Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
16. Is the new statute constitutional?
In the wake of massive terrorist attacks carried out inside the United States by foreign citizens, Congress declared war on the terrorists' nation of origin. It also passed a statute requiring every alien who is a citizen of the enemy nation to either immediately leave the United States voluntarily or be subject to deportation. An inseverable provision of the new statute provides that the United States Supreme Court will have original and exclusive jurisdiction over any action brought to challenge the validity of the statute.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
Congress has the general power to decide what types of cases the U.S. Supreme Court may hear, as long as it doesn't expand the Court's original jurisdiction beyond the federal judicial power as established by Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).
Under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, «The Congress shall have power to. .. establish a uniform rule of naturalization.»
A is correct. Article III of the Constitution provides that the Court has original jurisdiction over cases involving foreign ambassadors, cases involving other public ministers and consuls of foreign countries, and cases in which a state is a party. The Court has held that Congress cannot give the Court original jurisdiction over any other type of case. See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). The statute at issue is therefore unconstitutional because it purports to give the Court original jurisdiction over deportation issues, which are not among those provided for in Article III.
B is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. The statute is unconstitutional because it improperly grants original jurisdiction to the Court over issues not designated in Article III. However, this answer is also incorrect because the Court has held that statutes creating classifications on the basis of alienage do not violate equal protection requirements if the classification is not arbitrary and unreasonable. This is not a demanding burden of justification. The deportation requirement at issue would likely be rationally related to protecting national security during wartime.
C is incorrect. Although Congress has broad power to control immigration and naturalization under Article I, Section 8, the statute here violates Article III because it purports to give the Court original jurisdiction over cases that are not among those provided for in Article III. As explained above, the Court has held that Congress may not give the Court original jurisdiction over any other type of case.
D is incorrect. Article III states, «In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make» (emphasis added). Therefore, Congress has the power to make exceptions to and regulations of the appellate jurisdiction of the Court, but Congress cannot give the Court original jurisdiction over cases other than those provided for in Article III. See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).