46 Matching Annotations
  1. Oct 2021
    1. 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?

    2. 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?

    3. 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?

    4. 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?

    5. 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?

    6. 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?

    7. 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?

    8. the instrument,

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

    9. 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?

    10. "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?

    11. 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?

    12. 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?

    13. 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?

    14. 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?

    15. 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.

    1. 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?

  2. Sep 2021
    1. 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.

    2. 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?

    3. 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?

    4. 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

    5. 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?

    6. 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.

    7. 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?

    8. 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?

    9. 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?

    10. 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?

    11. 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?

    1. 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?

    2. past

      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.

    3. hypothetical

      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?

    4. Friends of the Earth and the Knox

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

    5. Let's suppose that the public school sometimes uses its playground for things other than children playing, whatever they're going to have, a -- you know, an auction or anything else. Isn't it the consequence of your argument that the church can use the playground for more religious activities if the public school can use the playground for other non-playground activities?

      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?

  3. Oct 2020
    1. The extent of faculty involvement in institutional decision making tendsto vary among institutional types

      This helps to address the institutional type question

    Tags

    Annotators

  4. Feb 2019
    1. Finally, and for the encouragement of people troubled with accents that cut them off from all high employment,

      What's wrong with accents?

    2. But if the play makes the public aware that there are such people as phoneticians, and that they are among the most important people in England at present, it will serve its turn.

      Why are phoneticians the most important in England

    3. Pygmalion needs, not a preface, but a sequel,

      Why does pygmalion need a sequel?

    1. THEMOTHER.Howdoyouknowthatmyson'snameisFreddy,prayrTHEFLOWE

      Who is Freddy ?

    2. Cabwhistlesblowijigfranticallyinalldirections.Pedes-triansrunningforshelterintothemarketandundertheporticoofSt.Paul'sChurch,wheretherearealreadyseveralpeople,

      Why where people going crazy ?

    3. CoventGardenat11.15p.m.Torrentsofheavysummerrain

      What type of weather and season took placed during Act 1

    4. Pygmalion:aRomanceinFiveActs:byBernardShaw

      Who is this play by ?

    5. Pygmalion:aRomanceinFiveActs:byBernardShaw

      What is the name of this Play ?

  5. Sep 2017
    1. 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.

  6. Jul 2017
    1. Up-regulation of glycolysis is proposed to endow cancer cells withseveral selective advantages, in particular the incorporation ofnutrients into biomass to sustain high rates of proliferation (2,3). Deregulation of certain cancer-related genes has been linkedto the acquisition of the glycolytic phenotype (4). The phospha-tase and tensin homolog, PTEN,2is a tumor suppressor mostwell known for its ability to oppose the PI3K/Akt signalingpathway through the dephosphorylation of phosphatidylino
    2. This has beentraditionally attributed to the hyperactivation of PI3K/Akt sig-naling that results from PTEN loss. Here, we propose a novelmechanism whereby the loss of PTEN negatively affects theactivity of the E3 ligase APC/C-Cdh1, resulting in the stabiliza-tion of the enzyme PFKFB3 and increased synthesis of its prod-uct fructose 2,6-bisphosphate (F2,6P2)
    3. Unlike normal differentiated cells, tumor cells metabolizeglucose via glycolysis under aerobic conditions, a hallmark ofcancer known as the Warburg effect

      Question 1 or 2

    4. Our results suggest animportant role for F2,6P2in the metabolic reprogramming ofPTEN-deficient cells that has important consequences forcell proliferation.

      This is ultimately how cancer cells are then successful

    Tags

    Annotators