What is meant by "component parts" here? Are they the states? Are they the powers given to the federal government by the Constitution?

Why is where the assembly took place relevant to the case and why exactly are they defending it?

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?

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?

Is this saying that the federal government can tax the states, but the states cannot tax the federal government?

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?

What's the deal with these ellipses? Is there actual text omitted? Or did Marshall literally include these marks in his writing?

Whats the term "instrument" referring to here? the constitution? or the creation of it?

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?

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?

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?

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?

"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?

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?

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.

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?

Question: Is having a job a legal right? I understand that this case was also trying to figure out that same question.

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?

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?

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

Is this inciting that in order to be given civil liberty, you must obeyed by the laws set in place?

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.

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

Not sure if it's really a question necessarily, but I find it odd they are being so technical. I realize that they need to set a precedent and be able to justify their decisions and make sure it fits within the laws and everything, but they should be focusing on the merits of the case at hand, not coming up with every possible thing it could be compared to. Again it makes sense that they need to cross reference this type of information and those questions are worth answering but in this setting it somehow seems to me to be off topic.

I'm curious, in their attempts to, as Professor Roberts characterized it, "probe the strength of their legal arguments, implications and hypothetical effects," how often do Justices describe hypothetical situations? If there was a statistic on how many times, on average per case, a hypothetical was posed, how high or low do we think it would be?

I wish this had been elaborated on more. What do these two cases mean, and how does citing them help?

My first question is a bit more overarching of the argument that is happening so far. Is this argument, that the division of religious versus secular property on the church grounds, a violation of the first amendment? More specifically, if every individual has the freedom of religion, why does it matter that this church playground must be secular? Are they telling Cortman that they can judge what happens on the churches own private property? Why does this affect whether the church can join a fundraiser or not?

This helps to address the institutional type question

What's wrong with accents?

Why are phoneticians the most important in England

Why does pygmalion need a sequel?

Who is Freddy ?

Why where people going crazy ?

What type of weather and season took placed during Act 1

Who is this play by ?

What is the name of this Play ?

Harrison Bergeron was the son of Hazel and George Bergeron. He was astoundingly smart and an incredible athlete. He was also highly feared and uncontrollable.

Question 1 or 2

This is ultimately how cancer cells are then successful