Foundations of American Democracy unit test
A test on this unit alone, marked as a percentage and a letter grade — for the test your class is actually sitting, rather than for May. Answer everything, then submit once: seeing the answer to question 3 before attempting question 4 makes the final percentage meaningless.
Natural rights
Commerce clause
Elite democracy
Social contract
Categorical vs block grants
Three-Fifths Compromise
Letter from a Birmingham Jail
Fiscal federalism
Necessary and proper clause
Great Compromise
Tenth Amendment
Federalist No. 10
Short answer 1. Define or explain: Shays' Rebellion
3 ptsShort answer 2. Define or explain: Federalism
3 ptsShort answer 3. Define or explain: Supremacy clause
3 ptsShort answer 4. Define or explain: Federalist No. 70
3 ptsFree response
4 ptsSCOTUS COMPARISON. This question compares a case you studied with one you did not. Summary of the non-required case: Gonzales v. Raich (2005). California voters legalized the cultivation and use of marijuana for medical purposes under state law. Angel Raich and Diane Monson grew small quantities of marijuana at home for their own medical use, in full compliance with California law, and federal agents destroyed Monson's plants under the federal Controlled Substances Act. They sued, arguing that Congress lacked power under the commerce clause to reach marijuana that was never bought or sold and never crossed a state line. The Supreme Court held that Congress could regulate the local cultivation and use of marijuana, reasoning that homegrown marijuana is part of a national market in a fungible commodity, that permitting exemptions would frustrate the enforcement of the broader regulatory scheme, and that Congress could rationally conclude the aggregate effect of such local activity would substantially affect interstate commerce. The required case for comparison is United States v. Lopez (1995), in which the Court struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act, holding that possessing a firearm near a school is not economic activity and that upholding the statute would leave no principled limit on federal power.
A. Identify the constitutional provision that is common to both Gonzales v. Raich and United States v. Lopez.
B. Explain why the facts of United States v. Lopez led to a different holding than the holding in Gonzales v. Raich.
C. Describe an action that a state government that disagreed with the holding in Gonzales v. Raich could take to limit the practical effect of the decision.