we could not determine which stock was more volatile since the maximum amount of price change over equal durations were the same for both
exponential or parabolic
Isn't it parabolic in t his example, since y'' = cte ?
This is because the bands are adjusted with respect to actual price action over a certain period of observation
Period of observation which is the band's periodicity ?
confirmation in the near or front month futures contract
Crypto -> expiration des contrats futurs ?
bearish chart patterns within a falling channel and bullish chart patterns with a rising channel.
Strange since it's the opposite for wedges, and wedges resemble channels quite a lot ?!
rising channel meeting its minimum one‐to‐one downside price objective.
Is a rising channel bearish ?
It cannot be projected into the future for potential barrier levels.
WHY???
Many of the failed buy signals found on the chart in Figure 12.15 would have been successfully avoided or filtered out had the reversal entry breakout tech-nique been employed
WHY ???
Reversal entry breakout -> return to the mean ?
Figure 12.11 is an example of tuning the fixed percentage bands to a domi-nant cycle on the four‐hour chart of GBPUSD. The trough‐to‐trough cycle period was 133 bars. Using the third formula would also yield ((2×133) +3)/4 = 67.25. Rounding to the closest integer would give us 67 periods or bars
Does this mean that the central line is the 67 lookback period and that we obtain the bands by fixed perccentage (here 1.3%, cf. Fig. 12.11) ?
Figure 12.4
The diagonal channel is static and not dynamic ??
Price below the central value is a bearish indication, but price below the lower band is considered much more bearish. Similarly, price above the central value is a bullish indication, but price above the upper band is considered much more bullish.
How can this be when the price is also supposed to reintegrate the bandwidth ?
Notice that un-like double and triple detrending, which tends to remove lag between the oscillator and price, double and triple smoothing increases the price lag.
What is the difference between detrending and smoothing ?
double detrending reduces the lag components between price and the oscillators
WHY ???
igure 11.21
Serious lag issue, no ?
seven-period
Why 7 and not 3 as indicated page 260 ?
nine-period
what does a nine-period EMA mean ??
Periods 2/Exponential Weighting Ratio 1
no lag with respect to price
But we need to know future information since it is located in the middle of N bars => we need to know N/2 bars in the future. That's why there's no lag !!
THE HAnDbook of TEcHnIcAl AnAlySIS436In technical analysis, the average price is usually positioned at the last right-most bar on the chart, that is, at the current bar. This is the non-centered or end-displaced version of a moving average. It is technically incorrect to place the average price at the last bar, but in technical analysis this is done because it is being used as a barrier to price, that is, as potential levels of support and resistance, it is able to interact with price. Although there is no price lag in the centered version, the moving average does not extend to the most recent bars and therefore cannot provide a barrier to price.
WHY ???
Expansion
Projection ?
In 1795, the German philologist Friedrich August Wolf published a book, “Prolegomena to Homer,” arguing that the Iliad and the Odyssey could not have been composed all at once in the form we know them now.
What questions do your kids have about the Covid-19 vaccine? (n.d.). CNN. Retrieved 3 November 2021, from https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/02/us/sesame-street-covid-town-hall-questions/index.html
extra
Extra what?
begins to be paid down on a monthly basis at a 50% rate, those credits may still be used towards Quarterly Love Credit quotas.
Does this mean people are paid out at a 1/2 rate? What (if anything) incentivizes people to "cash out" here? Or is the purpose to get people to keep their shares in the org?
private entities can sponsor the work needed to design and carry out the DisCOlarship.
With this kind of sponsorship, do you envision that some of the funds will go towards creating infrastructure or being piped into the DisCOs account to pay out other folks that aren't directly involved in the training process?
The three scenarios are:
what if someone walks away from the process and has no desire to continue working with DisCOs?
unlike value tracking for contributors, it's not expected to be either latent or unfulfilled.
I think this sentence helps convince people that are interested in DisCOlarships, but may disuade people interested in contributing. the "expectation" for the credits to be unfulfilled. Question that pops to mind, why track my hours if there is an expectation that nothing will ever come of it?
it is much easier to record contributions according to grade and measure. If you're not familiar with those terms, it basically means "quantity and quality".
why not just say "quantity and quality" here?
DisCOLarships
Why is the L capitalized and not the rest of the word?
1 DisCOLarships: Where individuals regularly "visit" the DisCO.NP to learn about DisCO culture and structure in the real world, get to know the people, etc. There are minimal responsibilities and the DisCOLar is free to start their own DisCO afterward or join the same DisCO they have trained in. 2 The DisCO Dating Phase: Where potential members make a firm commitment to go through the DisCO.NP's mentoring and training program in order to become committed members or DisCONauts. There are considerable, consented-upon responsibilities on the part of the DisCO Dating Member and the DisCO-NP itself during this process.
The difference between these two options is not immediately clear.
Is it that the DisCOLar path is oriented towards creating new DisCOs and the dating is oriented towards joining the mothership?
The DisCO Applications Program includes DisCO Governance Model templates for:
Do these templates already exist? Do we have orgs that we can pilot these templates with?
Other organizations wanting to become a LAB
Are these organizations that have reached out to DisCO Mothership, or are these orgs that y'all feel would be good DisCOs?
mirror balls
What is a mirror ball?
Figure 10.76
Retracement or Expansion ?? How do we differentiate both of these ??
Fibonacci retracement levels (measured across the range AB)
QUESTION : Is the paper version correct ?
diagonally. As a consequence, Fibonacci channel expansions will yield dif-ferent results depending on the type of scaling used on the charts.
diagonal -> time effect -> depends on scaling of the chart
BC
WHY ??? Peut-être car en cas de double possibilité, on ne considère de préférence la plus petite ?
Extension
Isn't it rather an expansion where the up after point B fails and goes lower than the previous trough at B ?
extensions
expansion instead ??
signal line
moyenne mobile ?? Oui, cf. page 246
Current and Prior Larger Trends
What are the current and prior larger trends ? Aren't they the same as wave degree ??
violating point 1
How do we determine this horizontal line for point 1 ?
points 1 and 2
???
Remember that slope and reverse divergence are mutually exclusiv
Why ???
jacent peak to peak and trough to trough analysis.
cf. p. 271 et Fig. 9.22
devoid of any visible peaks and troughs (F
Why aren't there any waves in Fig. 9.8 ?
reverse bearish
So when we look at peaks, the price indicates the trend when there is a disagreement between price and signal, however when it's troughs, the signal expresses the upcoming trend ???
To construct these pivot points, first find the previous day’s typical price. This represents the next day’s pivot level, PP
??? https://www.dummies.com/personal-finance/investing/floor-trader-pivots-and-trend-trading/
stochastic
What is the stochastic ?? Réponse : cf. page 259 ! (c'est le %K et %D)
stochastic action
What is the stochastic ?? Réponse : cf. page 259 ! (c'est le %K et %D)
The difference between the previous close and the current high ■ The difference between the previous close and the current low
Que dans le cas où il y a des gaps non ?
this coincidence of buy and sell signals by both oscillators in the chart example in Figure 8.7 above creates false consensus and may lead the trad-er into a false sense of confidence
But in this case (Fig.8.7), the signals are correct ??
Equivolume
What is equivolume ?
TRIN advances/declines / Up Volume/Down Volume=( ) ( )
???
It is important to note that overextensions in volume can signal either a top or a bottom. Extreme buying and selling activity generates volume and can result in either a top or bottom. That is the reason why we cannot use the terms overbought or oversold with respect to volume extremes unless we are able to associate volume with either a top or bottom formation. Therefore, although we are able to pinpoint overextensions in volume, it is only possible to identify overbought or oversold lev-els in volume after a top or bottom has already formed, that is, in retrospect
???
Selling Climaxes
If the top is marked by a blow-off in the volume chart, then the following volume candles will be of smaller size, indicating a trend reversal ?
3 takeaways from the emergence of the ‘Delta Plus’ coronavirus variant. (2021, October 27). STAT. https://www.statnews.com/2021/10/27/3-takeaways-from-the-emergence-of-the-delta-plus-coronavirus-variant/
My mistake was thinking I could be anythingother than hungry.My mistake was thinking I could be anything other
three lines three different way to interpret. to be anything to be anything other than XXX to be anything other (is this the same as to be anything else? )
Lying motionless
Accessing memory but failing just like trying to get a glimpse through a curtained window. Lying motionless here and now? Or when every one was afraid? Is the terrible effort the effort to access memory?
lent
strange strange verb here; Lent to whom from the daughter?
His
First instance of using third person "Him"?
to liaison
Liaison is not really a verb but still one can connect, one can make phonetic connection between words or social connection, often illicit, between peoples. What does this mean?
doppelgänger
What does this mean?
the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create
Is this the foundational argument for the Supremacy Clause? For this example, does this mean if the states had the power to influence federal programs or policies, that the powers delegated to the federal government would be redundantly delegated?
which might disappoint its most important designs
What is meant by "most important designs"? Is it meant that the state governments are supposed to depend on the federal government and not vice versa? If so, that seems to go against the core contractual aspect of federalism.
component parts
What is meant by "component parts" here? Are they the states? Are they the powers given to the federal government by the Constitution?
is not supreme.
When do state laws take effect over federal laws? How do you know when which is supreme? or vice versa?
But if the full application of this argument could be admitted, it might bring into question the right of Congress to tax the State banks, and could not prove the rights of the States to tax the Bank of the United States.
Based on the relationship between State, banks, and General Government, is this suggesting a contradiction or non mutual relationship between the 3 in this line of argument?
every argument which would sustain the right of the General Government to tax banks chartered by the States, will equally sustain the right of the States to tax banks chartered by the General Government.
Is this relationship between State, banks, and General Government rooted in reciprocity or mutual responsiblity?
No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American people into one common mass. Of consequence, when they act, they act in their States.
Why is where the assembly took place relevant to the case and why exactly are they defending it?
Its means are adequate to its ends, and on those means alone was it expected to rely for the accomplishment of its ends.
This whole phrase is really confusing me? I'm not able to even figure out what any of the parts mean, could anybody help me out?
CONFIDENCE.
Is this something that is actively being said? If so, is this something that was yelled a little but louder? Or was this only written and capitalized for effect.
We
I saw "we" being mentioned throughout this whole thing but I'm still a little bit confused as to where the introductions would be. Is this just assumed or am I missing something?
but by people over whom they claim no control.
Is this suggesting that if States were allowed to tax the Federal Government, would States hold power and authority over citizens outside of their state? Would State laws apply universally?
incompatible with the language of the Constitution.
How exactly is the necessity of resorting to mean which it cannot control not compatible with the language outlined in the Constitution?
thus leaving the question whether the particular power which may become the subject of contest has been delegated to the one Government, or prohibited to the other, to depend on a fair construction of the whole instrument.
Is this suggesting that there is isn't any sort of protocol for when certain issues arise that causes question on what government has authority over said issue?
It is true, they assembled in their several States—and where else should they have assembled?
When assembling in their states, did they form permanent locations to meet or was it a random?
But if the full application of this argument could be admitted, it might bring into question the right of Congress to tax the State banks, and could not prove the rights of the States to tax the Bank of the United States.
Is this saying that the federal government can tax the states, but the states cannot tax the federal government?
This is, we think, the unavoidable consequence of that supremacy which the Constitution has declared.
A lot of this argument seems centered around the idea that the people, via its representatives, declared the Constitution has supreme power over states. In this, a State (and by extension, representatives of the people) is arguing the apparent supremacy of the federal gov't over the state, doesn't this contradict the argument of the Supreme Court a bit, that the will of the people was for a federal gov't to hold supreme over state?
The people of all the States have created the General Government,
A lot of what we've read up to this point make it seem like the Supreme Court acts as a kind of voice for the Constitution, that it would interpret and enforce the objectives of it. It's never felt like a branch that was representative of the people. Does the Supreme Court ever act or treat itself as representative of the people, or does it more view itself as a representation of the Constitution?
It was reported to the then existing Congress of the United States
I'm assuming he means with this line, the congress as it existed under the Articles of Confederation. My question is why bring up this quick history recap? Is it to argue that the States, in ratifying the Constitution and the new Federal government, were granting that the Federal Government held a certain amount of power of them? Something else?
The Constitution of our country, in its most interesting and vital parts, is to be considered, the conflicting powers of the Government of the Union and of its members, as marked in that Constitution, are to be discussed, and an opinion given which may essentially influence the great operations of the Government....
Does Marshall regularly define the scope of the case like this at the start of his decisions? I don't recall anything similar in Marbury v Madison.
The powers of the General Government, it has been said, are delegated by the States, who alone are truly sovereign, and must be exercised in subordination to the States, who alone possess supreme dominion.
Does Maryland grapple with the idea that the sovereignty and power of the states comes from the people in its argument that the Constitution receives its power from the states, as opposed to the people?
The Government of the Union then ... is, emphatically and truly, a Government of the people....
What's the deal with these ellipses? Is there actual text omitted? Or did Marshall literally include these marks in his writing?
we shall find it capable of changing totally the character of that instrument
I don't understand what this is saying? So on the basis of Marylands contends it changes the meaning of what the Bank means in the constitution?? I'm not sure if I even read it correctly the end of the sentence isn't making sense to me. Changes the character of what instrument? Constitution?
the Bank of the United States is a law made in pursuance of the Constitution, and is a part of the supreme law of the land....
What does this mean? so the bank of the united states is inherently also the supreme law of the land?
the instrument,
Whats the term "instrument" referring to here? the constitution? or the creation of it?
Taxation, it is said, does not necessarily and unavoidably destroy.
Taxation seems to be a big pinpoint of this argument. In history we have seen many problems with "taxation without representation" or misuse of taxing in this case, but we also see problems today with people not agreeing with where the tax money goes, or especially problems with getting tax returns. Do you think taxation is going to continue being a problem?
may be carried into execution, would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. It would probably never be understood by the public.
I am lost here. Is this referring to the idea that if the constitution had every subdivision of rules stated that it would not be embraced by human kind and that it would never be understood by the public? Because wouldn't a constitution with accurate details be the most accepted to the public?
Among the enumerated powers, we do not find that of establishing a bank or creating a corporation
While the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land, obviously the Constitution does not outline every possibility of things that happen within society (like the establishing of a bank or creating a corporation). Is the creation of something or a situation where things happen due to the lack of guidelines in the constitution common? Do you think it is fair that new rules and regulations be made in addition to there being none directly stated about these given situations?
Would the people of any one State trust those of another with a power to control the most insignificant operations of their State Government?
This question is more a thought for questions. Do you think that this idea of one government have power over another government issues still stand in to days modern world? or do you think that states and governments the the US are more lacs about this issues then they where in 1819?
quieting the excessive jealousies
Is here referring to the jealousies of the states to the federal government or the federal government to the states? Who in this scenario is the jealous party leading to the creation of the 10th amendment?
"this Constitution, and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof," "shall be the supreme law of the land,"
For clarification is Marshal saying that since the people told the states that they wanted a federal government, that the states have to abide by the federals governments laws and rules? He pointes out that the states may see them selves as sovereign states, but since the people agree to the federal government the states also have to follow it?
They did not design to make their Government dependent on the States....
Would the dependence on the states be referring to the states making money for the national government by creating the taxes?
The argument on the part of the State of Maryland is not that the States may directly resist a law of Congress, but that they may exercise their acknowledged powers upon it,
Wouldn't that be unconstitutional? To not abide to the laws enacting by congress? Isn't it up to the Judiciary to interpret the acknowledged powers?
which another Government may furnish or withhold
Is 'another government' directly referring to the state vs. the national government?
Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves.
At the end of this where it states 'deduced from the nature of the objects themselves' - the objects themselves are the individual states and people in those states, correct? So if there was no mention of the laws regarding bank taxes of states in the constitution, but the grand power of the law is saved for the people, which influence the government, makes me wonder- was this creation of Maryland's bank and bank tax, at all ever voted on by the people? Or was it 'secretly' created and decided by the government of the state alone?
Though any one State may be willing to control its operations, no State is willing to allow others to control them
So here it sounds to me like it is certain that the states have sovereign power to create their laws, but wouldn't that directly conflict with the constitution being the supreme law of the land? Or is "no state is willing to allow others to control them" specifically speaking to something I'm missing?
But is this a case of confidence?
What constitutes a case of confidence? Is Marshall saying here that the national and state governments need to just have confidence in one another that there will be no abuse of power from either end? When does the Court decide a case is to be considered a case of confidence?
the power of establishing a branch in the State of Maryland might be properly exercised by the bank itself,
This section confuses me. Is Marshall saying here that not only can the government create a national bank, but they can delegate powers to this bank for it to exercise? Or is it saying that the State of Maryland, where the bank will be established, is to delegate powers to this national bank?
incidental or implied
If Marshall is saying what I think he is saying here, could technically any "power-move" the national government makes be considered an implied power, if not prohibited by the Constitution? Would it just depend on how the justices perceive it, at the time of the conflict?
But the two cases are not on the same reason.
Kind of seperate, but do federal buildings pay taxes to the state they are in? Or to the government? Or do they pay at all? If they dont does that mean that the state tax payer does?
That the power to tax involves the power to destroy;
Definitely seems like a major quote. Is he basically saying that this would give state governments the power to destroy the federal government?
and that the Constitution leaves them this right, in the confidence that they will not abuse it....
"In the confidence that they will not abuse it" I feel like that is a big leap of faith to make. It seems as though states could drag an issue like this on and on, especially if they are in an opposing party than the president or something like that. Is there a sort of double jeopardy type thing to ensure this doesn't happen? or are there examples of this happening frequently?
unanimously of opinion
In the Epstein text, it says that one of the seven Supreme Court Justices, Thomas Todd, did not participate in the decision. So it was unanimous, but only among 6 of the 7. I wonder why Todd didn't participate? Does anyone know from the text or other history?
burden,
This word choice seems dangerous in how vague it is. A lot of actions that a state might take could be defined as "burdening" a law enacted by Congress. Who decides what is a burden? I wonder if there have been cases that have happened since that argue over whether a state action is a "burden" to a national government function? Or if this part of Marshall's argument has ever been used as precedent for the federal government to stifle state power?
had experienced the embarrassments resulting from the insertion of this word in the Articles of Confederation
Is the "embarrassment" Marshall is referring to here the events of Shay's Rebellion? We know that the invention of Federalism was specifically an attempt to remedy the pitfalls of the Articles of Confederation, and that the Articles created a weak central government. I remember reading about Shay's Rebellion that the national government found themselves unable to fund troops to be sent to counter the Rebellion. Is that because the power to send national troops into states was not "expressly" delegated to the US government? Or are there other "embarrassments" that arose from this part of the Articles, especially seeing as Marshall made "embarrassments" plural?
We shall find it capable of arresting all the measures of the Government, and of prostrating it at the foot of the States.
I feel like this is a tad dramatic. How would allowing Maryland to tax a government institution arrest "all the measures of the Government"? I understand that taxing the bank would likely lead to the closing of that bank - but how would it interrupt the rest of our governence?
This, then, is not a case of confidence, and we must consider it is as it really is.
I feel like I've been lost in this paragraph. I'm not entirely sure what is trying to be said here?
The Government of the United States, then, though limited in its powers,
Does anyone else feel that it is a stretch to say that Constitution = the government? I understand completely where they are coming from, and agree that it makes sense to have an overarching government, but this statement here feels like a stretch.
what is the conventional way
The breakdown of water involves a rearrangement of the atoms in water molecules into different molecules,
Why would hydrogen and oxygen need to be separated for?
Other policies simply tar-geted black communities for iso-lation and demolition. The postwar programs for urban renewal, for instance, destroyed black neigh-borhoods and displaced their residents with such regularity that African-Americans came to believe, in James Baldwin’s mem-orable phrase, that ‘‘urban renewal means Negro removal.’
QUESTION- this whole passage and this quote in particular took me by surprise because I was not aware of the fact that the very roads we travel on were built as a means of segregation- and it brings me to the question of what other everyday things we don't think twice about could have been originally intended as a means of separation?
It is the culture of acquiring wealth without work, growing at all costs and abusing the powerless.
QUESTION - This culture has been built in America on the basis of slavery, but has it also occurred elsewhere in the world? Most countries don't have everyone working an amount proportional to the wealth they possess, so what was the basis of this culture in other places in the world?
Employees were ‘free’ to negotiate a work contract to their liking within the context of accepting the ‘prerogatives’ of managers to organised and remunerate their efforts as they saw fit (Fox, 1974).
, why did focus groups virtually disappear from the social sciences during the next three decades?
1( Merton et al., 1990) - used focus groups just to examine reaction to media propaganda - didn't publish.
to gain an understanding of thescope of payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTs) in Illinois municipalitie
What's the scope of PILOTs in Illinois municipalities How to explain the PILOTS in Illinois municipalities generate less revenue that what's typically seen?
Covid-19 Vaccine Resource Center. (n.d.). Https://Www.Nejm.Org. Retrieved July 19, 2021, from https://www.nejm.org/covid-vaccine
Vaccines for children: Your questions answered. (n.d.). Retrieved October 1, 2021, from https://www.unicef.org/parenting/health/parents-frequently-asked-questions-vaccines
that the individual who considers himself injured
I am also confused what they mean by injured in this conclusion
"I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons,
Similar to Taylor I am also confused on what they mean with the comment "without respect to other persons". How does this translate when it comes to the rest of the statement.
It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank.
Now that Marshall observes the supreme law of the land to be the constitution, this makes me wonder how the Judiciary Act of 1789 was passed when it altered the original jurisdiction that was written in the constitution. Did the creators of the this act not consult or care about the constitution?
This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
When deciding a case, how is being able to disregard the constitution part of judicial duty? Isn't that the backbone for making laws in this country? It the court's duty to determine if the laws are constitutional or not.
It seems only necessary to recognize certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it.
Is this saying that the court must put the Constitution first, over an act of congress? Are the principles, which are being referred to, those in the Constitution? If not, what are they?
My question is, wye is a sanitary tee directional? I maintain that a two way sweep would be a more efficient vent.
Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? If it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?
This concludes Marshall's habit of asking questions that he proceeds to answer. Are many modern day decisions written similarly? Or is this style more suited to an early justice seeking to define the role of the court, including the types of questions a Justice should be asking and answering?
If congress remains at liberty to give this court appellate jurisdiction, where the constitution has declared their jurisdiction shall be original; and original jurisdiction where the constitution has declared it shall be appellate; the distribution of jurisdiction, made in the constitution, is form without substance.
Okay help me clarify this. In this phrasing saying that if Congress gives appellate jurisdiction over the constitution witch already holds original jurisdiction than that new law or rule makes no sense?
if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right.
Question: Is having a job a legal right? I understand that this case was also trying to figure out that same question.
The secretary of state, being a person holding an office under the authority of the United States, is precisely within the letter of the description; and if this court is not authorized to issue a writ of mandamus to such an officer,
I am a little lost in this area. Why is Madison the name on this case and not Jefferson? Is this sentence explaining that? I don't quite understand they way this is phrased.
mandamus should be used for that purpose, that will must be obeyed. This is true, yet the jurisdiction must be appellate, not original.
So a mandamus can only be applied to Appellate jurisdiction and not Original? Or can it be applied to both if met with the "specificity" of the original jurisdiction requirements?
appellate jurisdiction may be exercised in a variety of forms
What does that mean appellate can be exercised in a variety of forms? Is this referring to the different types of lower courts that hears under this type of jurisdiction?
original jurisdiction
So where does appellate jurisdiction come in? I only see this statement mention original jurisdiction but in the video Prof explained the Constitutional Article III held the Supreme Court has power to do both. So in what circumstances does appellate court because the jurisdiction for a case/trial?
without respect to persons
What exactly does this mean? I guess I'm confused because it started off heavily implying that all men deserve fair trials/ access to law. Does this just reinstate that the law is above people and must be applied evenly? The 'without respect' is throwing me off.
and it becomes necessary to enquire whether a jurisdiction, so conferred, can be exercised.
When they mention 'can be exercised' are they talking about finding a conclusion at all with the issue? Stating that no one was given the jurisdiction to make the conclusion from the constitution?
it must be because the law is unconstitutional, and therefore absolutely incapable of conferring the authority,
Is this part of the reasoning why said action taking place was unconstitutional? Are they using this as reason, or is it still being debated?
this legal title to the office, he has a consequent right to the commission; a refusal to deliver which, is a plain violation of that right, for which the laws of his country afford him a remedy.
So is this saying that his high office position allows him to make the judgement on delivery (or not delivery) of the papers, and have no consequences for his choice? Because he should be, with his position, thinking about the laws above person opinions?
no bill of attainder or ex post facto law
I realize this is just an example he's using to prove his point, that every word of the constitution is important and that the constitution should trump other laws. However, I've never heard of either of these - A "bill of attainder" or an "ex post facto" law. Does anyone know what these are?
practical and real omnipotence
As a Federalist, Marshall knows that many of the people reading this opinion will be Anti-Federalists. I'd love if my classmates would weigh in: Do you think he is using the exaggerated language of "omnipotence" to appeal to the Anti-Federalist fear of concentrated power? Do we think Marshall is speaking from a totally neutral judicial stance here, or do aggrandized depictions like these hint that he is letting his political bias shine through?
It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect
This assertion is fascinating to me. In my interpretation, Marshall is basically saying that every single clause in the constitution has a deliberate effect. I wonder, are there any clauses that the framers explicitly wrote as transitional sentences between two more important thoughts that have been interpreted to have a huge effect? In other words, was Marshall right to say that every single clause was supposed to have an effect?
If, however, such a bill should be passed and a person should be prosecuted under it; must the court condemn to death those victims whom the constitution endeavors to preserve?
I'm a little confused on how this analogy fits in. Is this meaning that the bill passed should be enforced by the courts? If this is true how exactly does this fit in the argument?
If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
What would make the constitution not superior if put in the situation of conflict? From my understanding the Constitution is going to be more superior or hold more weight
and consequently if the officer is by law not removable at the will of the President
In what circumstances is the officer not removable at the will of the President in this context? From my knowledge the house impeaches and the Senate holds the trial
The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury
Is this inciting that in order to be given civil liberty, you must obeyed by the laws set in place?
If the solicitude of the convention, respecting our peace with foreign powers, induced a provision that the supreme court should take original jurisdiction in cases which might be supposed to affect them; yet the clause would have proceeded no further than to provide for such cases, if no further restriction on the powers of congress had been intended.
What exactly is this stating? I this suggesting that the courts don't have any jurisdiction over foreign powers, and only take cases that are related to their branch?
If any other construction would render the clause inoperative, that is an additional reason for rejecting such other construction, and for adhering to their obvious meaning.
I do not understand how this statement relates to what was said before. If I'm correct, the previous statements was suggesting that the supreme and inferior courts have certain jurisdiction. Are they saying that how jurisdiction is determined may change over time?
Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law?
This is mostly just a question of clarity- is the question being asked here that if a law that is created in which the constitution does not have an answer for, should it be considered legitimate?
Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.
This seems like a crucial sentence that is being asked even today. This case seemed to have established crucial legitimization on the reach and powers of the Supreme Court, but what did it do in regards to establishing the power of the Constitution?
To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?
Throughout class so far, a lot of discussions have been about interpretation of the constitution. There are various styles to achieving this, but the one we lack now is direct communication with the framers, obviously. So, in the case of this, Marshall is interpreting at a time when one of the founders is a sitting president, so why is the Supreme Court trying to interpret the words written of men who could offer their own intentions plainly?
the rights he has acquired are protected by the law, and are not resumeable by the President.
Is this saying that once a Justice is appointed and confirmed, the President cannot revoke the office from the individual? Does that mean that power lies with Congress?
gave the officer a right to hold for five years
Doesn't the Constitution outline that the Justices serve for life? Why does this say five years?
signed by the President
I thought the Justices were appointed by the President but then had to be confirmed by the Senate. Was this second step an amendment added later?
Neither is it necessary in such a case as this, to enable the court to exercise its appellate jurisdiction.
I thought the whole point of this case was to review laws or precedents within the constitution and deem whether or not they were truly viable. Doesn't appellate jurisdiction become necessary then? A higher court overturning a lower courts decision?
The principles, therefore, so established, are deemed fundamental. And as the authority, from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.
I know that the peaceful transfer of power between one administration to another is a big deal in the United States and a coveted tradition. Does this case have anything to do with that precedent? Obviously this has to do with judgeship and not the presidency, but refusing to deliver the commissions in the last days of office certainly screams sore loser. So other than establishing judicial review within the courts maybe this case had other effects on the tradition of American politics?
To withhold his commission, therefore, is an act deemed by the court not warranted by law, but violative of a vested legal right.
From what I understand about this case. it vaguely reminds me of the case of a baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple due to his religious beliefs. I think it made it to the state supreme court and they ruled he was within his constitutional right to refuse service. Since they ruled here that they could not force him to deliver the commissions (even though he did violate the law) did this case have any affect on the ruling of the more current case? I know that it said in a previous module that they have to follow precedent set by previous cases.
It is then the opinion of the court,
How can a court's opinion change? When there are different people on the court would that maybe produce a different outcome? How would you be able to be sure that things are standard?
If this obloquy is to be cast on the jurisprudence of our country, it must arise from the peculiar character of the case....
This whole phrase is just completely in one ear and out the other for me. Would anybody be able to explain what this means? It is just a fancy way for getting into the opinion on the case?
If he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy?
This is confusing to me because I don't understand how this is an opinion answered question. If something has gone wrong shouldn't there be a remedy owed?
he power remains to the legislature, to assign original jurisdiction to that court in other cases than those specified in the article which has been recited; provided those cases belong to the judicial power of the United States.
I am confused on how the legislature fits into the court's original jurisdiction. Did the legislature have to approve each of the cases that the supreme court took? Why only for original jurisdiction and not appellate jurisdiction as well? Does this still apply today?
appointment conferred on him a legal right to the office for the space of five years.
When mentioning Mr. Marbury's commission, they state that he is given a five year term. Were judicial appointments not lifetime appointments within the early years of the court system? Was the term five years for each appointee?
who considers himself injured, has a right to resort to the laws of his country for a remedy.
When this is referring to a man considering himself "injured", does that mean that a remedy can only be given to cases in which someone was injured? Or is this a form of metaphorical speech?
to issue writs of mandamus to public officers, appears not to be warranted by the constitution
Where does the issue writs of mandamus come from then if not the constitution? I thought that the way judicial courts act were all centered around the constitutional law. But the way this is worded, it appears that mandamus is not in reference to the constitution.
Affirmative words are often, in their operation, negative of other objects than those affirmed; and in this case, a negative or exclusive sense must be given to them or they have no operation at all.
I am confused on what affirmative words are. What do they have to do with this case? If anything, shouldn't there need to be positive affirmation words towards the case? If it is only negative, then wouldn't that be the opposite of having no operation at all?
The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right.
Does this simply suggest our government is laws and doesn't have much to do with the men that are supposed to uphold them? What legal right are they referring to?
That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions -- a written constitution -- would of itself be sufficient, in America, where written constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the construction.
At this point, Marshall has invoked the idea of and principle behind written constitutions generally about 5 times. I don't take issue with his argument, but is there a reason he acts as if the principle behind a constitution is so well understood but does not invoke specific examples from somewhere else? Did he think this was not helpful for a young United States in defining the scope of its own laws? Or did he not have a useful example of a written constitution from another nation to cite?
To enable this court then to issue a mandamus, it must be shown to be an exercise of appellate jurisdiction, or to be necessary to enable them to exercise appellate jurisdiction.
If the Court is only bound to issue a mandamus as an exercise or remedy provided the powers granted by its appellate jurisdiction, which it denied given the case was brought directly to the Court, then how did it take the case under original jurisdiction? Did Marshall have a different take on jurisdiction than Justice Chase a few decades later?
Here the language of the constitution is addressed especially to the courts. It prescribes, directly for them, a rule of evidence not to be departed from. If the legislature should change that rule, and declare one witness, or a confession out of court, sufficient for conviction, must the constitutional principle yield to the legislative act?
I'm curious as to how the writers of the Constitution had not considered that something similar could occur? Why did the writers not introduce some sort of specific method where one of the branches could declare an action of another unconstitutional?
3dly. He is entitled to the remedy for which he applies
Why would he not be if his position is upheld by the law as they mentioned previously? Why would he not be entitled to a remedy of the situation?
To enable this court then to issue a mandamus, it must be shown to be an exercise of appellate jurisdiction, or to be necessary to enable them to exercise appellate jurisdiction.
I think I'm lost at this point? I'm not entirely sure what point they are trying to make, and there are far too many large words in the previous paragraph for me to be able to make sense of what is happening in this section. I certainly feel lost.
Does this daemon benefit me in anyway or is it only used for mismatched resolutions like 1440p with a 1080p display?
What revitalization strate-gies do university anchors employ and how do these approaches compare to anchor institution models?
an important change in the urban anchor institution conversation. It moves beyond the “who” and “how” of university-neighborhood interventions and begins to ask, “what happened?”
What happened to the neighborhood after UPEN WPI interventions in Alex Penn School.
This article seeks to move beyond the anecdotal, advancing the conversation with a longitudinal evaluation of neighborhood change during the WPI years.
What is the longitudinal change in neighborhood characteristics as measures of effective revitalization and how do those demonstrate the effect of WPI investments from UPENN> and how does that differ from perceptions captured in previous qual studies?
early career researchers on the specific ways that they approached and handled the question of ‘how many qualitative interviews is enough?’
Methods Review we draw on the tacit knowledge of a series of renowned social scientists who come from a range of epistemological and disciplinary positions but who share an expertise in qualitative research.
But when people get less than seven hours of sleep on a regular basis, they face increased risk of metabolic problems like type 2 diabetes, as well as mental health issues like depression, Martin said.
Is this true i can get type 2 diabetes from lack of sleep?
Before the hissing funeral pyre, floating down the river, white blocks of what looks like detergent appear like icebergs
Why do people in Delhi drink river water knowing that the end is polluted?
We can die by it, if not live by love, And if unfit for tombs and hearse Our legend be, it will be fit for verse;
"We can die by it, if no live by love" is Donne professing to the reader that life without his lover is not worth it, similarly to Shakespeare's tragedy, "Romeo and Juliet." After this, Donne predicts the success of his poem saying he will be remembered for his "verse" or poems like this one. What does Donne's "prediction" say about him as a writer?
Alas, alas, who’s injured by my love? What merchant’s ships have my sighs drowned? Who says my tears have overflowed his ground? When did my colds a forward spring remove?
If John Donne knows that his love hasn't harmed anyone, why does he continue to question the reader about it? If he is being truthful, why ask?
For God’s sake hold your tongue, and let me love,
Donne speaks directly to the reader, pleading them to let him love. Why is Donne so frustrated with the reader after only one line of the poem?
Question: Why a cable for a wireless keyboard? Answer: .noScriptDisplayLongText { display : none; } <style> .noScriptNotDisplayExpander { display : none; } .noScriptDisplayLongText { display : block; } </style> because it is not a wireless keyboard...
He related the three broad topics Sprache, Mythus,and Sitte (language, mythology, and culture) to the individual-psychological aspects of representation, emotion, will, andhabit.
Intriguing.. I can see where the connection is possibly being made, that language and culture have an impact on our psyche? Language can focus our aspect on specific aspects of the world and influences perception and culture effects us developmentally.
The duality of German politics and the parallel developmentof Wundt’s politics are reflected in his psychology, which hasproduced a split between social and experimental psychology
It begs the questions.. How has the duality of German and Wundt's politics followed us in some guise ever since? Does it mean that traces of modern psychology are still white washed and catered towards one demographic?
has to do with health or safety.
Wasn't this topic of public health and safety already discussed? Is J. Breyer giving Layton the opportunity to explain the state's stance in further detail?
Establishment Clause
How many times have there been cases of violations to the Establishment Clause? Is there a precedent for what is and is not a violation?
So what is the definition of a church? So a religiously-affiliated school is not a church under the -- under the Missouri constitution?
What is the criteria specifically for deciding if a religiously-affiliated organization receives state funding? I think it's interesting and poignant that the justices have asked both attorneys for their definitions of church.
Voluntary Cessation Doctrine,
I looked up the Voluntary Cessation Doctrine, but I am still unsure what it means and how it pertains to this case? I wish they would have elaborated more on it. I could be mistaken, but I believe the Doctrine deals with exceptions to mootness, however, I thought Justice Breyer said this case was not moot.
and there is a point where you can accommodate religion,
I am a little confused with Cortman's argument. If the court favors religion, then theres an Establishment Clause problem, but if the court attacks religion, then theres a Free Exercise Clause problem. How can these things be balanced out? When is it appropriate to accommodate religion? What are other examples of the court accommodating religion?
Locke v. Davey
Does Lockey vs Davey involve the qustion of scholarship (of religious schools) provided from government money? Thats what I'm gathering but I'm not sure. Not familiar with the case but before I look it up I'm guessing it has to do with government funded school scholarships secular vs non secular?
World Vision brief,
What is the World Vision Brief? Is this apart of the amicus brief? Im confused and already not familiar about what exactly an amicus brief is.
And so there's a question about how religious you may be in order to receive the benefit or not.
So how is this measured? How is the court able to tell how "religious" a school is and does how "religious; they are determine the funding amount they receive?
Why can the State provide police protection or fire protection?
Are states not obligated to protect churches from potential disasters? I get there's a separation of church and state, and maybe I'm completely misunderstanding the question, but is that Kagan's implication here?
It clearly is, not only in this administration, but in the new lawsuit being brought to challenge the new policy, because it violates why we're here in the first place, is the Missouri State constitutional provision.
The Missouri State constitutional provision has been brought up a few times, does this mean that the Supreme Court can make decision on state constitutions?
Some of the amici on our site -- side say that there is
What is an amici? Is this a group of people or a set of rules/laws that Layton is referring to that establish that there is no clause violation?
Hi, I have a question about which rendering engine is used for this simulaiton video. Is blender being used? Same question goes for the video in the begining of this post. https://medium.com/toyotaresearch/drake-model-based-design-in-the-age-of-robotics-and-machine-learning-59938c985515. It looks like that the video in the beginning of the above post is rendered with blender.
phragmite,
est-ce qu'il serait envisageable d'intégrer des images ou des dessins de certaines plantes, aussi pour les rerendre visibles aux yeux du lecteur ?
Canyon invitant Louise à plonger la voiture dans le vide.
est ce qu'on peut y voir une conquête du bas-côté ? cet espace où il y a encore une place de liberté.
après le premier accident,
Ça me fait penser aux figures des couples mobiles ou en cavales (Thelma et Louise, Bonny and Clide), est que cet amour aurait été différent si vous aviez appris à conduire au sens où savoir conduire c'est aussi pouvoir à tout moment prendre sa voiture pour s'en aller vers une autre direction ?
aurait inspiré Nabokov à terminer un manuscrit avec lequel il se débattait depuis une décennie, un manuscrit qu’il avait essayé de mettre au feu deux fois.
est-ce qu'on en sait plus sur l'aide de Sally pour Nabokov ?
cette recherche n’aboutit à rien d’autre qu’à l’inspiration qu’a été la petite fille kidnappée. Nabokov a entendu parler de ce fait divers, et ce détail-là, dans le tissu de ses journées, lui a permis de finir son livre.
si le livre de Weinman "n'avance pas", est-ce qu'on peut envisager de voir ce mouvement comme le destin de Sally sur la route ?
son épouse, Véra,
Véra est-elle une femme de plus sur le bas-côté ?