45 Matching Annotations
  1. Nov 2021
    1. Dissent by Rehnquist Dissent by Stevens

      These two were combined, not separate.

    2. a permissible regulation of speech

      not a permissible regulation of speech.

    3. always


    4. The Court has limited the O'Brien test to those cases in which "the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression." By making this particular rule clear, the Court emphasizes that governments will only qualify for the more restriction-permissive standard in O'Brien if the governmental interest is not about expression itself. If the Court doesn't find any actual government interest at all, then they don't need to apply the O'Brien test.

      There is no mention of an O'Brien test in our textbooks?

    5. no evidence of an expressive element in his actions.

      there IS evidence of an expressive element towards his actions.

    6. If the state's regulations had nothing to do with regulating expression, then the Court would rely upon the less stringent standard they set in U.S. v. O'Brien (dealing with regulations placed on actions that are noncommunicative). However, if Texas' law is related to expression, then the O'Brien test would not apply.

      There is no mention of O'Brien within this case in our textbooks?

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

      Is the desecration of the American flag protected under the First Amendment?

    8. painted an American flag on his bare chest, but painted it upside down

      was handed a flag during the rally, and upon the end of rally, doused it with kerosene and burnt it.

    9. Arthur Smith

      Gregory Lee Johnson

    10. 7


    1. Epstein and Walker, p194

      Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002).

    2. 5 percent

      97% of students.

    3. because only 10 percent of the private schools available were religious

      In fact, 80% of the private schools available were religious.

    4. whether most schools in the program are religious

      This was never said. It was, instead, said that whether the schools are religious or not does not matter, as it is the choice of the individual to go to any school of their choosing.

    5. Here, the program is not one of true private choice. It is not neutral in all respects toward religion and is part of an attempt to channel funds to wealthy citizens who send their children to religious schools. Only certain religious groups are free to participate.

      This was never said. In fact, the exact opposite was said as the programs was said to "[provide] educational assistance to poor children in a demonstrably failing public school system". Nothing about wealthy. Nothing about funneling funds to religious schools.

    6. the program most likely violates the establishment clause

      This was never said.

    7. students

      Parents of students? Although this is nitpicky.

    8. 14th


    9. Baltimore


    10. dissenting


    11. 1982


    12. 7–2


  2. Oct 2021
    1. We shall find it capable of arresting all the measures of the Government, and of prostrating it at the foot of the States.

      I feel like this is a tad dramatic. How would allowing Maryland to tax a government institution arrest "all the measures of the Government"? I understand that taxing the bank would likely lead to the closing of that bank - but how would it interrupt the rest of our governence?

    2. This, then, is not a case of confidence, and we must consider it is as it really is.

      I feel like I've been lost in this paragraph. I'm not entirely sure what is trying to be said here?

    3. The Government of the United States, then, though limited in its powers,

      Does anyone else feel that it is a stretch to say that Constitution = the government? I understand completely where they are coming from, and agree that it makes sense to have an overarching government, but this statement here feels like a stretch.

    1. Vinson: dissenting

      Vinson was joined by Reed & Minton.

    2. Clark: concurring in the judgment of the Court

      Neither did this one.

    3. Roberts: dissenting

      This one didn't happen.

    4. dissenting


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

      This is not true. Congress has not lost its authority to be the lawmaker.

    6. Truman's action can be upheld as an exercise of the president's inherent military power as commander-in-chief.

      This is not true. In fact, the case brief in the book directly mentions that "the Order cannot properly be sustained as an exercise of the President's military power as commander in Chief of the Armed Forces."

    7. against


    8. Congress

      The president.

    9. sugar manufacturing

      Steel manufacturing.

    10. Vietnam


  3. Sep 2021
    1. Here the language of the constitution is addressed especially to the courts. It prescribes, directly for them, a rule of evidence not to be departed from. If the legislature should change that rule, and declare one witness, or a confession out of court, sufficient for conviction, must the constitutional principle yield to the legislative act?

      I'm curious as to how the writers of the Constitution had not considered that something similar could occur? Why did the writers not introduce some sort of specific method where one of the branches could declare an action of another unconstitutional?

    2. 3dly. He is entitled to the remedy for which he applies

      Why would he not be if his position is upheld by the law as they mentioned previously? Why would he not be entitled to a remedy of the situation?

    3. To enable this court then to issue a mandamus, it must be shown to be an exercise of appellate jurisdiction, or to be necessary to enable them to exercise appellate jurisdiction.

      I think I'm lost at this point? I'm not entirely sure what point they are trying to make, and there are far too many large words in the previous paragraph for me to be able to make sense of what is happening in this section. I certainly feel lost.

    1. Because the kind of examples Your Honor is giving are examples where the -- the benefits are universal. They are not selective, which they are here; they are universal. So we start on the endorsement side.

      This is a very good point that I feel like is ignored. I have to wonder why this was not expanded on further - both by Layton himself or one of the justices.

    2. Friends of the Earth and the Knox

      I wish this had been elaborated on more. What do these two cases mean, and how does citing them help?

    3. There is no way for the State to comply with the -- its determination, maybe the requirement, that we police the use of the funds and what the funds here put on there without becoming involved with the church.

      Why would becoming involved with how the church spends the funds specifically given to it by the state government put the state government at risk for corruption for that church? If anything, it puts the church in its place below the state government, where it should be in precedent. Unless I am misunderstanding?

    4. Elena Kagan

      Kagan also seems to be on the side of the church in this case. Her focus seems to be that as long as the money is used for playground services, and not for religious services, there is no foul play.

    5. Stephen G. Breyer

      I think this line here is a point that shows how Breyer is for the church in this case. He argues that the state provide protection from fire, crime, and health issues universally, and so should also provide money for grants universally.

    6. Sonia Sotomayor

      I think Sotomayor is one of the dissenting opinions. She seems very adverse to the idea of letting the church win this case. Not to mention that she actively argues against a comparison made earlier. It seems obvious to me that Sotomayor believes that there is no precedent and that the case is in favor of the state. Not to mention that she also rejects the idea that it is a free exercise issue.

    7. Ruth Bader Ginsburg

      I think that maybe Ginsburg is the other dissenting opinion? It's harder to tell but the others seem pretty on track with giving the case to the church after having listened to the whole thing. She argues here that, if they were to give the case to the favor of the church, then perhaps future church schools who have less open of admission policies would abuse that, which is entirely fair.