24 Matching Annotations
  1. Feb 2020
    1. They did not design to make their Government dependent on the States....

      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?

    2. "shall be the supreme law of the land," and by requiring that the members of the State legislatures and the officers of the executive and judicial departments of the States shall take the oath of fidelity to it

      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?

    3. It was reported to the then existing Congress of the United States with a request that it might be submitted to a convention of delegates,

      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?

    4. States, who alone are truly sovereign, and must be exercised in subordination to the States, who alone possess supreme dominion.

      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?

    1. Douglas: concurring

      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.

    2. Jackson: dissenting

      Jackson was concurring

    3. president himself

      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.

    4. n the president's favor is the fact that his order commands the steel industry to

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

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

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

    6. can be upheld as an exercise

      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.

    7. Congress

      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?"

    8. 6-3 the Court ruled against Youngstown Sheet & Tube.

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

    9. Vietnam War

      It was the Korean War, not the Vietnam war.

    10. sugar manufacturing industry,

      it was not the sugaring manufacturing but the steel industry.

    1. "to issue writs of mandamus, in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States."

      What is a writs of mandamus?

    2. That, having this legal title to the office, he has a consequent right to the commission; a refusal to deliver which, is a plain violation of that right, for which the laws of his country afford him a remedy.

      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?

    3. in which his defence had depended on his being a magistrate; the validity of his appointment must have been determined by judicial authority.

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

  2. Jan 2020
    1. And if so, is Everson passé?

      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.

    2. This is a New York City program that provides security -- money for security enhancements at schools where there's fear of shooting or other school violence.

      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

    3. what's likely to happen under the Voluntary Cessation Doctrine, especially as this Court has said, we look at this with a -- a critical eye because of the 11th hour change, is the State free to return to its old ways?

      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?

    4. Blaine Amendments

      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?

    5. I hear you making a different argument, or a broader argument now,

      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.

    6. hat means what your position is, if there is no Establishment violation, there can never be a distinction based on religion.

      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

    7. McDaniel v. Paty, and saying he can't both be a minister and also be a constitutional delegate.

      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.