Week 9 Quiz

A state court refuses to enforce a statute because the statute conflicts with the state constitution. Which job of the judicial function is the court doing?

Select one.

• Checking another branch, a job that exists only where the power has been established
• Resolving a dispute between two neighbors over where a property line runs
• Interpreting whether a park rule covers electric scooters in one case
• Legislating, because the court writes a replacement statute that removes the conflict with the state constitution

In Brenmoor, a country invented for this course, the government carries out court rulings it dislikes. Which idea does that statement describe?

Select one.

• Judicial review, because the court holds the power to set acts aside
• Jurisdiction, because the statement says which court hears which case
• Judicial independence, through compliance by the other branches
• Concentrated review, because one court holds the power alone

Which statement about Article III of the U.S. Constitution is accurate?

Select one.

• Section 2 names judicial review as one of the powers of the supreme Court
• It vests "The judicial Power of the United States" in one supreme Court and never names judicial review
• It lets courts strike down an act of Congress only by a two-thirds vote of the justices
• It gives the power to set aside federal laws to the state courts rather than to the supreme Court, subject to an appeal

In Marbury v. Madison (1803), what did the Court hold about issuing the writ Marbury asked for?

Select one.

• It ordered the commission delivered at once, because Marbury had a right to it
• It held that Marbury never had a right to the commission in the first place
• It held that Marbury had a right to the commission but that the law offered him no remedy
• It held that it could not issue the writ, because the statute granting it original jurisdiction conflicted with Article III

This course pins three Supreme Court cases. Which one is the case about scope: implied powers and federal supremacy?

Select one.

• McCulloch v. Maryland
• Marbury v. Madison
• Brown v. Board of Education
• The Federalist No. 78

In Calvany, a country invented for this course, any court hearing an ordinary lawsuit may refuse to apply a statute it finds unconstitutional. Which architecture of judicial review is this?

Select one.

• Concentrated review, because the power sits with the courts
• Abstract review, because the court rules before any dispute arises
• Diffuse review, because any court may use the power in an ordinary case
• Parliamentary sovereignty, because no single document binds the legislature

Which statement about concentrated, Kelsen-model review matches this course?

Select one.

• It marks a court as authoritarian, since one court holds the power alone
• It is a design choice many liberal democracies use, and neither architecture is more democratic by fiat
• It means that every trial court may strike down laws in ordinary cases
• It was the arrangement established for the United States by Marbury v. Madison

Federalist No. 78 (1788) says the judiciary has "neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment". Which reading of this fragment matches this course?

Select one.

• It is a normative verdict that the courts ought to be abolished
• It is the counter-majoritarian difficulty as Bickel later named it, the worry that unelected judges override elected majorities
• It is the holding of Marbury v. Madison in the opinion's own words
• It is an empirical-leaning claim about the judiciary's design, offered inside an argument for protecting it

A case citation such as 5 U.S. 137 is enough, on its own, to confirm that a quotation a chatbot attributes to that case is real.

True or false.

• True
• False

Which statements describe arguments in the counter-majoritarian debate as this course presents them? Select all that apply.

Select every option that applies.

• Proponents of robust review argue from precommitment: a people binds its future self to rules it chose in a calmer moment
• Bickel's book settled the debate by proving that judicial review is undemocratic
• Proponents of robust review argue from minority protection: some rights should not depend on winning a vote
• Marbury v. Madison settled the debate by ruling that courts must defer to majorities
• Critics respond with the juristocracy worry: too many value questions move from voters to judges