APGOV final FRQs

(A) Identify the constitutional clause that is common to both Gonzales v. Raich (2004) and United States v. Lopez (1995).

The commerce clause, which grants Congress the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and between the States." Giving the federal government authority over trade across state lines and with other countries, while also limiting states from interfering with that trade, this creates a single national market.

B) Based on the constitutional clause identified in part A, explain why the facts of Gonzales v. Raich led to a different holding than the holding in United States v. Lopez.

In Lopez, the law banned guns near schools, which the Court said was not an economic activity and didn’t have a sufficient connection to interstate commerce, making it unjustifiable under the Commerce Clause. In Raich, even though the marijuana was grown/used in-state, the Court said marijuana is a commodity in a national market, and Congress may regulate even local activity when it could affect that interstate market so Congress could apply the Controlled Substances Act.

(C) Describe an action that California users of medical marijuana might take to limit the impact of the ruling in Gonzales v. Raich.

To limit the impact of the ruling in Gonzales v. Raich, California users of medical marijuana can take actions such as lobbying for changes in state legislation, joining advocacy groups, and engaging in peaceful protests.

(A) Identify a similarity between Morse v. Fredrick (2002) and Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District (1969).

Both cases involve student speech and how the First Amendment applies in a school/school-supervised setting when administrators restrict student expression.

(B) Based on the similarity identified in part A, explain why the facts of the Morse v. Fredrick case led to a different holding than the holding in Tinker.

In Tinker, schools may restrict speech only if it would cause a material and substantial disruption, protecting the armbands under political speech. In Morse, the Court allowed restriction because the message could reasonably be interpreted as promoting illegal drug use, which schools have a strong interest in preventing.

(C) Describe how the holding in Morse v. Fredrick might affect (or not affect) the effort of a high school student to hold an assembly on school grounds supporting the decriminalization of marijuana

A student assembly supporting decriminalization is generally political advocacy, so it is more protected under Tinker unless the school can show likely substantial disruption. Morse would matter mainly if the assembly is presented in a way that the school can reasonably view as encouraging illegal drug use rather than debating policy.

(A) Identify the constitutional provision that is common to both Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and Fisher v. University of Texas II (2016).

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

(B) Based on the constitutional provision identified in part A, explain a difference in the facts of the case between Fisher v. University of Texas II and Brown v. Board of Education (1954).

Brown involved government mandated racial segregation in public schools, violating equal protection. Fisher involved a university using race as one factor among many to pursue diversity, challenging whether this use of race met strict scrutiny.

(C) Explain how the ruling in Fisher v. University of Texas II relates to the principle of a colorblind constitution

A colorblind Constitution states that government should never consider race. Fisher rejected an absolute colorblind approach by allowing limited race-conscious admissions if the policy meets strict scrutiny under equal protection.

(A) Identify the constitutional clause that is common to both Minor v. Happersett and Brown v. Board of Education (1954).

The 14th Amendment,  equal protection and citizenship protections

(B) Based on the constitutional clause identified in part A, explain how the facts of the case led to a different holding in Brown v. Board of Education than the holding in Minor v. Happersett.

In Minor, the Court held that citizenship does not automatically include the right to vote, so states could set suffrage rules. In Brown, the Court held that state-imposed racial segregation in public schools violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment

(C) Describe an action supporters of women's suffrage in the 1870s could take to further their cause after the court defeat.

Supporters could push for a constitutional amendment guaranteeing women’s suffrage or campaign state-by-state to change voting laws, which is what ultimately led to the 19th Amendment.

(A) Identify a difference in a constitutional provision at issue between Smith v. Allwright (1944) and Shaw v. Reno (1993)

Smith v. Allwright centers on the 15th Amendment (racial discrimination in voting/primaries), while Shaw v. Reno centers on the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause (racial gerrymandering claims).

(B) Based on the difference in part A, explain why the holding in Smith v. Allwright is different from the holding in Shaw v. Reno

Smith struck down the “white primary” because the state could not allow a party running primaries under state authority to exclude voters by race, violating voting protections. Shaw did not involve excluding voters from voting, it held that districts drawn predominantly based on race can be challenged under equal protection and may trigger strict scrutiny.

(C) Explain how the ruling in Smith v. Allwright demonstrates the linkage between political parties and government.

Smith shows parties are linked to government because when a party’s primary is conducted under state election rules/authority, it becomes state action, so constitutional limits apply to the party’s primary election practices.