Federalism jurisprudence sometimes turns on structural arguments rather than reliance on a single constitutional provision.

All that is needed is answering the 9 questions. These are open discussion questions and do not need to go very far into depth, only enough to answer the question wholeheartedly. Not asking for a whole page response for each question, just enough to get the point across!

1. Analytical Application – Consider the following hypothetical: Responding to a presumed state-sponsored terrorist attack, the president unilaterally engaged the US military in armed conflict against Canada one year ago. The conflict now includes air, sea, and ground campaigns in Canadian territory. Canada denies involvement in the terrorist attack and has repeatedly urged an end to the hostilities, insisting that it will continue to defend itself on Canadian land but will not strike or carry out operations in US territory. Frustrated by the president’s unilateral action and in disbelief of the claim that Canada sponsored a terrorist attack against the US, Congress has repeatedly passed joint resolutions declaring its opposition to the conflict. Now Congress has sued the president in federal court seeking an injunction against further hostile activities, arguing that the president’s actions violate Article I s. 8, which gives Congress the power “to declare war.” The president responds that such military action is allowed under Article II s. 2, which makes the president “commander in chief.” The president also argues that Congress is mistaken in its judgment that Canada did not sponsor the attack, and that Canada’s claim to have not carried out any operations in the US is false. All of this, the president says, is supported by intelligence. Is Congress’s constitutional claim a nonjusticiable political question? Use precedent to analyze the question.

2. Analytical Application – Consider the following hypothetical: Congress passes a law that imposes a nationwide mask covering requirement while people are traveling interstate during any period in which the federal government recognizes an ongoing pandemic. Congress argues that mask coverings will help decrease viral spread, which in turn will increase interstate travel, reduce sick leave from workplaces, and lower unemployment by making severe outbreaks and corresponding business closures less likely. After being convicted of violating this law for refusing to wear a mask covering during a pandemic on a flight from California to New York, an individual, who has been sentenced to one year of probation, challenges the conviction arguing that the mask law violates the Commerce Clause. Evaluate the possible jurisprudential arguments under existing precedent.

3. Analytical Application – Reconsider the hypothetical introduced in first question: Responding to a presumed state-sponsored terrorist attack, the president unilaterally engaged the US military in armed conflict against Canada one year ago. The conflict now includes air, sea, and ground campaigns in Canadian territory. Canada denies involvement in the terrorist attack and has repeatedly urged an end to the hostilities, insisting that it will continue to defend itself on Canadian land but will not strike or carry out operations in US territory. Frustrated by the president’s unilateral action and in disbelief of the claim that Canada sponsored a terrorist attack against the US, Congress has repeatedly passed joint resolutions declaring its opposition to the conflict. Now Congress has sued the president in federal court seeking an injunction against further hostile activities, arguing that the president’s actions violate Article I s. 8, which gives Congress the power “to declare war.” The president responds that such military action is allowed under Article II s. 2, which makes the president “commander in chief.” The president also argues that Congress is mistaken in its judgment that Canada did not sponsor the attack, and that Canada’s claim to have not carried out any operations in the US is false. All of this, the president says, is supported by intelligence. In this iteration, assume the political question doctrine does not apply and that the only question concerns the scope of congressional versus presidential power. Who wins this case?

4. Federalism jurisprudence sometimes turns on structural arguments rather than reliance on a single constitutional provision. Would it be beneficial to be more explicit in the Constitution about the nature of the balance of power between the federal and state governments? If there were to be a constitutional convention devoted to considering “federalism amendments,” what types of amendments might be proposed and how would they change current constitutional understandings?

5. What are your reactions from reading the correspondence between justices in Roe v. Wade?

6. There is not much jurisprudence distinguishing the right to assemble and petition from the broader right to expression protected by the First Amendment’s Speech Clause. Analytically, how could courts distinguish the concepts of speech, assembly, and petition? What factors would be considered under each of these headings when determining whether government action violated the First Amendment? Would distinguishing these concepts impact existing Supreme Court precedent or help clarify the scope of certain rights?

7. Some people are surprised to learn that the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause does not prohibit the federal and a state government from bringing separate charges concerning the same alleged crime. For example, a person who travels across state lines to commit a murder may be charged for the federal crime of murder (as a result crossing state lines) and the state crime of murder in the state in which the murder is committed. Does this seem consistent with the purpose of the Double Jeopardy Clause? What might the justification be for exempting prosecutions by “separate sovereigns” from the double jeopardy prohibition?

8. There is only one Equal Protection Clause and it does not speak to different types of classifications, saying only that “no state shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” In light of this, does the tiers of scrutiny approach make sense in terms of constitutional adjudication? Some justices and commentators have argued no. If it were to be abandoned, how might the Supreme Court go about analyzing the constitutionality of policies under this clause?

9. Given the intense and long-running jurisprudential debate about substantive due process, should the Supreme Court consider abandoning the doctrine while at the same time recognizing that one or more of the potential alternative constitutional sources for protecting unenumerated rights may be more important than previously recognized in Supreme Court precedent? If so, which constitutional provision is most promising? Is there any principled way to constrain judicial decision making with respect to the identification of unenumerated rights that warrant heightened protection from government infringement?