Can anyone help with these questions?

Question 1 Which of the following forms of alternative dispute resolution is least like the others?

Private judge (not part of the government court system)

Mediation

Arbitration

Hearing Officer deciding the case.

Question 2 Our legal system relies on several components - Constitutions (federal and states), statutes, case law applied by judges, and regulations written by regulatory agencies.

The Constitution is unique in what way, as discussed in the lecture this week?

A Constitution is a law that judges must follow.

A Constitution is a law that is interpreted by judges.

A Constitution is a set of laws that can be changed.

A Constitution is not just a set of laws, but a process for creating law.

Question 3 Miracle-Low Products offers a weight belt that it asserts will help users lose weight. The advertising says that a test group lost an average of 25 pounds in a controlled test. However, the state prohibited the advertising on the grounds that the controlled test actually used employees of the company who wore the belts, but who also limited food intake drastically to achieve the weight loss. If Miracle-Low sues the state, will it win and be allowed to publish the test results?

Yes, if the court finds that the test and advertising is not explicitly or inherently misleading commercial speech.

Yes, if the employees did actually lose the weight as advertised.

No, because commercial speech is not protected.

No, because Commercial Free Speech is not protected.

Question 4 Is the government more likely to prohibit in advance a demonstration in a public area, or to permit the speech to occur, then punish it afterward?

Prohibiting in advance a demonstration in a public area is considered a less drastic infringement on free speech than permitting the speech to occur but then punishing it afterwards.

By definition, the law can only prevent speech, not later punish it. If the speech is permitted, then there can be no punishment afterwards.

Prohibiting in advance a demonstration in a public area is considered no more of a drastic infringement on free speech than permitting the speech to occur but then punishing it afterwards.

Prohibiting in advance a demonstration in a public area is considered a more drastic infringement on free speech than permitting the speech to occur but then punishing it afterwards.

Question 5 The state prison has determined that while female corrections officers will be allowed in many jobs in the state's maximum security prison for men, they will not be allowed to work in jobs that place them in direct contact with male prisoners. Female correction officers have sued the state, arguing that this violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

What legal test should the Federal District Court use to determine if the prison's policy is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause?

The prison policy will be upheld because the prison is subject to the state constitution, not the U.S. Constitution.

The prison policy will be upheld if there is any conceivable basis on which the classification might relate to a legitimate governmental interest.

The prison policy will be upheld only if it is necessary to promote a compelling state interest, and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.

The prison policy will be upheld if it is substantially related to an important governmental interest.

Question 6 In 1992, Florida enacted a statute that required that all ocean-going ships leaving Florida ports for foreign destinations must place any containers with food in them on the bow of the ship, so that ship-related fumes would not get into the containers that have food in them. In 1995, the U.S. entered into a treaty with other nations that provided that all ships must be loaded on a first-in, first-loaded basis, which conflicted with the Florida statute. Is the Florida statute still enforceable after the Treaty was entered into by the U.S.?

Yes, because the Florida statute was enacted earlier than the Treaty.

Yes, because the Treaty is not the type of federal action that can overrule a state law - only federal Constitution and Statutes can do that.

No, because a state law that conflicts with a federal law will always win!

No, because it conflicts with the provisions of the treaty.

Question 7 Savannah Office Systems (SOS) manufactures and sells various office-related computer systems. All sales are to wholesalers located in the same state as Savannah - Georgia. SOS reasons that because it manufactures and sells exclusively within the state, it is not subject to federal regulation under the Commerce Clause. Is SOS correct in this reasoning?

SOS is correct, so long as it does not directly sell to wholesalers or others outside the state.

SOS is correct, but only if it continues to sell only to wholesalers and others in Georgia.

SOS is not correct. It may be subject to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause even though it manufactures and sells exclusively in Georgia.

SOS is not correct because all activities of any kind, whether commerce or not, that occur in the U.S.or its Commonwealths or Territories are subject to the Commerce Clause.

Question 8 The National Association of State Tire Investigators, Engineers and Sellers (NASTIES) discovers certain evidence that suggests the federal government has been using its taxing powers to benefit wheel manufacturers, but not those who manufacture tires. If the evidence establishes an intent to treat one industry more favorably than another through the taxing power, will the NASTIES be able to require the federal government to change the policy to be non-discriminatory?

Yes, discriminatory favoritism is unconstitutional on its face.

Yes, but only if the discriminatory favoritism has a 'substantial impact on interstate commerce.'

No, because the federal government can constitutionally use taxing power to favor some industries and discourage others, as it has done in many cases in the past.

No, because the NASTIES would not be able to establish discriminatory intent, which would be required to overturn the revenue-generating statute.

Question 9 Shooter's Haven Of Tallahassee (SHOT) posted two billboards on its property. One billboard encouraged voters to vote for a pro-gun candidate in the upcoming elections, and the other billboard advertised a newly-opened gun shooting range at the SHOT business location.

The City Council believed that the billboards were controversial and advertised aspects of the community that should not be emphasized - guns and shooting. The City Council voted that the two billboards should come down.

Which of the following is most likely correct regarding the billboards?

The billboard encouraging voters to vote for a pro-gun candidate is likely to remain standing because political speech is given the highest level of protection.

The billboard announcing the opening of the shooting range is more likely to remain standing than the billboard encouraging voters to vote for a pro-gun candidate, because commercial, not political speech, has the highest level of protection.

Based on the information provided, neither sign can be controlled by the government, because it is on private property.

Neither sign will be controlled because it is SPEECH, not signs, that can be controlled.

Question 10 Pat Smith, an employee of Medical Providers Inc (MPI)., a privately owned medical clinic, brought suit against MPI for discrimination based on the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. Pat believed that evidence supports Pat's belief that MPI has systematically and consistently treated Pat adversely, compared to other employees, based on gender. Will Pat win the lawsuit which is brought under the Equal Protection Clause?

Yes, because gender discrimination is unlawful and governed by federal law.

Yes, if Pat is a female. If Pat is a male, then only if reverse discrimination is proved.

The outcome of the suit cannot be determined based on the information provided.

Pat will lose because the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit discrimination against Pat by MPI. It only prohibits discrimination by the government against citizens.