are they trying to say here the state is abusing its limited power by taxing the bank and if let unchecked they may start taxing more? Additionally, aren't states able to tax or has that not occurred yet?

Is this answering the question of state powers? If so these words were written before this case so are the states just acting out against the constitution?

I am confused as to what the subject of this section is. Are they talking about the constitution? the powers of the states within the constitution? or something completely different?

is this trying to say that the states had their own separate powers and the point of this opinion is to make a unified domain?

I'm not sure he would be considered concurring. it's noted in the textbook he adopted mere designation and just said if the president has the power it has to stem from congress or the constitution.

Jackson was concurring

It was something the president thought he may be able to do within his executive power since there were other instances where a president has seized private property.

The textbook also notes that president was not following policy set by congress

the congress does not rid itself of that power, they noted in the textbook that congress has not lost its executive constitutional authority.

his actions can not be upheld because the can not with "faithfulness"to the constitution say the president has the power to overtake an industry even if it connects to the threat of war.

the question really is, "does the president have the power to take over an industry from going on strike if there is a threat of war?"

it was a 6-3 vote but it was in favor of the steel industry not in favor of the president's actions

It was the Korean War, not the Vietnam war.

it was not the sugaring manufacturing but the steel industry.

What is a writs of mandamus?

Since they made a note that there was clear evidence that Mr. Marbury was appointed how come the president is able to deny that?

What powers does the president have to make a decision like that?

Are they trying to say that what ever the "crime" is that is who the judge would have to answer to?

I think Ginsburg may have been one to dissent because her statements here show precedent and that the court did not give tax money in the Everson case so why should they in this one.

Through the three rounds of questions asked by Alito I believe he was a part of the majority because he tried to poke holes in Layton's understanding and representation of the Missouri constitution and whether or not they should give Money to places that need the safety/ protection

What is the Voluntary Cessation Doctrine and why is that posing a threat to whether or not the policies in place can negatively harm what the church wants?

What is a Blaine amendment and how are they used in a court of law? Throughout this passage he makes several references back to that concept as well as a case called Locke v. Davey, what was the outcome of that case?

Kagan, in this question, makes be believe she was one to dissent because she questions how he is changing and altering his brief. She also makes a point to say the state can say we really don't want to fund religious exercise but they can do religious exercise.

I think this entire portion about Establishment between Kennedy and Cortman makes me believe Kennedy was in the majority, he took the focus off of the religious aspects and on to safety and that was quite a distinction from what the justices that had spoke before made

What was the ruling in McDaniel v. Paty? And why is it relevant in this particular part of the argument? It doesn't seem to be beneficial to make note of this hear after the question they asked.