Worksheet 6
Follow directions and complete every answer. The questions relate to a few 20
th
and 21
st
century
Supreme Court cases
.
Due December 10.
Questions (5 points each)
1.
According to “Footnote 4” from
U.S. v. Carolene Products
(1938), what types of cases could
receive a higher level of judicial review? Why did “Footnote 4” hold that this higher level of
judicial review was important (this is a New Deal/Great Society Era question)?
Cases that could receive a higher level of judicial review fall into an individuals fundamental rights as well
as cases that pertain to a suspects classification of race, ethnicity, etc.
It was classified as important because it provides greater protection to American’s fundamental rights
and rights for minority groups.
2.
How did the U.S. Supreme Court in
U.S. v. Nixon
(1974) answer the question regarding whether
the U.S. president is above the law (this is a Liberalism Divided Era question)?
They answered the question by ruling that executive privilege was not absolute and could be overcome
in the face of a judicial process. Their decision reinforced the principle that the President is not above
the law in any capacity and must adhere to legal processes and laws.
3.
In one to two paragraphs, how would you compare and contrast William Rehnquist’s (in his “The
Notion of a Living Constitution) and William J. Brennan’s (in his “Contemporary Ratification”)
positions on the living constitution perspective? (This is a Reagan Era question.)
Rehnquist leaned towards a strict, originalist interpretation of the Constitution, while Brennan leaned
towards a more flexible and living constitution perspective that allows for adaptation to society. Their
differing views reflect the broader debate within constitutional law about how the Constitution should
be interpreted and applied in the context of a changing world.
4.
How did the Supreme Court’s majority decision in
Shelby County v. Holder
(2013) shape the
Voting Rights Act, and what the federal government can do to protect voting rights? (This is a
Contemporary Era question.)
The majority decision helped to shape the voting rights act by limiting the governments proactive role in
protecting voting rights and shifted the focus to more real legal challenges after these discriminatory
laws were introduced.
