Question 1

A toy manufacturer that has its headquarters and sole manufacturing plant in the state of Green developed a "Martian" toy that simulates the exploration of Mars by a remote-controlled vehicle. It accurately depicts the Martian landscape and the unmanned exploratory vehicle traversing it. The toy is of high quality, safe, durable, and has sold very well. Other toy manufacturers, all located outside Green, developed similar toys that are lower in price. These manufacturers have contracts to sell their Martian toys to outlets in Green. Although these toys are safe and durable, they depict the Martian landscape less realistically than the toys manufactured in Green. Nevertheless, because of the price difference, sales of these toys have cut severely into the sales of the Martian toys manufactured in Green. The Green legislature subsequently enacted a law "to protect the children of Green from faulty science and to protect Green toy manufacturers from unfair competition." This law forbids the sale in Green of any toy that purports to represent extraterrestrial objects and does not satisfy specified scientific criteria. The Martian toy manufactured in Green satisfies all of these criteria; none of the Martian toys of the competing manufacturers meets the requirements.

Is the Green law constitutional?

(A) No, because it abrogates the obligations of the contracts between the other toy manufacturers and their Green outlets who have agreed to sell their Martian toys.

(B) No, because it imposes an undue burden on interstate commerce.

(C) Yes, because it deals only with a local matter, the sale of toys in Green stores.

(D) Yes, because the state's interest in protecting the state's children from faulty science justifies this burden on interstate commerce.

Question 2

The United States Congress enacted a federal statute providing that any state may "require labeling to show the state or other geographic origin of citrus fruit that is imported into the receiving state." Pursuant to the federal statute, a state that produced large quantities of citrus fruit enacted a law requiring all citrus fruit imported into the state to be stamped with a two-letter postal abbreviation signifying the state of the fruit's origin. The law did not impose any such requirement for citrus fruit grown within the state. When it adopted the law, the state legislature declared that its purpose was to reduce the risks of infection of local citrus crops by itinerant diseases that have been found to attack citrus fruit. A national association of citrus growers sued to have the state law declared unconstitutional. The association claims that the law is prohibited by the negative implications of the commerce clause of the Constitution.

Which of the following is the best argument in favor of the state's effort to have this lawsuit dismissed?

(A) Any burden on interstate commerce imposed by the state law is outweighed by a legitimate state interest.

(B) Congress has the authority to authorize specified state regulations that would otherwise be prohibited by the negative implications of the commerce clause, and it has done so in this situation.

(C) The state law does not discriminate against out-of-state citrus growers or producers.

(D) The state law furthers a legitimate state interest, the burden it imposes on interstate commerce is only incidental, and the state's interest cannot be satisfied by other means that are less burdensome to interstate commerce.

Question 3

Florida Airlines flight #1286 was scheduled to fly from Los Angeles, California to Miami, Florida on October 16.  Jennie, a resident of California, was scheduled to visit her grandmother in Miami, Florida for a one week vacation.  Jennie was scheduled to fly on Florida Airlines flight #1286.  The Florida bound plane departed on time and began its flight toward the southeast.  There was one stop in Houston, Texas and another in New Orleans, Louisiana.  Once the plane had completed its stop in New Orleans, Jennie felt the strong desire to smoke a cigarette.  As such, she went back to the rear of the plane and lit up.

As Jennie was enjoying her cigarette, she noticed a sign on the ceiling overhead which read, “Cigarette Smoking Is Illegal On This Flight.”  Unbeknownst to Jennie, Congress had passed a statute, only two months prior to her flight, which banned cigarette smoking on “all passenger and commercial airline flights within the United States.”  Congress, en enacting the statute, felt that flights would be safer as the potential of starting an unwanted fire would be eliminated, or at least reduced.  Congress was presented results from a study which showed that eighty-seven percent of all fires on board aircraft resulted from the butts of cigarettes being disposed of in an improper fashion.  Congress also recognized and cited the Surgeon General’s studies which indicated that “Quitting smoking now greatly reduces serious risks to your health.”  Furthermore, Congress stated, “There is no inherent right to smoke which is granted to citizens by the United States Constitution.” 

Jennie is charged with violating the statute making smoking illegal on the flight.  If Jennie challenges this statute on constitutional grounds, the court should find the statute:

(A)    Unconstitutional, as it takes away ones right to life, liberty, and property in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
(B)    Unconstitutional, as it takes away ones right to life, liberty, and property in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
(C)    Constitutional, because Congress could find that the statute is in the public interest as it acts to protect the health, safety, and welfare of airlines passengers.
(D)    Constitutional, because Congress is exercising its federal commerce power.

Question 4

The Privileges and Immunities Clause is found at Article IV, Section 2 of the United States Constitution.  To which of the following groups does this section apply?

I.    United States Citizens
II.   Aliens
III.  Corporations
IV.  A three year old girl of Mexican descent, born in San Diego, California and currently residing in Arizona.

(A)    I only.
(B)    I and IV
(C)    I, II, and IV.
(D)    I, II, III, and IV.

Question 5

A recently enacted federal statute requires the President to make each appointment of a United States ambassador to a foreign country from a list of three individuals. The list is to be compiled by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and approved by the full Senate in advance of the appointment. The statute also provides that Senate confirmation of the appointment is deemed to occur automatically 30 days after the time the President names an appointee from the list, unless the full Senate determines otherwise within the 30-day period.

Is this statute constitutional?

(A) No, because the statute violates the constitutional requirements for appointment of principal officers of the United States.

(B) No, because the statute impermissibly restricts the plenary foreign affairs powers of the President.

(C) Yes, because the statute is consistent with the constitutional requirement that the presidential appointment of ambassadors be with the advice and consent of the Senate.

(D) Yes, because the statute is a necessary and proper measure in furtherance of Congress’s power to regulate commerce with foreign states.