TWEAK ALERT: This quiz was recently created from thin air and a box of pizza, and thus the members of the Federalist Society are still tweaking the language and nuances of the questions and answers. If you have a suggestion or comment regarding this quiz, please email Jake at j-laforet@onu.edu. And another box of pizza would be much appreciated too. Thank you!

The state governments are in the best position to be proponents of the people's interests.
I agree.
No, the federal government should be the best proponent.
No, the Supreme Court should be the best proponent.
No, the president should be the best proponent.

Judges must say what the law IS, not what it SHOULD be.
I agree.
I mostly agree, though some exceptions should be appropriate.
I mostly disagree, since judges should have the power to reflect the will of society.
I disagree. Judges should take an active role in crafting the law as times change and not merely be a human equivalent of a Westlaw search.

It is better for the federal government to uniformly enforce laws on social issues (abortion, marriage, gun control, drugs, etc) than to allow the all the state governments uncontrolled autonomy to create their own laws on the issues.
I agree.
I mostly agree, since the consistency of law will improve American society as a whole, but some local state exceptions to the federal laws should be allowed.
I disagree. It is better for states to craft their own social laws which reflect the will of their citizens rather than the federal government imposing "one-size-fits-all" laws on all states.
The federal and state governments are corrupt puppets of the hidden regime! ¡VIVA LA REVOLUTION!

The Constitution is a living document that is is flexible with the changes in society.
I agree.
I mostly agree. A 200 year old legal document cannot completely relate to today's modern issues, so we must interpret the language of the Constitution to adapt to the needs of contemporary society.
I mostly disagree. The Founders might not have envisioned today's issues, but a literal interpretation of the Constitution is mostly relevant for our needs.
I disagree. The Constitution is a fixed legal document, not an evolving organism, and our country is best served by faithfully following the Founder's intent and meaning of the Constitution's language.

A vacancy appears in the Supreme Court, and in time a debate ensues over the newly selected nominee, who politically is very conservative (or conversely, very liberal). Some argue that the nominee's personal political views will impact future Supreme Court decisions in sensitive cases, such as a future case involving a woman's right to choose abortion. What say you?
The personal political views of a justice should not be the focus, as the justice should determine the case under the strict guidance of the law and Constitution, and not by personal beliefs.
It is important to maintain the political balance of the Supreme Court, to prevent it from slipping too conservative or too liberal, so that its decisions mirror the will and intent of the people of the United States.

Which of the following should be the BEST source of protection of our rights?
Executive branch.
Judicial branch.
Legislative branch.
This here Molotov cocktail.

The Supreme Court has a role of policy making.
I agree.
I somewhat agree. The Supreme Court should shape policy on certain social issues like abortion and free speech.
No, the Supreme Court should avoid policy making unless absolutely necessary.
The Supreme Court should NEVER make policy, but only interpret established law.