42 Matching Annotations
  1. Oct 2021
    1. 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.

    2. 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?

    3. 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.

    4. 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?

    5. 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?

    6. 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?

    7. 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.

    8. 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?

    9. 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?

    10. 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?

    11. 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?

    12. 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?

    13. 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?

    14. 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?

    15. 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?

    1. 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.

  2. Sep 2021
    1. 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.

    2. 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?

    3. 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?

    4. 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

    5. 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?

    6. 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?

    7. 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?

    8. 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?

    9. 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?

    10. 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?

    11. 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.

    1. 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?

    2. 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.

    3. But there's -- there's government coercion when you say there's a public benefit, and the only way you could receive that public benefit is if you do not exercise your religion.

      I understand the idea that public benefit from the government and religious states should not mix. Are there other examples of government coercion to public benefit you could provide as examples?

    4. And so on one side you have the Establishment Clause.

      I looked up the establishment clause and it is essentially a clause put within the fifth amendment that prohibits congress from establishing religion. To me it seems like funding a religion is a very good way to establish it so I'm not sure exactly what his point is here. Unless he is suggesting that all religious schools recieve the same public benefits/funding. And unfortunately I have a hard time believing that certain states would ever fund anything other than christianity if it was left to a state level decision.

    5. I know your white light is on.

      Do any of my fellow students know what Justice Kagan is referring to here? Is Cortman's "white light" perhaps a five-minute warning light, since we are reaching the 25-minute mark, and each party gets 30 minutes? Or perhaps it just means "it's time to wrap it up?"

    6. Because the kind of examples Your Honor is giving are examples where the -- the benefits are universal. They are not selective, which they are here; they are universal. So we start on the endorsement side.

      This is a very good point that I feel like is ignored. I have to wonder why this was not expanded on further - both by Layton himself or one of the justices.

    7. how Missouri interprets the term "church" in its constitution?

      This question by Justice Alito made me realize that each state may have its own definition of "church". If this is to be one of the deciding factors of this particular case, and a case of the same material opens up in a different state, would the Supreme Court use Trinity Lutheran v. Comer to decide in a similar manner? Or would they have to judge with no stare decisis because of the different terms within the different state constitutions?

  3. May 2020
    1. Regular Expression Functions There are three regular-expression functions that operate on strings: matches() tests if a regular expression matches a string. replace() uses regular expressions to replace portions of a string. tokenize() returns a sequence of strings formed by breaking a supplied input string at any separator that matches a given regular expression. Example:   

      Test question: how many are there regular-expression functions in XSLT?

    2. What’s the difference between xsl:value-of, xsl:copy-of, and xsl:sequence? xsl:value-of always creates a text node. xsl:copy-of always creates a copy. xsl:sequence returns the nodes selected, subject possibly to atomization. Sequences can be extended with xsl:sequence.

      What’s the difference between xsl:value-of, xsl:copy-of, and xsl:sequence?

    3. <xsl:variable name="date" select="xs:date('2003-11-20')"/>

      How to declare the date in the variable in XSLT 2?

    4. Types XSLT 2.0 allows you to declare: The type of variables. The return type of templates. The type of sequences (constructed with xsl:sequence) The return type of (user-declared) functions. Both the type and required type of parameters.

      What are the types that one can declare in XSLT 2?

  4. Sep 2017
  5. Jul 2017
    1. EN knock-out mouseembryonic fibroblasts (PTEN KO MEF) have 2–3-fold higherconcentrations of F2,6P2, the most potent allosteric activator ofthe glycolytic enzyme phosphofructokinase-1 (PFK-1)
    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

    Tags

    Annotators