CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - Professor Moskovitz

FINAL EXAM - Spring, 1998

Closed Book. You have 3 hours to complete this entire exam.

To: My legislative intern
From: California Assemblyperson Gregory Graft

A group of orange growers from my district has asked me to introduce some bills which might help them. If someone challenges their constitutionality, how will the court rule on each? If you need more information, let me know what it is and why it matters. If I might amend the bill to give it a better chance of being upheld, tell me how to amend it.

Bill #1 would say: "All public and private schools in California must buy oranges grown only in California, for their school lunch programs." 

This, of course, will enable California growers to sell more oranges.

Bill #2 would say: "The importation of any oranges into or through California from another state is forbidden, unless they are first inspected to ensure that they do not have `orange crud disease' - the costs of inspection to be paid by the importer."

Orange crud disease has ravaged California orange groves in the past, but the state is free of the disease at present. The bill would cover oranges which are shipped from another state into California for sale in California, and also oranges which are shipped through California from one state to another (e. g., from Florida through California to Oregon, by rail or truck).

Bill #3 would say, "No oranges may be offered for retail sale in California unless such oranges were picked from the tree within 7 days before such offer for sale."

This would ensure that California consumers receive only the freshest oranges. By assuring consumers that they are always getting fresh oranges, this should increase demand (and, of course, prices).

Also, as it takes 3 days for Florida oranges to reach California by rail or truck, this would allow California grocers only 4 days to sell Florida oranges, but about 6 days to sell California oranges. So grocers might prefer to buy California oranges (and might be willing to pay more for them).

QUESTION 2 (50 points)

Iowa Penal Code §987 provides as follows: "Any person who has sexual intercourse with any unmarried person is guilty of fornication, a misdemeanor, which is punishable by up to 6 months imprisonment in county jail." Other Iowa statutes provide for a full criminal trial (with right to counsel, trial by jury, etc.) for anyone charged with any crime.

In 1998, Congress enacted the "Sexual Freedom Act of 1998," which provides:

§1. Congress finds that many states have enacted laws which unduly interfere with the rights of persons to control their own sexual behavior. This includes persons who are travelling through a state

§2. No state law shall prohibit sexual behavior between consenting adults (18 years of age and older).

§3. Congress has consulted constitutional law experts regarding the constitutionality of this statute and has finally determined that it is in fact constitutional. Any court which reviews the constitutionality of this statute shall be bound by this determination.

Jack and Jill are unmarried law students in Iowa. Jack asked Jill to have sex with him. Jill said, "Well, I'm not sure I want to. I like sexy litigators, but all you care about is boring old property law. But we can't anyway, because it's against the law. As a law student, I am ethically obligated to obey all laws." Jack files suit in Iowa state court against the State of Iowa for a declaratory judgment stating that Iowa Penal Code §987 is unconstitutional.

How should the Court rule?

Have a nice summer!