Political Science 403 Final Exam – Fall 2020 This is a take-home, open-book and open-notes exam. Your exam is to be no more than 15 pages total. Essays must be typed and double-spaced, on 8.5” by 11” paper with 1-inch margins. Please use either Times New Roman 12-point font or Calibri 11-point font. You may discuss topics and study with as many other students as you like before you begin writing your exam, but the written work is to be yours alone. I am looking for polished essays; I strongly encourage you to plan time for editing rather than turning in hastily written first drafts. This exam is due on Canvas by 5:00 p.m. on December 14. Exams may be turned in any time before the deadline. You must submit your exam as a Word or PDF document. Answer both of the following hypothetical questions. Each question is worth 50 points, and the total exam is worth 100 points. Assume you are a U.S. Supreme Court Justice and that the following cases are before you. Do not assume any facts beyond the ones provided. Make sure to have a caption for each case (e.g.: Rodgers v. United States (2020)). In the text of your ruling you must cite all applicable cases (any relevant cases that have not been overruled) by name and year, and you must provide quotes from those cases. You must also quote and interpret relevant constitutional text. Argue to a conclusion in each answer based on your interpretation of the Constitution and these cases. The only cases you may use are the ones discussed in class or that have already been assigned in the course textbook or reading packet. Multiple constitutional issues may exist in each question; make sure you discuss all relevant issues. Finally, you should engage in your own critical thinking and analysis in each case – prove to me that you have thought about this material, not that you are simply regurgitating my lectures. All names and events below are fictional and used solely for the purposes of these hypothetical examples; any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental. Finally, if you would like written feedback on your final exam, please leave me a request for feedback on Canvas when uploading your exam. In the absence of such a request, I will solely provide you with your numerical exam scores on Canvas. (OVER) 1. Congress, becoming increasingly alarmed with unhealthy eating habits by children, holds extensive hearings on the problem. Congress gathers a significant amount of data demonstrating that poor diets among children greatly increase the chances of serious diseases (including diabetes, heart disease, and cancer) in adulthood. Additionally, Congress gathers a large amount of data showing that these health problems lead to children growing up to be less economically productive adults. Finally, Congress finds that as unhealthy children age into adulthood they need to use the health care system more frequently, resulting in much higher costs for the health care system, which is a major segment of the national economy. For these reasons, Congress passes the Salubrious Children Are Better (SCAB) Act, which places requirements on both parents and public school districts. Parents are required to take their minor children to a medical doctor annually for checkups. Parents who fail to meet these requirements and submit proof of their doctor visits when they file their taxes are not eligible for the Child Tax Credit, which normally gives a credit of up to $2,000 to parents for each minor child who lives with them. Clark Kent, a father of seven minor children, files a lawsuit against Lois Lane, the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Kent claims that he is not going to abide by the mandate but also does not want to lose the child tax credits that he has received for years. Kent claims that Congress has exceeded its constitutional authority in the passage of the SCAB Act, arguing that it is both an unconstitutional penalty and an unconstitutional tax. The SCAB Act also mandates that public school districts serve students healthy lunch options; this requirement involves serving low-fat, high-fiber, limited calorie lunches that include whole grains, fruits, and vegetables. The SCAB Act further requires that students must be served broccoli at lunch at least once per week; it also prohibits states from mandating that their schools serve certain foods, like cheeseburgers and pizza. These requirements apply regardless of whether a state receives federal funding or not. In addition, if school districts fail to serve lunches that meet these requirements, Congress mandates that the Department of Health and Human Services must work with the Department of Education to remove half of the state’s federal K-12 public education funding. In Wisconsin, half of its federal K-12 education funding constitutes approximately 15% of the K-12 state education budget and approximately 5% of the total state budget. The State of Wisconsin has its own policy specifying which foods must be served in its public schools, and its nutritional requirements are not as stringent as those under the SCAB Act. Indeed, Wisconsin policy places a higher premium on budgetary concerns, opting for less expensive food that is also less nutritious, higher in calories, and higher in fat than the SCAB Act permits. Lex Luthor, the Wisconsin Superintendent of Public Instruction, files a lawsuit against both Health and Human Services Secretary Lane and Education Secretary Bruce Wayne. Luthor claims that the school mandate violates Wisconsin’s authority over K- 12 education; furthermore, Superintendent Luthor claims that the school mandate exceeds Congress’s spending power. Kent’s case on the child mandate and Luthor’s case on the school mandate are consolidated for review by the U.S. Supreme Court. Assume that the parties have standing. How do you rule? 2. President Tony Stark believes terrorists based in the country of Gilead are poised to conduct an attack on the U.S. that is similar in scale to the attacks on September 11, 2001. President Stark deploys the U.S. military to Gilead and launches a full-scale war in the country. Approximately 100,000 American ground troops are in Gilead as part of the war effort. Troops in Gilead encounter Huey Duck, a U.S. citizen, whom the government believes has previously renounced his American citizenship. Duck is allegedly seen shooting and killing several U.S. Marines, but he is not captured. One month later he is arrested while disembarking an airplane at LaGuardia Airport in New York City. In his luggage, authorities discover materials that can be fashioned into a bomb. The federal government decides to try Duck in the Southern District of New York (the federal trial court based in New York City) for homicide, treason, and conspiracy to commit terrorism. Shortly before Duck’s trial is scheduled to begin, a terrorist attack in New York City temporarily shuts down much of the city, including the federal courthouse for the Southern District of New York, where Duck’s trial was scheduled to take place. The military then transports Duck to an undisclosed location outside of the U.S. Fearing the terrorist attack in New York was a result of the government’s decision to try Duck in federal court, President Stark orders that Duck be tried by a military commission outside of the territorial U.S., at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba. The commission finds Duck guilty of homicide, treason, and conspiracy to commit terrorism; the commission subsequently sentences him to death. Duck claims that his constitutional rights have been violated and files a writ of habeas corpus in federal court. His case is eventually appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the war in Gilead continues. On the 91st day of the war, Congress, disgruntled with President Stark’s actions, decides to invoke the War Powers Act of 1973. Pursuant to the provisions of the Act, Congress passes a concurrent resolution, demanding that all U.S. military personnel be removed from Gilead immediately; Congress further demands in the resolution that all persons designated as enemy combatants in the conflict be released or tried criminally in federal court for any alleged violations of the law. The President refuses to comply with the concurrent resolution, claiming it is unconstitutional. President Stark instead escalates the war and to continues trying enemy combatants at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. In response, members of Congress, led by Senator Bruce Banner, file a federal lawsuit against President Stark and Secretary of Defense Natasha Romanoff, demanding that Congress’s instructions are obeyed. Stark and Romanoff claim the suit is unconstitutional. Assume that the question is justiciable and plaintiffs have standing. As the war continues, Gilead’s capital, Emerald City, falls into the hands of a U.S.-allied rebel group. Due to this, President Stark classifies Emerald City as no longer controlled by Gilead. June Osborn, a U.S. citizen who resides in Emerald City, gives birth to a daughter, Hannah. Osborn goes to the U.S. embassy to request a passport for Hannah; according to U.S. law, a passport issued to a U.S. citizen living abroad should list both the city and country of birth. Osborn wants her daughter’s passport to read, “Emerald City, Gilead,” but under orders from President Stark, Secretary of State Virginia Potts has the embassy issue a passport stating the city of birth as “Emerald City.” Osborn files a lawsuit against Secretary Potts, claiming that Stark and Potts have no authority to deny her request. Huey Duck’s appeal, and the lawsuits against the president and members of his cabinet are now before the U.S. Supreme Court: how do you rule in these cases?