Follow a court's reasoning and where the dissent parts ways

Grade 11 Reading Worksheet - Challenge Me

Circle the best answer.

1. Read this first

   Goods Made by Children (court opinion and dissent)

   Background: [1] A 1916 law of Congress barred factories from shipping goods to other states if, in the thirty days before, they had employed children under fourteen, or children from fourteen to sixteen for more than eight hours a day. [2] Roland Dagenhart, whose two sons worked in a cotton mill in Charlotte, North Carolina, went to court to stop the law. [3] In Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918), the Court struck the law down, five to four; Justice William R. Day wrote for the majority, and Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes dissented. [4] Every quotation is exact, and cuts are marked.

   Column A, the majority (Day): [5] In each of these instances the use of interstate transportation was necessary to the accomplishment of harmful results. [6] …This element is wanting in the present case. [7] …The act in its effect does not regulate transportation among the States, but aims to standardize the ages at which children may be employed in mining and manufacturing within the States. [8] The goods shipped are of themselves harmless. [9] …Over interstate transportation, or its incidents, the regulatory power of Congress is ample, but the production of articles, intended for interstate commerce, is a matter of local regulation.

   Column B, the dissent (Holmes): [10] The objection urged against the power is that the States have exclusive control over their methods of production and that Congress cannot meddle with them, and taking the proposition in the sense of direct intermeddling I agree to it and suppose that no one denies it. [11] But if an act is within the powers specifically conferred upon Congress, it seems to me that it is not made any less constitutional because of the indirect effects that it may have, … and that we are not at liberty upon such grounds to hold it void.

   Word notes: [12] In sentence 5, these instances are earlier cases, cut here, such as one that let Congress bar impure food and drugs from interstate shipping. [13] Interstate commerce is trade between states, and wanting means missing. [14] To standardize is to make the same everywhere, and incidents are the things that go along with it. [15] Conferred means given, and to hold a law void is to declare that it has no force.

2. 1.

   Holmes puts a weakest-link mark on one step in Column A. Which step does Tala find that sentence 11 attacks?

   • Sentence 7: judging the act by its aim, not by what it does to shipping
   • Sentence 12: the earlier cases about impure food and drugs
   • Sentence 8: the goods shipped are harmless in themselves
   • Sentence 9: production inside a state is a matter for the state's own regulation
3. 2.

   Jun marks the weakest link in Holmes's column, as Day would see it. Which premise in Column B would Day reject?

   • That this ban on shipping is within Congress's power over commerce
   • That children should not work long hours in mills
   • That Congress may run the factories of the whole country
   • That states control their own methods of making goods
4. 3.

   Pia adds a commitment row under Column A. If Day's reasoning holds, what else must follow?

   • Congress could bar any goods, whatever the effect on the states.
   • Congress could not bar harmless goods just because of how they were made.
   • The 1916 law could not be enforced against the cotton mill.
   • Congress could not bar goods of any kind from crossing the lines between the states.
5. 4.

   Bo tests Holmes's reasoning on a new case. Which law would sentence 11 commit Holmes to uphold?

   • Bans that Holmes himself thinks are wise and fair
   • A ban on shipping certain goods, even if its real effect falls on factories
   • No ban on goods whose making is a matter for the states
   • A law setting the working hours inside each state's factories

6. Removing a Postmaster (court opinion and dissent)

   Background: [1] In 1917 President Woodrow Wilson, with the Senate's consent, named Frank Myers postmaster of Portland, Oregon, for four years. [2] In 1920 the President removed Myers without asking the Senate, although an 1876 law required its consent to remove such postmasters. [3] A suit for the pay of the rest of the term reached the Supreme Court, which held the 1876 law invalid in Myers v. United States (1926). [4] Chief Justice William Howard Taft wrote for the majority, and Justice Louis Brandeis wrote one of three dissents. [5] Every quotation is exact, and cuts are marked.

   Column A, the majority (Taft): [6] The vesting of the executive power in the President was essentially a grant of the power to execute the laws. [7] But the President alone and unaided could not execute the laws. [8] He must execute them by the assistance of subordinates. [9] … As he is charged specifically to take care that they be faithfully executed, the reasonable implication, even in the absence of express words, was that as part of his executive power he should select those who were to act for him under his direction in the execution of the laws. [10] The further implication must be, in the absence of any express limitation respecting removals, that as his selection of administrative officers is essential to the execution of the laws by him, so must be his power of removing those for whom he can not continue to be responsible.

   Column B, the dissent (Brandeis): [11] The doctrine of the separation of powers was adopted by the Convention of 1787, not to promote efficiency but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power. [12] The purpose was, not to avoid friction, but, by means of the inevitable friction incident to the distribution of the governmental powers among three departments, to save the people from autocracy.

   Word notes: [13] Vesting means placing, to execute the laws is to carry them out, and subordinates are officials who work under someone. [14] An implication is what follows without being said, and express words are words actually written. [15] To preclude is to prevent, and arbitrary power is power with no check. [16] Friction here means disagreement between the branches, and autocracy is rule by one person with unlimited power.

7. 5.

   Milo fills the row both columns can sign. Which premise do Taft and Brandeis both accept?

   • The Constitution splits power among branches, with the executive share in the President.
   • Autocracy means rule by one person with unlimited power.
   • The government should work as smoothly and quickly as it can.
   • The President must be able to remove the officials who act for the President.
8. 6.

   Zee checks a claimed shared row: “Both justices think the framers wanted the branches to clash.” Is that premise shared?

   • No: Brandeis says the plan was to keep the three branches from ever clashing.
   • No: only Taft says friction was part of the plan, in sentence 10.
   • Yes: Taft and Brandeis both say friction was part of the plan.
   • No: only Brandeis says friction was part of the plan, in sentence 12.
9. 7.

   Kira marks Taft's weakest link: the step Brandeis's column most directly denies. Which step is it?

   • Sentence 7: the President cannot carry out the laws alone and needs help.
   • Sentence 14: an implication is what follows without being said.
   • Sentence 6: the executive power is placed in the President.
   • Sentence 10: choosing officers implies the power to remove them alone.
10. 8.

    Ren marks the link that Column B rests on: if it fails, the dissent fails. Which premise is it?

    • That postmasters work better when the Senate approves them
    • That the framers wanted government to run with no friction
    • That the President must choose those who act under the President
    • That the framers split power to block arbitrary rule, not to make work efficient
11. 9.

    Esme tests Taft's reasoning on the 1876 law. What does sentence 10 commit the Court to?

    • The President may remove judges and members of Congress whenever the President likes.
    • Myers was removed from the post in Portland in 1920.
    • Congress cannot require the Senate's consent before such an officer is removed.
    • The Senate must consent before an officer like this is removed.
12. 10.

    Noah tests Brandeis's reasoning on a new law. Which law would sentences 11 and 12 lead Brandeis to defend?

    • A law that makes the President share the removal of officers with the Senate
    • A law that lets the President remove not a single officer
    • A rule that the fastest way to fill a post is the one to use
    • A rule that the President alone removes those who act for the office at any time