Constitutional law worksheet with answers

Under section 6 of the UK Human Rights Act 1998, it is unlawful for:

1. ACourts to apply Acts of Parliament
2. BA public authority to act incompatibly with Convention rights
3. CA private person to breach any Convention right
4. DParliament to pass any Act limiting rights

In the United States, the "Bill of Rights" refers to:

1. AThe Declaration of Independence
2. BA statute passed by Congress in the 1960s
3. CThe first ten amendments to the Constitution
4. DThe first article of the Constitution

Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits discrimination:

1. AOnly on grounds of nationality
2. BOnly by private employers
3. CIn every area of life, as a free-standing right
4. DIn the enjoyment of the other Convention rights

In R v Bow Street Magistrate, ex p Pinochet (No 2), the House of Lords set aside its own earlier decision because:

1. APinochet had not been given a lawyer of his own choice at the hearing
2. BOne judge had links to a charity that was a party to the case
3. CThe case had been heard in private
4. DThe judges had made a legal mistake

A bicameral legislature has:

1. AThree chambers
2. BNo elected members
3. COne chamber
4. DTwo chambers

In Soering v UK, the European Court of Human Rights held that extraditing a man to the US to face a possible death sentence would breach Article 3 because:

1. AThe death penalty itself always amounts to torture under Article 3
2. BHe would not receive a fair trial
3. COf the extreme conditions and long wait on death row
4. DThe US is not a party to the Convention

After a court makes a declaration of incompatibility, section 10 of the UK Human Rights Act 1998 allows a minister to:

1. ARefer the case directly to Strasbourg
2. BSuspend the Convention right in question
3. COverrule the court's declaration
4. DAmend the incompatible legislation by a remedial order

People buy TV licences early to avoid a fee increase, and the Home Office threatens to revoke them unless they pay the extra. In Congreve v Home Office, the court held:

1. AThe revocation was lawful under the statute
2. BLicence holders had no legal rights
3. CUsing the revocation power this way was unlawful
4. DThe minister could act for any purpose