts of Congress unconstitutional. By asserting the power of judicial review, Marshall significantly strengthened the Supreme Court's role as a check on the other branches of government and ensured its ability to shape the interpretation of the Constitution for years to come.Rate this question:
-
- 21.
The example of Eisenhower selecting Earl Warren to the Supreme Court demonstrates:
- A.
The wisdom of putting a friend on the Court
- B.
The ability of a President to select the right man for the administrations purposes
- C.
The importance of partisanship in Court selection
- D.
The possibility that a persons past record might not reflect his or her actions on the Court once appointed
- E.
How a President can get his nominee rejected by the Senate Judiciary Committee
Correct Answer
D. The possibility that a persons past record might not reflect his or her actions on the Court once appointedExplanation
The example of Eisenhower selecting Earl Warren to the Supreme Court demonstrates the possibility that a person's past record might not reflect his or her actions on the Court once appointed. This is because Earl Warren, who had a conservative record as a governor, surprised many by becoming a liberal-leaning Chief Justice. This example highlights the unpredictability of judicial appointments and the potential for justices to evolve or change their views once on the Court.Rate this question:
-
- 22.
The most common manner for a case to come before the court is:
- A.
On a writ of certiorari
- B.
On a writ of mandamus
- C.
As an amicus curiae brief
- D.
As a stare decisis case
- E.
On a per curiam decision
Correct Answer
A. On a writ of certiorariExplanation
The most common manner for a case to come before the court is on a writ of certiorari. This is a legal order by which a higher court reviews a decision made by a lower court. It allows the higher court to determine whether the lower court made any errors in its decision. This process is commonly used to bring cases before the Supreme Court, where the justices can decide whether or not to hear the case and potentially overturn the lower court's decision.Rate this question:
-
- 23.
The concept of original intent means:
- A.
The Supreme Court must decided cases as the original court of jurisdiction intended them to be decided
- B.
All cases must be decided based on stare decisis
- C.
The 14thAmendment must be considered in all cases dealing with the Bill of Rights as originally written by the Founders
- D.
Judges should determine the purposes of the writers of the Constitution when deciding the outcome of cases
- E.
Amicus curiae briefs must be the original basis of the Supreme Court’s rulings
Correct Answer
D. Judges should determine the purposes of the writers of the Constitution when deciding the outcome of casesExplanation
The concept of original intent means that judges should determine the purposes of the writers of the Constitution when deciding the outcome of cases. This approach involves interpreting the Constitution based on the intentions and beliefs of the framers at the time it was written. By understanding the original intent, judges can apply the Constitution's principles and values to modern-day cases. This approach is often used by originalist judges who believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution. It allows for consistency and stability in the interpretation of the Constitution over time.Rate this question:
-
- 24.
President Nixon, hoping to move the court toward an attitude of strict construction selected ________________ as the Chief Justice in 1969.
- A.
Earl Warren
- B.
John Marshall
- C.
Warren Burger
- D.
William Rehnquist
- E.
Sandra Day O’Connor
Correct Answer
C. Warren BurgerExplanation
President Nixon selected Warren Burger as the Chief Justice in 1969 with the hope of moving the court toward an attitude of strict construction.Rate this question:
-
- 25.
That the Supreme Court should be an advocate for the under-represented and politically weak would be an argument for:
- A.
Judicial activism
- B.
Judicial restraint
- C.
Judicial review
- D.
Original intent
- E.
Stare decisis
Correct Answer
A. Judicial activismExplanation
Judicial activism is the correct answer because it refers to when judges interpret the law in a way that promotes social and political change, particularly for marginalized and politically weak groups. This approach involves the court actively advocating for the rights of the under-represented and using their power to shape public policy. It contrasts with judicial restraint, which emphasizes a more limited role for the court and deferring to the other branches of government. Judicial review, original intent, and stare decisis are related concepts, but they do not specifically address the court's role in advocating for the under-represented.Rate this question:
-
- 26.
When Alexander Hamilton stated that “the Constitution ought to be the standard of construction for the laws, and ... wherever there is an evident opposition; the laws ought to give place to the Constitution…” he was advocating for:
- A.
Loose construction by the Courts
- B.
Strict construction by the Courts
- C.
The Courts to disregard the Constitution and do what they saw as correct
- D.
Stare decisis in all cases
- E.
Judicial activism
Correct Answer
B. Strict construction by the CourtsExplanation
Alexander Hamilton was advocating for strict construction by the Courts. He believed that the Constitution should be the ultimate guide for interpreting and applying laws. He argued that whenever there is a clear conflict between a law and the Constitution, the Constitution should take precedence and the law should be invalidated. This approach emphasizes a narrow and literal interpretation of the Constitution, without allowing for broad interpretations or expansion of the government's powers.Rate this question:
-
- 27.
The general welfare clause and the necessary and proper clause are used as points of argument for those favoring:
- A.
Judicial professionalism
- B.
Judicial constraint
- C.
Original intent
- D.
Constitutionalism
- E.
Loose constructionism
Correct Answer
E. Loose constructionismExplanation
The general welfare clause and the necessary and proper clause are used as points of argument for those favoring loose constructionism. Loose constructionism is an approach to interpreting the Constitution that allows for broader interpretations and flexibility in applying its provisions. Supporters of loose constructionism argue that the general welfare clause and necessary and proper clause grant the government the power to take actions that may not be explicitly stated in the Constitution but are necessary for the overall well-being of the country. This approach allows for a more expansive view of government power and the ability to adapt to changing circumstances.Rate this question:
-
- 28.
When a justice on the Supreme Court agrees with the opinion of the Court but wishes to announce a different Constitutional or legal basis for the decision, the justice would write a:
- A.
Majority opinion
- B.
Minority opinion
- C.
Concurring opinion
- D.
Dissenting opinion
- E.
Opinion of the Court
Correct Answer
C. Concurring opinionExplanation
A concurring opinion is written by a justice on the Supreme Court who agrees with the overall decision of the Court but wants to provide a different legal or constitutional rationale for that decision. This allows the justice to express their agreement with the outcome while also offering their own perspective or reasoning. It is different from a majority opinion, which is written by the justice(s) who form the majority and sets forth the official legal reasoning of the Court. A minority opinion is written by a justice who disagrees with the majority decision, while a dissenting opinion is written by a justice who disagrees with the majority's legal reasoning. The "opinion of the Court" refers to the majority opinion.Rate this question:
-
- 29.
In order for the Supreme Court to hear a case:
- A.
A lower court must request the hearing
- B.
Four of the justices must agree to hear the case
- C.
A major Constitutional issue must be questioned
- D.
The President must ask for the hearing
- E.
The Chief Justice must want the case to appear on the Court’s Docket
Correct Answer
B. Four of the justices must agree to hear the caseExplanation
Four of the justices must agree to hear a case in order for the Supreme Court to hear it. This means that out of the nine justices on the Supreme Court, at least four of them must vote in favor of granting the case a hearing. This requirement ensures that there is a sufficient level of agreement among the justices before a case is brought before the Supreme Court, helping to prioritize cases and manage the Court's docket effectively.Rate this question:
-
- 30.
Today, most judges are selected by Presidents based on:
- A.
Ideology
- B.
Partisanship
- C.
Judicial experience
- D.
Credentials and their resume
- E.
Friendship with the President before the nomination
Correct Answer
A. IdeologyExplanation
Judges are primarily selected by Presidents based on their ideology. This means that Presidents choose judges who align with their own political beliefs and values. By selecting judges with similar ideologies, Presidents hope to shape the judicial branch in a way that supports their policy agenda and ensures that their preferred interpretations of the law are upheld. This practice has become increasingly important as judicial decisions can have significant impacts on the direction of the country. Therefore, ideology plays a crucial role in the selection process of judges by Presidents.Rate this question:
-
- 31.
Which of the following is NOT true concerning Senatorial courtesy?
- A.
Nominees for the federal bench are not confirmed if opposed by the senator of the President’s party from the home state of the nominee
- B.
Presidents usually contact the Senators from a nominee’s home state prior to making the official announcement to avoid later problems with Senatorial courtesy
- C.
The tradition of Senatorial courtesy places a great amount of power for the nomination process in the hands of the Senators
- D.
Senatorial courtesy is an old fashion tradition which is not always followed by Presidents today
- E.
Senators may invoke Senatorial courtesy without documentation or proof of why a nominee is unfit for the job
Correct Answer
D. Senatorial courtesy is an old fashion tradition which is not always followed by Presidents today -
Quiz Review Timeline +
Our quizzes are rigorously reviewed, monitored and continuously updated by our expert board to maintain accuracy, relevance, and timeliness.
-
Current Version
-
Mar 22, 2023Quiz Edited by
ProProfs Editorial Team -
Feb 13, 2012Quiz Created by
Arippee
- Computed Tomography Quizzes
- EEG Quizzes
- First Aid Quizzes
- GCP Quizzes
- Healing Quizzes
- Mammography Quizzes
- Medical Coding Quizzes
- Medical Term Quizzes
- Medical Terminology Quizzes
- Medical Training Quizzes
- Medical Vocabulary Quizzes
- MRI Quizzes
- Nuclear Medicine Quizzes
- Obstetrics And Gynecology Quizzes
- Pathology Quizzes
- Pathophysiology Quizzes
- Phlebotomy Quizzes
- Pulmonary Quizzes
- Radiography Quizzes
- Radiology Quizzes
- Syndrome Quizzes
- Ultrasound Quizzes
- Vital Signs Quizzes
- Xray Quizzes
Back to top