- Nov 2019
-
mmcr.education mmcr.education
-
a permissible regulation
It was not found to be a permissible regulation
-
prohibit
Protect not prohibit
-
Second Amendment
First, not second
-
Congress
Texas not Congress
-
painted an American flag on his bare chest, but painted it upside down.
burned an American flag
-
Arthur Smith
Gregory Johnson
-
convention hall
The demonstrators according to the text marched around the city of Dallas.
-
Dissent by Justince Kennedy
Kennedy did not dissent.
-
- Oct 2019
-
mmcr.education mmcr.education
-
dissenting
Concurring not dissenting
-
wealthy citizens
low income families NOT wealthy ones
-
is not neutral
it IS neutral
-
is not
IS one of private choice
-
violates the establishment clause
most likely DOESN'T violate
-
Does the voucher program offend the 14th Amendment to the Constitution?
The legal issue was about a first amendment violation, not the 14th
-
7–2
This was not the correct outcome, (5-4 decision )
-
because only 10 percent of the private schools available were religious, and only 5 percent of students used their vouchers at private schools.
This was not the reason behind arguing for an establishment clause violation
-
free exercise clause
This was not the claim of the petitioners
-
Baltimore
Not the right school district being discussed
-
Epstein and Walker, p194
This is not a proper legal citation
-
-
mmcr.education mmcr.education
-
The difference is that which always exists, and always must exist, between the action of the whole on a part, and the action of a part on the whole
What is Marshall referring to here? The part where I think I'm getting lost is in the "the difference is that " My best guess is he's refering to the difference between the government and the states but I'm not sure
-
by the bank itself,
By what bank, the Maryland bank or the nonexistent but constitutional national bank?
-
Its means are adequate to its ends, and on those means alone was it expected to rely for the accomplishment of its ends.
Here marshall lost me a little bit, what are the means and ends in this example? is he refering to a national bank or something else?
-
- Sep 2019
-
mmcr.education mmcr.education
-
That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis, on which the whole American fabric has been erected.
I don't think that constitutional laws were put in place based on the conduciveness of our happiness, to me it is more so a guideline so we can all live as peaceful as possible
-
The conclusion...is, that where the heads of departments are the political or confidential agents of the executive, merely to execute the will of the President, or rather to act in cases in which the executive possesses a constitutional or legal discretion,
I'm lost here so if president John Adams appointed Maurbury BEFROE his term ended then why is his position up for dispute?
-
do the laws of his country afford him a remedy?
This is a very interesting saying to me considering it is the basis of how our legal system functions. When there is a wrong committed to one person there is supposed to be a remedy a fix, how would our society function without this very basic principle?
-
-
mmcr.education mmcr.education
-
They want the paving of their playground. Could -- could this -- could they demand as a matter of Federal constitutional right that that playground be funded, even though they have an -- an admissions policy that favors members of their church?
Justice Ginsburg seems to be sowing us that both the religious and the non-religious have perks that come with being what they are. Here she uses an example of admission policy that positively impact other church members
-
So it's -- it's not -- now your line is the benefit, if the benefit is physical, that's okay; but if it's not, it's not?
I think here Justice Roberts raises a good point about the almost arbitrary distinction between funding that effects the physical realm and funding that does not
-
We will for everybody, but not a church. And by the way, that costs us extra money. We have to hire extra policemen -- revoke. Okay? That's all.
Here Justice Breyer is being rather short and it seems like he's over the States argument
-
There's a Catholic church across the street. Catholic church applies, doesn't get money, this happens five years running. And people start thinking, well, why is the Protestant church keeping on getting the money and the Catholic church never gets the money? And the State says, we just won't -- don't want to sow that kind of division, that kind of mistrust, that kind of
I think justice Kagan is stating that if government funding were to be given it would complicate community life and make the general population think that somehow their government is favoring a religion
-
What we are being asked to give to this church is actually a visible improvement in their physical plant.
Things such as improvement of health and safety come with physical manifestations just like the rubber on the playground, how does this example give any value to the case?
-
Because of the 11th Amendment.
What does an injunction and the 11th amendment have to do with this case and the ability of the state to retract funding?
-
It's just the surface that doesn't enable any religious activity. So, for example, if there was a program from a State that said we have a lot of old buildings in town, and we're going to -- we're going to reimburse for fire extinguishers for all of the old buildings, including the religious schools and all the schools. And they said, but if -- if you have a religious school and you use this fire extinguisher reimbursement, could they then be able to say now that you received that -- that public benefit, that safety benefit, you can no longer include any religion in those classrooms or in the schools?
This example confuses me because I feel it strays away from the point. Whether or not the government of Missouri is using its police powers fairly in a universal competition for funding is the question. How does this example he gave add substance to his argument?
-
It's just the surface that doesn't enable any religious activity. So, for example, if there was a program from a State that said we have a lot of old buildings in town, and we're going to -- we're going to reimburse for fire extinguishers for all of the old buildings, including the religious schools and all the schools. And they said, but if -- if you have a religious school and you use this fire extinguisher reimbursement, could they then be able to say now that you received that -- that public benefit, that safety benefit, you can no longer include any religion in those classrooms or in the schools?
This example confuses me because I feel it strays away from the point. Whether or not the government of Missouri is using its police powers fairly in a universal competition for funding is the question. How does this example he gave add substance to his argument?
-