Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
24 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
MARBURY V. MADISON |
The Supreme Court of the United States has the authority to review laws and legislative acts to determine whether they comply with the United States Constitution.
|
|
|
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 128 S. CT. 2783 (2008) |
Subject to certain safety limitations, the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution creates an individual right to keep and bear arms apart from any military purpose. |
|
|
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. NOEL CANNING UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 573 U.S. ___ (2014) |
For purposes of the Recess Appointment Clause, the Senate is in session when it says that it is, provided that, under its own rules, it retains the capacity to transact Senate business. D.C. Circuit affirmed. |
|
|
YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. V. SAWYER UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 343 U.S. 579 (1952) |
The President of the United States may not engage in lawmaking activity absent an express authorization from Congress or the text of the Constitution.
|
|
|
UNITED STATES V. CURTISS-WRIGHT EXPORT CORP. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 299 U.S. 304 (1936) |
An otherwise unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the executive may nevertheless be sustained on the ground that its exclusive goal is to provide relief in a foreign conflict. |
|
|
DAMES & MOORE V. REGAN, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 453 U.S. 654 (1981) |
The President has authority to settle claims through executive orders where the settlement of claims is necessary for the resolution of a major policy dispute between the United States and another country and where Congress acquiesces to the President’s action. |
|
|
HAMDI V. RUMSFELD UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 542 U.S. 507 (2004) |
Due process guarantees that United States citizens held in the United States as enemy combatants must be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decision-maker. BOUMEDIENE V. BUSH UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT128 S. CT. 2229 (2008) |
|
|
BOUMEDIENE V. BUSH UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 128 S. CT. 2229 (2008) |
Courts must provide detainees held as unlawful alien enemy combatants a writ of habeas corpus to challenge their detention, or, if a writ of habeas corpus is not available, provide an adequate substitute process to detainees that includes the same procedural protections and opportunities that would be provided in a writ of habeas corpus. |
|
|
EX PARTE QUIRIN UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 317 U.S. 1 (1942) |
The United States Congress and President, through the Article of War and Executive Orders, may constitutionally place unlawful combatants on trial before a military commission for offenses against the law of war.
|
|
|
MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 17 U.S. (4 WHEAT.) 316 (1819) |
The Constitution specifically delegates to Congress the power to tax and spend for the general welfare, and to make such other laws as it deems necessary and proper to carry out this enumerated power. Additionally, federal laws are supreme and states may not make laws that interfere with the federal government’s exercise of its constitutional powers. |
|
|
GIBBONS V. OGDEN UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 22 U.S. (9 WHEAT.) 1 (1824) |
If a state and Congress both pass conflicting laws regulating interstate commerce, the federal law governs pursuant to Congress’s constitutional grant of power to regulate interstate commerce. |
|
|
UNITED STATES V. E.C. KNIGHT CO. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 156 U.S. 1 (1895) |
Congress may not use its general powers under the Commerce Clause to regulate manufacturing. . |
|
|
CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 298 U.S. 238 (1936) |
Congress may not regulate a purely local act under its Commerce Clause powers. |
|
|
HOUSTON, EAST & WEST TEXAS RAILWAY CO. V. UNITED STATES (THE SHREVEPORT RATE CASES) UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 234 U.S. 342 (1914) |
Congress may regulate operations in all matters having a close and substantial relation to interstate traffic, to the efficiency of interstate service, and to the maintenance of conditions under which interstate commerce may be conducted upon fair terms. |
|
|
A.L.A. SCHECHTER POULTRY CORP. V. UNITED STATES UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 295 U.S. 495 (1935) |
Congress may not delegate legislative power to the executive without outlining strict standards for how the executive is to exercise that power. |
|
|
HAMMER V. DAGENHART UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 247 U.S. 251 (1918) |
Congress may not use its Commerce Clause power to regulate child labor in the states as this is a purely local matter. |
|
|
CHAMPION V. AMES UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 188 U.S. 321 (1903) |
The trafficking of lottery tickets across state lines constitutes interstate commerce that may be prohibited entirely by Congress under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. |
|
|
NLRB V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 301 U.S. 1 (1937) |
Congress may regulate labor relations under its Commerce Clause power because labor relations have such a close and substantial relationship to interstate commerce that their control is essential to protect that commerce from burdens and obstructions. |
|
|
UNITED STATES V. DARBY UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 312 U.S. 100 (1941) |
Congress may regulate the labor standards involved in the manufacture of goods for interstate commerce and may exclude from interstate commerce any goods produced under substandard labor conditions. |
|
|
WICKARD V. FILBURN UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 317 U.S. 111 (1942) |
Congress may regulate local activity if that activity exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce. |
|
|
HEART OF ATLANTA MOTEL, INC. V. UNITED STATES UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 379 U.S. 241 (1964) |
Congress may enact regulations that prevent racially discriminatory policies in hotel accommodations because of the negative effects of those policies on interstate commerce. |
|
|
KATZENBACH V. MCCLUNG, SR. & MCCLUNG, JR. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 379 U.S. 294 (1964) |
Congress may regulate the discriminatory policies of restaurants through Title II of the Civil Rights Act if those policies have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. |
|
|
NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES V. USERY UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 426 U.S. 833 (1976) |
The Fair Labor Standards Act as applied to state employers is unconstitutional as a violation of the Tenth Amendment. |
|
|
GARCIA V. SAN ANTONIO METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 469 U.S. 528 (1985) |
Congress’s application of the Fair Labor Standards Act to the employment actions of a state municipal transit authority is a constitutional exercise of its Commerce Clause power. |
