Exam 4: The Constitution: Focus on Application to Business

Which of the following is a key issue in Fourth Amendment cases:

In Wickard v. Filburn, the Supreme Court held that if a farmer only produced wheat to be used on that farmer's property then there is no commerce to be regulated by Congress.

In 1789 the U.S. Constitution became effective after:

Individuals are protected from self-incrimination by:

Among other things, the 14th Amendment protects due process rights and:

The Clean Air Act imposes civil penalties on executives of companies violate air pollution standards. If the government sued an executive for violating this law and asked for $100,000 in civil penalties to be imposed, the executive would have:

The rule of law and the supremacy of Parliament are:

The part of the Constitution that gives Congress the authority to make laws to carry out powers granted to Congress in the Constitution is the:

You are charged with violating federal law because you allowed your factory to emit pollutants into the atmosphere. You may be held liable for $500,000 in civil penalties, which would bankrupt you. You have no right to a jury trial.

The Constitution was amended almost immediately to ensure that there was:

An amendment to the Constitution may be approved to become effective by:

The part of the Constitution that probably has the largest impact on business is knows as:

The Constitution gives Congress the power to tax in:

The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects:

In Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Comm., the Supreme Court held that state utility regulators could impose a restriction on political speech by a business so long as it was narrowly crafted to help achieve a "compelling state interest."

The Fifth Amendment includes:

In Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Comm., the New York utility commission ruled that electric utilities could not advertise to promote the use of electricity. The Supreme Court held that the:

Fact Pattern 4-1 You own Priscilla's Pecans. You employ five people and sell your pecan products in one town in Georgia. Your products are not sold in any other state. The federal government imposes regulations on the pecan industry. The Georgia legislature issues its own safety laws that are stricter than the federal rules. Georgia also places a tax on pecan products made out-of-state because it fears those products will not be as safe as those produced in Georgia under the strict Georgia regulations. The regulations raise the cost of doing business. To register your unhappiness with the Georgia regulations you attach a label to your products that alerts customers to the rules and expresses your view that the rules are unnecessary and too costly. You donate $10,000 to the campaign of Lucinda Snopes, a friend who is running for the legislature. She opposes the pecan law. Buddy Reeves, the county attorney, reads the label criticizing the new safety regulations. He draws up a complaint against you and against Priscilla's for distributing inflammatory statements in commerce. He instructs the sheriff to seize your products in order to stop distribution of your statement, which the sheriff does. You contact attorney Travis Shifflett and ask him to represent you. -Refer to Fact Pattern 4-1. Prosecutor Reeves charges that your $10,000 contribution to Lucinda Snopes is illegal under a Georgia law that prohibits corporations from donating any money to political campaigns. You argue that this law infringes on your constitutional right to freedom of speech. You are:

Dr. Ayau is a new doctor who has just set up a practice in San Diego. She places ads in the papers to tell people that she will see patients and she will be in her office on Sundays. The California Medical Assn. (CMA) moves to strip Dr. Ayau of her license to practice medicine because such ads are unethical. The Supreme Court is likely to say that the CMA:

In Hughes v. Oklahoma, Oklahoma law forbid the export of natural minnows, to help protect the state's natural resources. When this law was challenged, the Supreme Court held that the law was inconsistent with the basic principle that: