Tricky, Tricky: Con Law-PMBR Red Book 61-110

I'm having a much happier day doing Con Law PMBR questions than I was doing Contracts...

Q75. Note that the supremacy clause can NEVER make a law valid. It can only make a law invalid, so answer B is wrong. D is correct only because all the other answers are wrong.

Q78. The right to be a candidate is a fundamental interest. Federal gov't will get involved (i.e. it's not a Guaranty Clause non-justiciable political question).

Q83. The answer explanation doesn't really say why D is wrong, but here's my guess. The 5th Amendment doesn't grant a power of eminent domain (that's a police power) but rather it limits the power by restricting it to public related uses and with adequate compensation, so A is a better answer.

Q85. The answer is D because the actor who passed the amendment was the people themselves, so it's not a police power action of the city, but rather a reservation of power by the people themselves.

Q91. Voluntary prayer recitals during the school day inside the school building should be held to be Establishment Clause violations for the purposes of the multi-state. Seems odd to me because there's lots of facts here to show that this is more like a "meet me by the flag-pole" case than an organized football prayer case, but oh well.

Q92. See Roemer v. Board of Public Works of Maryland (1976). No excessive entanglement because no more interference than the normal audit and accreditation process.

Q98. See Terry v. Adams (1953). Primary election procedures that are racially discriminatory qualify as state action because they are closely supervised by the state and effect right to vote/be elected. Violatory of the 14th/15th Amendments.

Q103. Discrimination against the poor may violate equal protection but not because the poor are a suspect class, rather because the right affected is a fundamental right. I think that's why B is more betterer than A.

Q107. A tricky standing question: who is hurt most directly by the tax? The purchaser of the cigarettes. The appropriation was a nonseverable provision of the law, so if the purchaser invalidates the appropriation, he invalidates the whole law = redress of his injury.