Midterm-style essay prompts (ten questions)Preguntas de ensayo al estilo del parcial (diez)
Describe the hierarchy of sources of law in the United States and explain how a Texas judge decides which source governs a contract dispute between two Texans.
AnswerRespuesta: Constitution, federal statutes and treaties, federal regulations, state constitution, state statutes, state regulations and ordinances, and the common law. A Texas contract dispute is governed by Texas law: first any applicable Texas statute (for sales, the Texas version of UCC article 2), then Texas common law as declared by the Texas Supreme Court and courts of appeals; federal law intrudes only if a federal statute or the Constitution is implicated; Restatements and other states' cases may persuade.
- hierarchy in order
- state law governs contracts
- statute first, then state common law
- federal law only if implicated
- secondary authority persuades
Explain the common-law method of precedent and contrast it with the way your home country's courts create binding rules.
AnswerRespuesta: A decision by a higher court binds lower courts in the same jurisdiction on the holding, and later courts distinguish or follow on the facts; one decision suffices, and overruling requires justification. In Mexico, binding jurisprudencia traditionally required five consecutive consistent decisions or a contradiction ruling; since 2021 the Supreme Court's decisions taken by qualified majority bind immediately, which moves the system toward the American model while keeping abstract tesis rather than fact-bound holdings.
- vertical binding force
- holding vs. dictum, distinguishing
- Mexico: reiteration before 2021, binding precedent after
- tesis vs. fact-bound holdings
The President issues an executive order requiring all private employers to adopt a four-day work week during an energy crisis. Analyze its validity.
AnswerRespuesta: Identify the source of authority: no constitutional clause gives the President power over private employment; check for a statute authorizing or forbidding such action. Under Youngstown, if Congress has not authorized, the President is in the twilight zone or, if Congress has legislated the subject differently (the Fair Labor Standards Act sets hours rules), at the lowest ebb; the Commander in Chief and Take Care clauses do not reach the domestic economy. The order is invalid unless Congress delegated emergency power covering it.
- no constitutional source
- look for a statute
- Youngstown zones
- commander in chief and take care clauses do not apply
- invalid absent delegation
Explain Marbury v. Madison and why judicial review matters for the rest of the course.
AnswerRespuesta: Right, remedy, power: Marbury had a right to the commission, mandamus was a remedy, but the Court lacked original jurisdiction because the statute conflicted with Article III, and the Court applied the Constitution over the statute. That power lets courts enforce constitutional limits against Congress, the President and the states, which is the mechanism behind Brown, Loving, Miranda and every rights case.
- three questions
- statute vs. Constitution: Constitution wins
- diffuse review, final through appeal
- foundation of rights cases
Describe how federal and Texas judges are selected and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each method.
AnswerRespuesta: Federal: presidential nomination, Senate confirmation, life tenure and salary protection, giving independence at the cost of democratic accountability and politicized confirmations. Texas: partisan elections for six-year terms, giving accountability at the cost of campaign fundraising, party labels and the impartiality problems discussed in White. A balanced answer mentions merit selection with retention elections as the compromise many states adopted.
- federal appointment and tenure
- Texas partisan elections
- independence vs. accountability
- White and campaign speech
- merit selection as middle path
Explain how the Commerce Clause allowed Congress to prohibit racial discrimination in hotels and restaurants, and why the Fourteenth Amendment could not.
AnswerRespuesta: The Civil Rights Cases (1883) held that the Fourteenth Amendment reaches only state action, so Congress could not use it against private businesses. In 1964 Congress relied instead on the commerce power, and Heart of Atlanta upheld the public accommodations title because hotels serving interstate travelers, and restaurants serving interstate goods, substantially affect interstate commerce in the aggregate; Congress's moral motive was irrelevant to the existence of the power.
- state action limits the Fourteenth Amendment
- commerce power as the alternative
- substantial effects in the aggregate
- motive irrelevant
Explain the three tiers of equal protection scrutiny and apply them to a state law that gives in-state tuition only to citizens, denying it to lawful permanent residents.
AnswerRespuesta: Strict scrutiny for race, national origin and state alienage classifications; intermediate for sex; rational basis for the rest. A state classification by alienage against lawful permanent residents is suspect under Graham v. Richardson and must serve a compelling interest by narrowly tailored means; saving money is not compelling, so the law likely fails, unless the state invokes the political-function exception, which covers jobs like police officers and not tuition.
- three tiers
- state alienage classification is suspect
- compelling interest required; fiscal savings insufficient
- political function exception does not apply
Using Lochner and Loving, explain how the word liberty in the Due Process Clause has been read differently over time.
AnswerRespuesta: In Lochner the Court read liberty to include freedom of contract and struck down a maximum-hours law, substituting its own judgment about economic policy. After 1937 the Court withdrew from economic liberty and, through footnote four, reserved strict review for personal rights and vulnerable minorities. Loving reads liberty as the freedom to marry and protects it strictly alongside equal protection. The same clause, two eras, two ideas of what liberty deserves judicial protection: economic liberalism then, civil-rights liberalism now.
- Lochner: economic liberty
- 1937 retreat and footnote four
- Loving: personal liberty
- same clause, two liberalisms
Explain Miranda, Duncan and Roper as three answers to the question what the Fourteenth Amendment requires of state criminal justice.
AnswerRespuesta: Miranda applied the Fifth Amendment privilege to station-house interrogation and imposed warnings as a condition of admissibility in every state. Duncan incorporated the Sixth Amendment jury right because it is fundamental to the American scheme of justice, forcing states to provide juries for serious offenses. Roper applied the Eighth Amendment's evolving standards to bar executing juveniles in any state. Together they show selective incorporation turning the Bill of Rights into a national floor for state criminal procedure.
- Fifth: warnings
- Sixth: jury incorporated
- Eighth: evolving standards
- incorporation as national floor
Are courts agents of societal change in the United States? Take a position and support it with two cases from the course and one comparison with your country.
AnswerRespuesta: Position: courts can initiate and legitimize change but cannot complete it alone. Brown declared segregation unconstitutional yet needed Brown II, Cooper v. Aaron, federal enforcement and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to change schools. Loving ended marriage bans in sixteen states in one stroke, a case where the judicial order was self-executing. Roper shows the Court following and ratifying a trend among the states rather than leading it. In Mexico the Supreme Court led on same-sex marriage through amparo and jurisprudence from 2015, but each state's code changed only when its legislature acted, which mirrors the American pattern.
- clear thesis
- Brown: needs other branches
- Loving: self-executing change
- Roper: court follows consensus
- Mexican parallel