41 Matching Annotations
  1. Nov 2021
    1. there is no evidence of an expressive element in his actions.

      It was very clear to the Court that Johnson's actions were expressive in nature.

    2. The Court agrees and argues that the most important principle behind the First Amendment is that government may always prohibit the expression of an idea whenever society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. As a result, the Texas law is a permissible regulation of speech.

      The Court disagreed, and reminded the state of Texas that the First Amendment prohibits the government from regulating the expression of ideas, even when society finds the idea offensive. The Court ruled that the Texas Law violated the First Amendment.

    3. 491 U.S. 397

      The full citation would be 491 U.S. 397 (1989).

    4. assembled outside the convention hall.

      The protestors marched through the city.

    5. Arthur Smith, painted an American flag on his bare chest, but painted it upside down

      The protestor's name was Gregory Lee Johnson, and he burned the American flag at the end of the march.

    6. Dissent by Justince Kennedy

      Justice Kennedy concurred with the opinion of the Court

    7. Separate Opinions

      The section lists only three of the nine Justices. Also on the bench were Justices Blackmun, Brennan, Marshall, Scalia, O'Conner, and White.

    1. Separate Opinions

      This section only lists 7 of the 9 justices, omitting Justices Black and Minton.

    2. Roberts


    3. dissenting


    4. In the president's favor is the fact that his order commands the steel industry to follow policy set by Congress, not the president himself. The lawmaking power in the United States is within Congress's domain, but Congress has clearly chosen to rid itself of that power and give it to the president.

      This whole statement is false.

    5. can


    6. against

      The Court ruled in favor of Youngstown Sheet & Tube

    7. Yes


    8. Congress

      The president

    9. Vietnam War

      Korean War

    10. sugar manufacturing

      This dispute began in the steel industry.

    1. the program most likely violates the establishment clause.

      The program most likely DOES NOT violate the establishment clause.

    2. Here, the program is not one of true private choice. It is not neutral in all respects toward religion and is part of an attempt to channel funds to wealthy citizens who send their children to religious schools. Only certain religious groups are free to participate.

      This entire statement is false; The program was found to be one of true private choice, with no obvious religious preferences nor discrimination against economic status/class.

    3. Stevens: dissenting

      There was no third dissenting opinion written by Justice Stevens.

    4. dissenting


    5. 7–2

      The Court ruled by a vote of 5-4.

    6. 14th

      This case concerns the 1st amendment and its establishment clause.

    7. 10 percent of the private schools available were religious, and only 5 percent of students used their vouchers at private schools.

      80% of the private schools available were religious, and 97% of the students used the vouchers at private schools.

    8. free exercise clause

      Establishment clause

    9. Baltimore


    10. Epstein and Walker, p194

      This is only a citation from our textbook (which is still wrong, the brief can be found on p. 394). The proper legal citation is 536 U.S. 639 (2002).

    11. (1982)

      This case was heard in 2002, not 1982.

  2. Oct 2021
    1. 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?

    2. 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.

    3. 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?

  3. Sep 2021
    1. 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?

    2. 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?

    3. 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?

    1. 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?

    2. 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?

    3. Okay? You know, the hypotheticals are obvious.

      J. Breyer's comments are strongly implying his disagreement in the principle that certain services that ensure the safety of citizens should not exclude religious organizations. I believe that this implies his vote lies with the majority in favor of the church.

    4. 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.

    5. do you see value in the other side in having some flexibility here for States to make these sorts of choices?

      I believe that this statement implies that J. Kagan may have sided with the state, in that many states have their own clauses and amendments on the issue of free exercise. This would seem to indicate her dissent.

    6. Do you think that that is the proper way to analyze this question?

      I agree with the previous annotation that this line of questioning from J. Alito, Jr. conveys his intent to vote in favor of the church by allowing Cortman the opportunity to counter-argue Sotomayer's dissenting claim.

    7. Sonia Sotomayor

      I also believe that J. Sonia Sotomayer is one of the dissenting justices in this case. There are several cases which Mr. Cortman uses as comparative cases, and Sotomayer is unrelenting in her examination of why these cases are relevant. Her word choice is also tonally negative.