The Concept of Judicial Review
| Description: This quiz will test your understanding of the concept of judicial review, which is the power of a court to review and overturn laws and government actions that are deemed to be unconstitutional. | |
| Number of Questions: 15 | |
| Created by: Aliensbrain Bot | |
| Tags: judicial review constitutional law separation of powers |
What is the purpose of judicial review?
-
To ensure that laws and government actions are in accordance with the constitution.
-
To interpret the constitution and determine its meaning.
-
To resolve disputes between different branches of government.
-
To protect the rights of citizens.
Judicial review is a fundamental principle of constitutional law that allows courts to review and overturn laws and government actions that are deemed to be unconstitutional. This power is essential for ensuring that the government does not exceed its authority and that the rights of citizens are protected.
Which court has the final say on the constitutionality of laws and government actions?
-
The Supreme Court of the United States.
-
The highest court in each state.
-
The federal district courts.
-
The court of appeals.
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the land and has the final say on the constitutionality of laws and government actions. Its decisions are binding on all other courts and government agencies.
What is the doctrine of stare decisis?
-
The principle that courts should follow precedent.
-
The principle that courts should interpret the constitution in a way that is consistent with its original meaning.
-
The principle that courts should give deference to the decisions of other branches of government.
-
The principle that courts should decide cases based on the facts and circumstances of each case.
The doctrine of stare decisis is the principle that courts should follow precedent, or the decisions of higher courts. This doctrine helps to ensure that the law is consistent and predictable.
What is the difference between judicial review and judicial activism?
-
Judicial review is the power of courts to review and overturn laws and government actions that are deemed to be unconstitutional, while judicial activism is the practice of courts interpreting the constitution in a way that expands its meaning.
-
Judicial review is the power of courts to review and overturn laws and government actions that are deemed to be unconstitutional, while judicial activism is the practice of courts interpreting the constitution in a way that is consistent with its original meaning.
-
Judicial review is the power of courts to review and overturn laws and government actions that are deemed to be unconstitutional, while judicial activism is the practice of courts giving deference to the decisions of other branches of government.
-
Judicial review is the power of courts to review and overturn laws and government actions that are deemed to be unconstitutional, while judicial activism is the practice of courts deciding cases based on the facts and circumstances of each case.
Judicial review is the power of courts to review and overturn laws and government actions that are deemed to be unconstitutional. Judicial activism is the practice of courts interpreting the constitution in a way that expands its meaning. Judicial activism is often controversial, as it can lead to courts making decisions that are not supported by the text of the constitution.
What are some of the arguments in favor of judicial review?
-
It ensures that the government does not exceed its authority.
-
It protects the rights of citizens.
-
It helps to ensure that the law is consistent and predictable.
-
All of the above.
Judicial review is an important check on the power of the government. It helps to ensure that the government does not exceed its authority, that the rights of citizens are protected, and that the law is consistent and predictable.
What are some of the arguments against judicial review?
-
It gives too much power to the courts.
-
It can lead to unelected judges making decisions that are not supported by the majority of the people.
-
It can lead to gridlock in government, as the courts can overturn laws that have been passed by the legislature.
-
All of the above.
Judicial review is a controversial topic. Some people argue that it gives too much power to the courts, that it can lead to unelected judges making decisions that are not supported by the majority of the people, and that it can lead to gridlock in government. However, judicial review is also an important check on the power of the government and helps to protect the rights of citizens.
Which of the following is NOT a type of judicial review?
-
Facial review.
-
As-applied review.
-
Constitutional avoidance.
-
Strict scrutiny.
Constitutional avoidance is not a type of judicial review. It is a doctrine that allows courts to avoid deciding the constitutionality of a law by interpreting it in a way that avoids the constitutional issue.
What is the difference between facial review and as-applied review?
-
Facial review is the review of a law on its face, while as-applied review is the review of a law as it is applied to a specific case.
-
Facial review is the review of a law by a lower court, while as-applied review is the review of a law by a higher court.
-
Facial review is the review of a law by a state court, while as-applied review is the review of a law by a federal court.
-
Facial review is the review of a law by a court of general jurisdiction, while as-applied review is the review of a law by a court of limited jurisdiction.
Facial review is the review of a law on its face, meaning that the court considers the law itself and not how it is applied in a specific case. As-applied review is the review of a law as it is applied to a specific case, meaning that the court considers how the law affects the rights of the parties in the case.
What is strict scrutiny?
-
A level of judicial review that is applied to laws that burden fundamental rights.
-
A level of judicial review that is applied to laws that burden suspect classifications.
-
A level of judicial review that is applied to laws that are rationally related to a legitimate government interest.
-
A level of judicial review that is applied to laws that are narrowly tailored to achieve a legitimate government interest.
Strict scrutiny is a level of judicial review that is applied to laws that burden fundamental rights. Under strict scrutiny, the government must have a compelling interest in the law and the law must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.
What is intermediate scrutiny?
-
A level of judicial review that is applied to laws that burden suspect classifications.
-
A level of judicial review that is applied to laws that are rationally related to a legitimate government interest.
-
A level of judicial review that is applied to laws that are narrowly tailored to achieve a legitimate government interest.
-
A level of judicial review that is applied to laws that are supported by a rational basis.
Intermediate scrutiny is a level of judicial review that is applied to laws that burden suspect classifications. Under intermediate scrutiny, the government must have an important interest in the law and the law must be substantially related to that interest.
What is rational basis review?
-
A level of judicial review that is applied to laws that are rationally related to a legitimate government interest.
-
A level of judicial review that is applied to laws that are narrowly tailored to achieve a legitimate government interest.
-
A level of judicial review that is applied to laws that are supported by a rational basis.
-
A level of judicial review that is applied to laws that are supported by a compelling interest.
Rational basis review is a level of judicial review that is applied to laws that are rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Under rational basis review, the government does not need to have a compelling interest in the law and the law does not need to be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.
Which of the following is an example of a law that would be subject to strict scrutiny?
-
A law that prohibits the free exercise of religion.
-
A law that creates a racial classification.
-
A law that regulates the sale of alcohol.
-
A law that imposes a tax on cigarettes.
A law that prohibits the free exercise of religion would be subject to strict scrutiny because it burdens a fundamental right.
Which of the following is an example of a law that would be subject to intermediate scrutiny?
-
A law that creates a racial classification.
-
A law that regulates the sale of alcohol.
-
A law that imposes a tax on cigarettes.
-
A law that requires businesses to provide health insurance to their employees.
A law that creates a racial classification would be subject to intermediate scrutiny because it burdens a suspect classification.
Which of the following is an example of a law that would be subject to rational basis review?
-
A law that regulates the sale of alcohol.
-
A law that imposes a tax on cigarettes.
-
A law that requires businesses to provide health insurance to their employees.
-
A law that prohibits the use of fireworks.
A law that regulates the sale of alcohol would be subject to rational basis review because it does not burden a fundamental right or a suspect classification.
What is the difference between a facial challenge and an as-applied challenge?
-
A facial challenge is a challenge to the constitutionality of a law on its face, while an as-applied challenge is a challenge to the constitutionality of a law as applied to a specific case.
-
A facial challenge is a challenge to the constitutionality of a law by a lower court, while an as-applied challenge is a challenge to the constitutionality of a law by a higher court.
-
A facial challenge is a challenge to the constitutionality of a law by a state court, while an as-applied challenge is a challenge to the constitutionality of a law by a federal court.
-
A facial challenge is a challenge to the constitutionality of a law by a court of general jurisdiction, while an as-applied challenge is a challenge to the constitutionality of a law by a court of limited jurisdiction.
A facial challenge is a challenge to the constitutionality of a law on its face, meaning that the court considers the law itself and not how it is applied in a specific case. An as-applied challenge is a challenge to the constitutionality of a law as applied to a specific case, meaning that the court considers how the law affects the rights of the parties in the case.