41 Matching Annotations
  1. Nov 2019
    1. dissenting

      O'Connor: Concurring

    2. 7–2


    3. exercise


    4. district

      And that district would receive funding

    5. nonreligious private school

      scholarship to attend an accredited, private, nonreligious school

    6. program

      Pilot Project Scholarship Program

    7. students

      parents would choose

    8. dropped out

      failed or dropped out

    9. students

      high school students

    10. Baltimore

      Cleveland School District

    11. Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (1982)

      Zelman v. Simmons-Harris

    12. Epstein and Walker, p194

      Legal Citation: 536 U.S. 639 (2002)

    1. The order cannot be upheld on the basis of the several provisions of the Constitution that grant executive power to the president.

      It needs to come from congress and or the constitution itself.

    2. Yes. By a vote of 6-3 the Court ruled against Youngstown Sheet & Tube.

      Doesn't need yes. The court ruled for Youngstown Sheet & Tube

    3. Jackson: dissenting

      Jackson: Concurring opinion

    4. Roberts: dissenting

      delete Roberts

    5. The owners of the steel mills complied with the order under protest and filed suit.

      The owners complied with the seizure orders and filed suit in federal court to have the president's action declared unconstitutional.

    6. Vietnam War

      they were involved in a war in Korea

    7. sugar manufacturing industry

      it was the steel industry.

    8. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952)

      Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer

    9. 343 U.S. 579 (1952)

      343 US 579 (1952)

    1. The Court first looked to see if Johnson's conduct could be considered "expressive conduct," which would allow him to invoke his Fi

      The reasons aren't supposed to be numbered in number order they need page numbers

    2. Dissent by Justince Kennedy Dissent by Rehnquist Dissent by Stevens

      Dissenting opinions: Rehnquist, Stevens, Rehnquist, joined by White, O'Connor

    3. Yes.

      Doesn't need to say yes

    4. Does an act of Congress prohibiting the burning of the American flag violate the Second Amendment freedom of expression?

      It is the First Amendment

    5. Arthur Smith, painted an American flag on his bare chest, but painted it upside down. Johnson was arrested and charged with violating the Texas flag desecration law. He was convicted and sentenced to one year in prison and a $2,000 fine.

      His name was Gregory Johnson and he burned the flag and chanted a not nice saying.

    6. 491 U.S. 397

      need year after 491 U.S. 397 (1989)

    7. Texas v. Johnson (1989)

      Texas v. Johnson Doesn't need year in case name

  2. Oct 2019
    1. axation, it is said, does not necessarily and unavoidably destroy. To carry it to the excess of destruction would be an abuse, to presume which would banish that confidence which is essential to all Government

      When they discuss taxation at first in the constitution were they hesitant of the idea because of the American Revolution?

    2. The men who drew and adopted this amendment had experienced the embarrassments resulting from the insertion of this word in the Articles of Confederation, and probably omitted it to avoid those embarrassments.

      This statement is confusing to me, I am not sure why the idea of amendment is an embarrassment?

    3. Of consequence, when they act, they act in their States. But the measures they adopt do not, on that account, cease to be the measures of the people themselves, or become the measures of the State governments

      What would America be like if we didn't separate into different states and all were under the same laws and regulations?

  3. Sep 2019
    1. I'm wondering if this is still true, are most supreme court cases original jurisdiction?

    2. Does the president have to have a solid reason for removal of an officer? Is the president that only one with this power?

    3. Was this before checks and balances came into play? If so was this situation one that led to the concept of checks and balances?

    1. They mention curriculum a few times being different in public schools and religious schools, I'm wondering what is the difference?

    2. I'm thinking that Elena Kagan might be a dissent because she seems to be in favor of the state making the decision and the state didn't decide in favor of funding the safer playground.

    3. Aside from religion, this statement makes me wonder what other controversial tax exemptions are there?

    4. This statement from Justice Elena Kagan makes me wonder how they would go about making certain money is not spent on religious activity? Does the government have a process in place to see that its funding is spent properly?

    5. Justice Anthony Kennedy is hinting in favor of Trinity Lutheran here, again safety is his concern. He is pointing out that religion could be practiced anywhere, and just because its practiced doesn't mean that the government shouldn't contribute to the safety of the building or in this case the playground.

    6. I believe that this justice is hinting in favor of Trinity Lutheran by pointing out that both public school playgrounds and non-public school playgrounds are able to use the playground for practices other than school and other than practicing religion. I feel that he's concerned with safety at any playground.

    7. Justice Sonia Sotomayor I believe is one of the dissent who were against Trinity Lutheran, she has a very strong view on keeping the church and state separate and believes the playground to be strictly there for religious purposes.