Wednesday, March 26, 2008

The Thursday Quiz XXX

The Thursday Quiz!

The Thursday Quiz is an "Is It or Isn't It" game. From the list of twelve items, your job is to determine whether each IS or ISN'T a true example of the week's category.

Remember always the Principle of Common Law:

No research, Googling, Wikiing, or use of reference books. The Thursday
Quiz is a POP quiz. Violators will have to make it on their own.
This Week's Category will take it all the way to, well, you!

Real and Bogus at the (U.S.) Supreme Court

These are all important Supreme Court cases, all right. Except some of them happened more or less as described here, and others have been extruded through the michael5000 plausible nonsense machine. Which ones are correct as described?

1. Marbury v. Madison (1803) The case itself involves relatively trivial issues about the commissioning of Justices of the Peace, but the implications of the case will be huge. In Marbury, the Court asserts its own ability to declare laws unconstitutional. This pretty much defines the role the Supreme Court has filled in more recent times, a role that however has no particular basis in the Constitution.

2. Dred Scott v. Sandford, the "Dred Scott Case" (1857) A Court split largely along regional lines finds that African-Americans who live or have lived in free states are full citizens entitled to equal protection under the law. Because this decision threatens the practice of slavery, it will be a direct cause of Southern succession and the Civil War.

3. The Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v. United States (1890) The Court upholds an Act of Congress that dissolves the Mormon church and authorizes the seizure of its assets and property because of its advocacy of polygamy. Later that year, the church's president has a religious vision that instructs him to denounce the practice. He does, and the LDS church is allowed to reincorporate and retain its property.

4. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) In a case testing state laws that required the separation of blacks and whites in public places, the Court finds that the notion that segregation is in any way unfair is downright silly. For the next 60 years or so, "separate but equal" is the law of the land in the Southern states.

5. Korematsu v. United States (1944) The Court rules that internment camps set up to imprison Americans of Japanese descent during World War II are "an unconscionable violation of citizens' rights" and therefore unconstitutional. Deliberately slow implementation of the Court's order to disband the camps will mean that inmates are released only two weeks before the end of the war.

6. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954) In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court now rejects the idea of "separate but equal" with respects to education. Schooling students separately on the basis of their race, the court says, is an inherently discriminatory practice, and therefore unconstitutional.

7. Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) Considering a seldom-enforced Connecticut law against selling contraceptives, the Court finds the law unconstitutional because it violates a right to privacy that, although never directly stated, is kind of implied by the Bill of Rights.

8. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) The Miranda Case establishes the right of law enforcement officials to search any private or public property whenever a "reasonable person" would suspect that a crime had either just occurred or was "imminent."

9. Roe v. Wade (1972) In a case that turns on the question of whether a fetus is or is not a citizen, the Court decides that it is not, and that therefore the states may not enact any laws restricting the availability of abortion.

10. South Dakota v. Dole (1987) In this case, the specifics of which deal with highway funding and legal drinking age, the Court declares that the Federal government can not under any circumstances use its financial resources -- the so-called "power of the purse" -- to force states to enact particular laws.

11. Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000) The Court determines that the Boy Scouts organization was within its rights to dismiss a gay assistant Scoutmaster. The organization's Constitutional right to freedom of association, which implies the right to exclude as well as include members, was held to outweigh the Scoutmaster's protection, by state statute, against discrimination.

12. Bush V. Gore (2000) Faced with an ambiguous vote in Florida upon which the 2000 Presidential election hinges, the Court dictates that the principle of "One Man, One Vote" and the essential nature of democracy require that every effort be made to determine the correct result of the election. As a result, the nation endures a long, grueling recount before an unambiguous winner of the Florida popular vote is finally declared.


Submit your answers in the comments while the Justices interupt you every five seconds.

24 comments:

karmasartre said...

1 / extruded
2 / correct
3 / I think "The Late Corporation" sang "Rock the Boat". Didn't know they were part of a church. extruded.
4 / extruded
5 / correct
6 / correct
7 / extruded
8 / extruded
9 / correct
10/ correct
11 / correct
12 / If only. extruded
0 / confidence in my answers tonight

Karin said...

1. plausible nonsense
2. plausible nonsense
3. plausible nonsense
4. correct
5. plausible nonsense, was anyone that forward thinking on this issue in 1944, even if slow to act?
6. correct
7. correct
8. plausible nonsense
9. plausible nonsense, is that really the crux of the matter? whether a fetus is a citizen?
10.correct
11.sadly, correct
12.I should know this, but I don't, so a blind guess in case you're being tricksy: plausible nonsense, but not sure about which part.

Cartophiliac said...

1. true - if you don't know this SCOTUS case, you might as well stop now...
2. false - you have this mixed up with Sanford v. Son
3. false
4. true, tho your description sounds off
5. false - I don't think that ever went to SCOTUS
6. true
7. true - ribbed for her pleasure
8. true
9. true
10. false
11. false
12. true

The Calico Cat said...

Sink or Swim, eh?
1 - no
2 - yes
3 - no
4 - yes
5 - yes
6 - yes
7 - yes
8 - no
9 - no
10 - yes
11 - yes
12 - no

d said...

1y 2n 3y 4y 5y 6y 7n 8y 9y 10y 11n 12y

mhwitt said...

1. Is.
2. Isn't.
3. Is.
4. Is.
5. Isn't. Really not sure here.
6. Is. You betchya.
7. Is. I think.
8. Isn't. Miranda v. Arizona actually provides needed dialog filler for Law and Order and CSI.
9. Isn't. Of course, Roe v. Wade is famous as the case the "legalized abortion," but I think your description of the essentials of the decision are wrong.
10. Isn't. I guess...
11. Is.
12. Isn't. I beleive you are expressing your most fervent wish here. Instead the court decided a recount would not give Bush and Gore equal protection under the law, an argument that Bush attorneys almost decided not to present because many of them thought it was rediculous. They also declared counties unconstitutional (in a reductio ad absurdum sort of way.) Think about that the next time you color in a new county on your map, Mr. 5000.

Elizabeth said...

I work in a law office, but am afraid the relevant statutes have not arrived by osmosis in my brain. I swear on the Koran that these are my best guesses:

1. Real.
2. Bogus.
3. Bogus.
4. Real.
5. Real.
6. Real.
7. Bogus.
8. Real.
9. Real.
10. Bogus.
11. Real.
12. Bogus? I don't think "unambiguous" is a word that can be used to describe that event.

Third strike at an exclamation point, and I'm out.

Critical Bill said...

1. True
2. False
3. True
4. True
5. False
6. True
7. True
8. False
9. False
10. False
11. True
12. False

Rebel said...

1. sure
2. is
3. hmmmmm I watched "The Mormons" on PBS and while I do remember the vision that changed their views on polygamy, I don't think it was a supreme court case. I think it was a statehood thing. Isn't
4. sounds familiar - is
5. somehow I think no... if there was a court case I think it would have been much later.
6. isn't? Wasn't this the one about evolution?

Dude - I'm half way through the quiz before I realize this isn't a is or isn't it a supreme courtcase but is or isn't it the way it's described. DANG... those are always harder. Oh well.
7. sure
8. sure
9. nope, I think it had more to do with medical privacy, not citizenship or personhood of the fetus.
10.sure
11. is
12. isn't...I think what they decided was to certify whichever count it was that made W prez. I'm now having horrible PTSD-like flashbacks to that election and everything that has gone wrong since- thanks Michael!

mrs.5000 said...

Oh, dear. If only there were more picture books on this subject. . .
1 yes
2 yes
3 yes
4 yes
5 no
6 yes
7 no
8 yes
9 no
10 no
11 yes
12 no

Rex Parker said...

No idea, so I'll say:

3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12 are wrong.

rp

Sandy said...

1. Is (but that justice of the peace thing just doesn't sound right)
2. Isn't - decision went other way
3. No idea, so I'll say isn't (because things I haven't heard of just don't exist)
4. is
5. Oh, why don't I know this? I suspect it isn't b/c decision went other way?
6. is
7. is
8. isn't - Miranda's problems were about not knowing his rights.
9. isn't, actually based on same privacy right as Griswold
10. um - is??
11. is
12. isn't - recount cancelled!!

CPM said...

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No
4. No
5. Yes
6. Yes
7. No
8. Yes
9. Yes
10. No
11. Yes
12. Yes

DrSchnell said...

1. unextruded
2. extruded, big-time
3. extruded
4. unextruded, sadly
5. unextruded, again sadly
6. unextruded (unless you're yanking our chain with the "unanimous decision" bit)
7. unextruded
8. extruded
9. extruded. Finding is correct, legal reasoning of citizenship is not. It was more a privacy-based decision.
10. extruded
11. unextruded
12. If only! Way extruded.

Rebel said...

" mrs.5000 said...
Oh, dear. If only there were more picture books on this subject. . ."

I just wish we knew a book artist we could ask to do that.... ;)

chuckdaddy said...

No guarantees, but I think I at least have a fighter's chance with this category (assuming M5000 doesn't post the answers right now!)

1 IS
2 ISNT
3 IS
4 IS
5 IS
6 IS
7 IS
8 ISNT
9 ISNT
10 IS
11 IS
12 ISNT

Michael5000 said...

O.K., here goes:

1. Marbury: You Betcha.
2. Dred Scott: Nope. The Dred Scott Case determined that a person of African descent could not be an American citizen. It ~did~ grease the skids towards Civil War, but it did so by undermining the Missouri Compromise.
3. LDS v. USA. Yep.
4. Plessy. Yep.
5. Korematsu: Nope. The Korematsu Case actually determined that there was no legal problem with internment camps, because war is just like that.
6. Brown v. Board: Sure.
7. Griswold: Yes. To reach obvious ends, the Court in Griswold relies on highly dodgy reasoning. (M5K considers privacy a common-sense 9th Amendment issue)
8. Miranda: No. Miranda is the decision that requires that you be read your rights when you are being arrested. If you ever get arrested, that is.
9. Roe v. Wade. No way. Roe has nothing to do with fetal citizenship, and it certainly doesn't ban state regulation of abortion. It is a fascinatingly problematic legal decision, and of course the highest-voltage third rail in American political life. Maybe I should do a glib little critique of it sometime.
10. South Dakota v. Dole. No way. The Feds use the power of the purse constantly and with great glee.
11. BSA v. Dale. Yes.
12. Bush v. Gore. No. The description in the Quiz is the bizarro version of late 2000.

Michael5000 said...

Oyez! Oyez!

mhwitt claimed the TQXXX Gold Star with great authority, sweeping the category with 12/12 and using the phrase reductio ad absurdum for good measure. It's the first Gold in his trophy case.

Critical Bill, his MQXX Exclamation Point hardly out of the package, echos that 12/12 to snag the Silver Star, his first piece of TQ bling.

Sandy grabs her first Blue Star -- her fifth Star overall -- with 10/12, which show of American civic knowledge is especially impressive considering that, as I understand it, she was born in a foreign country. Whoa.

And finally, after a five-week drought of Green Stars, we have two going out today, one to drschnell -- who continues his hot streak with Stars from 5 of the last 8 Thursday Quizzes -- and another to chuckdaddy, whom new fatherhood has kept from much Quiz participation, but who snuck in 4 minutes before the answers were posted tonight to grab his first bling since way, way back in TQIV.

Awesome, people!

Michael5000 said...

@Carto: I think my description of Plessy is about right, for a capsule, but lemme know if you see something specific wrong with it. I love talking about this stuff.

@Calico: "Sink or swim" is a brave statement, coming from a Calico Cat!

@mhwitt: They can take my counties when they pry them from my cold, dead road trips.

@Elizabeth: {joke redacted} I'll tell you live sometime.

@Rebel: She's not really THAT kind of book artist...

@Chuck: I just hope I don't find out that BabyChuckDaddy was helping with this....

Cartophiliac said...

plessy: no, you're right. I misread the question (in fact, I misread the whole premise...)

Rex Parker said...

Sandy is certified to teach US history in this country, so let's not be excessive in our praise.

-Sandy's jealous husband

Critical Bill said...

Two quizzes in a row that I actually have a clue about! I assume it will all be downhill from here.

chuckdaddy said...

It had been so long since I'd medaled, that I had forgotten that I everhad.

Wow, Test Quiz 4, those were the days...

BTW you are the #1 result for internet searches for Michael5000, but for Michael (space) 5000 some DeeJay beats you out. I don't know if there's room in this world for 2 Michael5000's (space or no space). Myabe you guys should have some battle to determine sole ownership.

Michael5000 said...

@Chuck: I discussed my grievances with Michael(space)5000 last October.