Examination number _________________
UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI‑COLUMBIA SCHOOL OF LAW
Constitutional Law, 520L
Professor Carl H. Esbeck Fall Semester 2004
Directions to Part II B Essay
(1 hour and 30 minutes)
Write your answer in the bluebook provided. Use a pen with blue or black ink. Write on only one side of each page. Do not write in the left-hand margin. Do not tear pages out of the bluebook.
Arrange your answers in the bluebook in sequential order; that is, put Question 1 first, then Question 2, and etc. If you want to skip over a Question and come back to it later, leave a page or two blank and begin the next Question.
Place your examination number in the upper right-hand corner of this examination. When finished, return both your bluebook and the examination questions.
* * * Part II Begins on the Next Page * * *
PART II -- Essay (1 hour and 30 minutes)
Question One (5 minutes): What is the relationship, if any, between sovereign immunity and the U.S. Constitution? Explain.
Question Two (25 minutes): With reference to Brentwood Academy v. Tenn. Secondary School Athletic Association, Casebook Supp. page 169, assume the TSSAA has a rule that high school coaches cannot complain to the press or public about bad officiating at varsity football and basketball games. There is no rule against praising the officiating. If a high school coach at a member school breaks the rule, he or she incurs a $400 fine and is suspended from coaching at the next game. Does the TSSAA rule violate the constitutional rights of coaches whose teams may be the victim of biased officiating? Explain.
Question Three (15 minutes): The news article below appeared in the October 23, 2004, Columbia Daily Tribune. Assume the illumination of the Gateway Arch came to pass as described. Further assume that on February 1, 2005, the National Park Service director receives a request to illuminate the Arch in green for St. Patrick's Day, March 17, 2005. Is it unconstitutional to refuse the request? Explain.
Question Four (20 minutes): Abortion remains one of the most controversial issues in constitutional law. Putting such controversy aside, it has been said that the U.S. Supreme Court's current position is clear and straightforward, best expressed as follows:
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a pregnant woman has a fundamental right to choose to bear or beget a child. That right is a negative liberty found in the substantive aspects of the Due Process Clauses in the 5th and 14th Amendments. Complex questions of personhood and prenatal life aside, how the woman arrives at her moral position is not open to being probed or challenged. If the pregnant woman does not want to carry the unborn child to full term she has a right, exercisable up to birth, to secure an abortion. It comes down to the pregnant woman's will-not her reasons-only her naked will, pure and simple, nothing more and nothing less.
Is this a correct statement of the current constitutional law? Explain. [Note: the question does not ask if you agree or disagree with the Court. The question asks only if the statement above is correct.]
Question Five (5 minutes): Does separation of powers play a role in safeguarding constitutional rights? Explain.
Question Six (20 minutes): In our constitutional republic, the U.S. Supreme Court is the "watch dog" of last resort charged with keeping other governmental units from exceeding their constitutional authority and failing in their constitutional duties. But how does the U.S. Constitution respond, if at all, to the question, "Who watches the watch dog?" And is it the Supreme Court's ultimate duty to keep all other governmental units from exceeding their authority in all circumstances? Explain you answer to each question.
* * * End of Examination * * *
Return both your bluebook and the examination questions.