37 Matching Annotations
  1. Nov 2021
    1. Additionally, the constitutionality of this program turns on whether most schools in the program are religious.

      They did not fins a problem constitutionally with this case. They ruled in favor of it.

    2. Only certain religious groups are free to participate.

      All privet schools, no mater if they are religious or non religious are welcomed to participate in this program as long as they are in the Cleveland City School district.

    3. ding

      It dose not indicate that Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote the Opinion.

    4. only 5 percent of students

      97% present of students used their vouchers to attend privet schools.

    5. only 10 percent of the private schools available

      It was that 80% of the privet school that participated in the vouchers where religious.

    6. The Baltimore school district

      IT was the Cleveland School District not the Baltimore School District.

    7. (with Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer)

      Should not include the other judges names they should be listed out separately

    8. (with Stevens and Souter)

      Should not include the other judges names they should be listed out separately

    9. Separate Opinions

      Missing Rehnquist's, Kennedy's and Scalia's determining of the opinions

    10. dissenting

      She Concurred the opinion of the court

    11. the 14th Amendment to the Constitution

      was questioning if the vouchers violated the 1st amendment Establishment Clause.

    12. 7–2

      This decision was determined in a 5-4 vote

    13. Epstein and Walker, p194

      This needs to be properly written out as 536 U.S. 639 (2002)

  2. Oct 2021
    1. Would the people of any one State trust those of another with a power to control the most insignificant operations of their State Government?

      This question is more a thought for questions. Do you think that this idea of one government have power over another government issues still stand in to days modern world? or do you think that states and governments the the US are more lacs about this issues then they where in 1819?

    2. 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?

    3. "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?

    1. but Congress has clearly chosen to rid itself of that power and give it to the president.

      Congress has not given up this power give to it by the constitution.

    2. 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 Presidents order dose not refer to or direct congress to create a policy.

    3. Roberts:

      Roberts wasn't even one of the justices on this case. This should be Reed.

    4. can

      The courts deemed it that Truman's actions "Can not" be upheld by his power as the Commander in Chief.

    5. in the judgment of the Court

      Only need to state that he concurring not "concurring in the judgment of the court"

    6. against Youngstown Sheet & Tube

      The court Ruled for Youngstown Sheet and Tube.

    7. Yes.

      This should say "no" since the court sided with Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co.

    8. Congress

      This should be the President.

    9. forbade this type of action by the president

      the act forbade seiner of industrial plant by the government not specifically imitating the president form doing so.

    10. (1952)

      Having the year on the case name is not needed.

  3. Sep 2021
    1. If congress remains at liberty to give this court appellate jurisdiction, where the constitution has declared their jurisdiction shall be original; and original jurisdiction where the constitution has declared it shall be appellate; the distribution of jurisdiction, made in the constitution, is form without substance.

      Okay help me clarify this. In this phrasing saying that if Congress gives appellate jurisdiction over the constitution witch already holds original jurisdiction than that new law or rule makes no sense?

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    1. How is it that discrimination on the basis of religious exercise is better in selective government programs than general programs, first? And second, how do we tell the difference between the two, if that's the line we're going to draw?

      I feel like this line of questions by Justice Gorsuch shows that he is in align with the majority. This is because he sees that the line that the state is drawing around this particular case is two muddied and not fleshed out enough.

    2. amicus briefs

      What is an Amicus Brief? It seams' that is is another form of case or argument but I was a little lost.

    3. no uncertain terms

      Justice Ginsburg in this statement articulates that she is standing agents the majority on the grounds that the state is not suppose to interact with religions.

    4. If we have no adversity, hasn't this case become mooted?

      Maybe some one can help clarify this for me. What Justice Sotomayor is asking is has the state given up on this case? They didn't send their own DA to the arguments and the Representative they sent is providing conflicting information to what is n the brief.

    5. Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court

      This may be a simple questions but is this the official way to address the court? It feels like he said this out of habit.

    6. just a minute, why isn't the case moot?

      I feel like this question here by Justice Breyer shows that he agrees with the decision. It seems to not quite understand why it is in front of the court to begin with.

    7. We seem to be confusing money with religious practice. I don't think the two are tied.

      I think this shows that Justice Sotomayor dissented to this argument. This is because she is using multiple state constitutions and the federal constitution to prove that refusing to found religious institutions, even if it is a religious educational institution, is agents the constitution.

    8. doesn't mean that every single activity that occurs there happens to be religious

      How can there not be a religious undertone for an activity when it is preformed at a church?