Name: ________________________
Mr. Yasenchok
AP GoPo
Date: _______________
Marbury v. Madison
Instructions:
The following listing represents REQUIRED Supreme Court cases and their holdings as
related to the enduring understandings in the content outline. You must format all 15 cases in the
following way:
1.
Facts:
No more than 3-fingers’ length
2.
Issues:
Constitutional questions
3.
Holding:
Yes or no
4.
Reasoning:
Part of Constitution used
1.
Ruling:
The Court ruled that ___
(holding)
___ according to ___
(Constitution)
___
2.
Dissent:
What justices disagreed and why?
In class, I will regularly ask you for the ruling. Always write the ruling in the
above format.
Always.
EXAMPLE:
Boy Scouts v. Dale
: The Court ruled that
a private organization is allowed, under certain
criteria, to exclude a person from membership (<= holding) through their First Amendment right
(<=
section of the Constitution used to justify ruling)
to freedom of association in spite of state
antidiscrimination laws.
Also, if there are any “tests” or “processes,” you must include those.
CON-2: Federalism reflects the dynamic distribution of power
between national and state governments.
McCulloch v. Maryland
(1819)
Established supremacy of the U.S. Constitution
and federal laws over state laws.
1.
Fax
1.
1816—Congress chartered the Second Bank of the US
2.
State of MD passed legislation that eventually taxed the Second Bank
1.
James W. McCulloch (federal bank manager of MD branch) refused to pay these
taxes
b.
Issues
i.
Did Congress have the authority to establish the bank?
ii.
Did the Maryland law unconstitutionally interfere with congressional powers?
b.
Holding
i.
Yes and yes
b.
Reasoning--
Necessary and Proper Clause & The Supremacy Clause
i.
Ruling -
The Court ruled that Congress had the authority to establish the National
Bank because of the Necessary & Proper Clause AND Maryland could not tax the
Bank based on the Supremacy Clause.
ii.
Dissent- none
Name: ________________________
Mr. Yasenchok
AP GoPo
Date: _______________
Marbury v. Madison
United States v. Lopez
(1995)
Congress may not use the commerce clause to
make possession of a gun in a school zone a federal crime.
Facts: 12
th
grader Alfonzo Lopez, a senior in high school, brought a concealed firearm into his
San Antonio High School. He was charged under Texas law with firearm possession on school
grounds. The next day, the state charges were dropped, and the feds charged him with violating
the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which forbids any individual knowingly carrying a
firearm in a school zone.
Issues: Is the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 unconstitutional because it exceeds the
power of Congress to Legislate under the Commerce Clause.
