Law And Ethics Mid Term Quiz
Law is very essential to each and every aspect of our lives. Every country around the world has laws and ethics. Find out how well you know the US laws and ethics by taking this quiz. Best of luck!
- 1.
The term jurisdiction refers to
- A.
The party who appeals a court judgment to a higher court. Sometimes called the petitioner.
- B.
A legally enforceable agreement made either orally or in writing
- C.
A body of citizens whose duty is to determine whether probable cause exists to formally charge someone with a crime.
- D.
Authority of government and its courts to make and enforce laws and decide cases. Limited by territorial and subject matter boundaries.
- E.
A motion to dismiss a civil case, alleging that the plaintiff 's complaint fails to state grounds for a valid legal claim.
Correct Answer
D. Authority of government and its courts to make and enforce laws and decide cases. Limited by territorial and subject matter boundaries.Explanation
The term jurisdiction refers to the authority of government and its courts to make and enforce laws and decide cases. This authority is limited by territorial and subject matter boundaries. In other words, jurisdiction determines which court has the power to hear and decide a particular case based on its geographical location and the type of legal issues involved.Rate this question:
-
- 2.
The federal government exercises exclusive jurisdiction over:
- A.
Making treaties with foreign governments, regulate interstate commerce, coin money, declaring war, etc.
- B.
A provision in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution that requires states to treat similarly situated persons in an equal fashion.
- C.
The central legal principle to be drawn from a court decision
- D.
To overturn the judgment of a court.
Correct Answer
A. Making treaties with foreign governments, regulate interstate commerce, coin money, declaring war, etc.Explanation
The correct answer is Making treaties with foreign governments, regulate interstate commerce, coin money, declaring war, etc. This answer is correct because these are examples of powers that are exclusively held by the federal government. These powers are outlined in the Constitution and are not shared with the states.Rate this question:
-
- 3.
Lawsuits concerning federal constitutional rights may be adjudicated in
- A.
US Supreme Court
- B.
US District Court
- C.
Federal Court or State Court
- D.
Federal Court
Correct Answer
C. Federal Court or State CourtExplanation
Lawsuits concerning federal constitutional rights may be adjudicated in either the Federal Court or State Court. This is because federal constitutional rights can be enforced and protected in both federal and state judicial systems. The choice of court depends on various factors, such as the nature of the case, the parties involved, and the jurisdictional limits of each court. Both federal and state courts have the authority to interpret and apply the federal constitution, ensuring that individuals can seek justice and have their rights upheld at either level of the judicial system.Rate this question:
-
- 4.
The final arbiter on all legal questions involving the U.S. Constitution is
- A.
US District Court
- B.
Federal Court
- C.
US Supreme Court
- D.
All of the Above
Correct Answer
C. US Supreme CourtExplanation
The US Supreme Court is the final arbiter on all legal questions involving the US Constitution. As the highest court in the land, it has the authority to interpret and apply the Constitution to resolve legal disputes. The Supreme Court's decisions are binding on all lower courts and have a significant impact on the development of constitutional law in the United States. Therefore, it is the ultimate authority when it comes to legal questions related to the US Constitution.Rate this question:
-
- 5.
The main trial court in the federal system is called the:
- A.
US Federal Court
- B.
US Supreme Court
- C.
District Court
- D.
None of the Above
Correct Answer
C. District CourtExplanation
The main trial court in the federal system is called the District Court. This court is responsible for hearing both civil and criminal cases at the federal level. It is the lowest level of the federal judiciary and handles a wide range of cases, including those involving federal laws, constitutional issues, and disputes between parties from different states. The District Court is the starting point for most federal cases, and its decisions can be appealed to higher courts in the federal system.Rate this question:
-
- 6.
The United States is composed of how many sovereign legal systems:
- A.
20
- B.
1
- C.
50
- D.
100
- E.
51
Correct Answer
E. 51Explanation
The correct answer is 51. This is because the United States is composed of 50 individual states, each with its own legal system, and one federal legal system that applies to the entire country. Therefore, there are a total of 51 sovereign legal systems in the United States.Rate this question:
-
- 7.
The federal and state judicial systems consist of two basic kinds of courts
- A.
Trial an Appellate courts
- B.
Criminal
- C.
Civil
- D.
Both B and C
- E.
None of the Above
Correct Answer
A. Trial an Appellate courtsExplanation
The federal and state judicial systems consist of two basic kinds of courts: trial courts and appellate courts. Trial courts are where cases are initially heard and evidence is presented. Appellate courts, on the other hand, review decisions made by trial courts to determine if any errors were made or if the law was applied correctly. The correct answer is "Both B and C" because trial courts are responsible for both criminal and civil cases, while appellate courts handle appeals from both types of cases.Rate this question:
-
- 8.
Under the doctrine of judicial review, it is the role of each state court system to
- A.
A direct, tangible, legally protectible stake in a legal controversy.
- B.
An appellate court opinion in which one or more judges agree with the majority ruling but state different or additional reasons
- C.
Interpret that jurisdictions constitution
- D.
All of the Above
Correct Answer
C. Interpret that jurisdictions constitutionExplanation
Under the doctrine of judicial review, state court systems have the role of interpreting their jurisdiction's constitution. This means that they have the authority to analyze and understand the meaning and application of the constitution in legal cases. This interpretation is crucial in determining the constitutionality of laws and ensuring that the rights and principles enshrined in the constitution are upheld. Therefore, the correct answer is "interpret that jurisdictions constitution."Rate this question:
-
- 9.
Statutes enacted by the federal government are published in the
- A.
Custom and usage
- B.
Doctrine of judicial review
- C.
Complaints
- D.
Torts
- E.
United States Code
Correct Answer
E. United States CodeExplanation
The United States Code is a compilation of all the federal statutes enacted by the federal government. It is the official publication that contains the laws passed by Congress and is organized by subject matter. This makes it the most appropriate choice for statutes enacted by the federal government. Custom and usage, doctrine of judicial review, complaints, and torts do not specifically refer to the publication of federal statutes.Rate this question:
-
- 10.
Laws passed by federal administrative agencies are published in the
- A.
Preliminary hearing
- B.
Federal Register
- C.
Trial court
- D.
U.S. Courts of Appeals
Correct Answer
B. Federal RegisterExplanation
Federal administrative agencies are responsible for creating and implementing laws and regulations. The Federal Register is a publication that contains these laws, along with proposed rules, notices, and other official documents. It serves as a public record and provides transparency by allowing citizens to access and review the laws and regulations created by federal administrative agencies. The other options, such as preliminary hearing, trial court, and U.S. Courts of Appeals, are not relevant to the publication of laws passed by federal administrative agencies.Rate this question:
-
- 11.
Without the ,common law would simply be a worthless muddle of disjointed rules. ,
- A.
Doctrine of precedent
- B.
Motion to suppress
- C.
Doctrine of judicial review
- D.
Motion
- E.
None of the Above
Correct Answer
A. Doctrine of precedentExplanation
The correct answer is Doctrine of precedent. The Doctrine of precedent is a fundamental principle in common law systems that ensures consistency and predictability in legal decisions. It states that lower courts must follow the rulings of higher courts in similar cases. Without the Doctrine of precedent, common law would lack coherence and be a confusing collection of unrelated rules. This principle allows for the development of legal principles over time and provides stability in the legal system.Rate this question:
-
- 12.
In most jurisdictions, statutes passed by legislative bodies are systematically arranged in bound volumes. These compilations are referred to as
- A.
Torts
- B.
Codes
- C.
Jurisdictions
- D.
Pleadings
Correct Answer
B. CodesExplanation
In most jurisdictions, statutes passed by legislative bodies are systematically arranged in bound volumes. These compilations are commonly referred to as "codes".Rate this question:
-
- 13.
One area that is mainly a criminal matter is the law
- A.
Codes
- B.
Petitions
- C.
Statutes
- D.
Pleadings
Correct Answer
C. StatutesExplanation
Statutes are laws that are enacted by legislative bodies, such as Congress or state legislatures. They are written and codified rules that define and regulate various aspects of society, including criminal behavior. Statutes outline specific acts that are considered illegal and establish the penalties for those acts. They provide a framework for law enforcement agencies and the criminal justice system to enforce and administer justice. Therefore, statutes are directly related to criminal matters and are primarily concerned with the creation and enforcement of criminal laws.Rate this question:
-
- 14.
Promoting ill opinions of government in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was often known as
- A.
Libel
- B.
Seditious libel
- C.
Liabel
- D.
Affirmed
- E.
All of the Above
Correct Answer
B. Seditious libelExplanation
In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, promoting ill opinions of the government was often referred to as seditious libel. This term specifically refers to the act of publishing or speaking words that criticize or defame the government, with the intention of inciting rebellion or discontent among the public. It was considered a serious offense and was often met with harsh punishments, as it was seen as a threat to the stability and authority of the government. Therefore, the correct answer is "Seditious libel."Rate this question:
-
- 15.
One of the first published arguments in favor of freedom of the press was made by the poet John Milton in his book titled
- A.
The Art of Law and Ethics
- B.
Areopagitica
- C.
Relic
- D.
A Divine Justice
Correct Answer
B. AreopagiticaExplanation
John Milton's book titled "Areopagitica" is one of the first published arguments in favor of freedom of the press. In this book, Milton defends the idea that censorship of books is ineffective and unnecessary. He argues that individuals should have the freedom to express their thoughts and ideas through writing without fear of censorship or punishment. Milton's "Areopagitica" is considered a landmark work in the history of freedom of speech and press, advocating for the importance of open and unrestricted discourse in society.Rate this question:
-
- 16.
The First Amendment was for the first time applied to the states in the landmark 1925 case of
- A.
Simon & Schuster v. Crime Victims Board
- B.
Cohen v. California
- C.
Gitlow v. New York
- D.
Brandenburg v. Ohio the Supreme
- E.
New York Times v. Hanlon
Correct Answer
C. Gitlow v. New YorkExplanation
The correct answer is Gitlow v. New York. In this landmark 1925 case, the Supreme Court applied the First Amendment to the states for the first time. Gitlow v. New York involved a socialist who was convicted under a state law for distributing pamphlets that advocated for the violent overthrow of the government. The Court ruled that the First Amendment's protection of free speech applied to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision established an important precedent for the protection of free speech rights at the state level.Rate this question:
-
- 17.
In two recent Supreme Court cases, Wilson v. Layne and Hanlon v. Berger, law enforcement officers brought media along during residential searches. The Court said the government could be liable for
- A.
Transgressing bright lines
- B.
Allowing the media in
- C.
Not liable at all
- D.
Walking in the grayish
- E.
None of the Above
Correct Answer
A. Transgressing bright linesExplanation
The correct answer is "transgressing bright lines." In the context of the given information, the term "bright lines" refers to clear and well-defined boundaries or rules. The Supreme Court stated that if law enforcement officers bring media along during residential searches, it could potentially cross these clear boundaries and result in the government being held liable for their actions. Therefore, the correct answer suggests that allowing the media in during such searches may transgress these clear boundaries.Rate this question:
-
- 18.
What First Amendment standard emerged out of Schenck v. United States
- A.
Clear and present danger act
- B.
Cause of action
- C.
Certiorari
- D.
Majority opinion
Correct Answer
A. Clear and present danger actExplanation
The correct answer is "Clear and present danger act." In the case of Schenck v. United States, the Supreme Court established the clear and present danger test as the standard for determining when speech could be restricted under the First Amendment. This test states that speech can be limited if it presents a clear and present danger of bringing about substantive evils that Congress has the power to prevent. This standard allows for limitations on free speech in certain circumstances, such as during times of war or when there is a direct incitement to violence.Rate this question:
-
- 19.
The U.S. Supreme Court first began to interpret the scope of the First Amendment
- A.
Late 1900s
- B.
1820s
- C.
Mid 1970s
- D.
Mid 1920s
- E.
None of the Above
Correct Answer
D. Mid 1920sExplanation
In the mid-1920s, the U.S. Supreme Court started to interpret the First Amendment and determine its scope. This means that during this time period, the Court began to analyze and understand the extent of the protections provided by the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition. It was a crucial period in shaping the understanding and application of these rights in the United States.Rate this question:
-
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 19, 2023Quiz Edited by
ProProfs Editorial Team -
Oct 23, 2009Quiz Created by
Nagui001
Back to top