Con Law Final - Donoho Quiz
Questions - Practice Test Questions
and Answers 2024 Update Graded A+
Congress wishes to enact legislation prohibiting
... [Show More] discrimination in the sale or rental of housing on
the basis of the affectional preference or sexual orientation of the potential purchaser or renter.
Congress wishes this statute to apply to all public and private vendors and lessors of residential
property in this country, with a few narrowly drawn exceptions.
The most credible argument for congressional authority to enact such a statute would be based
upon the:
A. Commerce clause of Article I, Section 8, because in aggregate, the sale or rental of almost all
housing in this country could reasonably be deemed to have a substantial effect on interstate
commerce.
B. General welfare clause of Article I, Section 8, because the conduct the statute prohibits could
reasonably be deemed to be harmful to the national interest
C. Enforcement clause of the Thirteenth Amendment, because that amendment clearly prohibits
discr ✔✔A. Commerce clause of Article I, Section 8, because in aggregate, the sale or rental of
almost all housing in this country could reasonably be deemed to have a substantial effect on
interstate commerce.
Company wanted to expand the size of the building it owned that housed Company's
supermarket by adding space for a coffeehouse. Company's building was located in the center of
five acres of land owned by Company and devoted wholly to parking for its supermarket
customers.
City officials refused to grant a required building permit for the coffeehouse addition unless
Company established in its store a child care center that would take up space at least equal to the
size of the proposed coffeehouse addition, which was to be 20% of the existing building. This
action of City officials was authorized by provisions of the applicable zoning ordinance.
In a suit filed in state court against appropriate officials of City, Company challenged this child
care center requirement solely on constitutional grounds. The lower court upheld the requirement
even though City officials presented no evidence and made no findings to justify ✔✔C.
Unconstitutional, because the burden was on City to demonstrate arough proportionality between
this requirement and the impact of Company's proposed action on the community, and City
failed to do so. [Show Less]