39 Matching Annotations
  1. Nov 2019
    1. Clark:

      Black was concurring with the opinion of the court.

      New answer: Black gave the opinion of the court and went with the courts decision.

    2. Roberts

      Justice Reed and Minton were the other dissenting opinions

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

      The case says multiple times how that the lawmaking power is only for Congress and not the president. "The Constitution does not subject this law-making power of Congress to presidential or military supervision or control.",

    4. can

      cannot be upheld

    1. always

      The government cannot prohibit the expression of an idea simply because some people might find it offensive

    2. Texas has argued that Johnson's actions are a form of "fighting words"

      Texas said that Johnson's actions do not fall within the category of fighting words

    3. Second


    4. whether it was very likely that the "audience" who saw or heard it would understand the message

      The book says "we have acknowledged that conduct may be 'sufficiently imbued with elements of communication to fall within the scope of the First and Fourteenth Amendment'." It does not say anything about how the audience heard or saw the message that he was portraying.

    5. Dissent


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

      Johnson burned the American flag.

    7. Arthur Smith

      The guys name was actually Gregory Lee Johnson.

  2. Oct 2019
    1. constitutionality of this program turns on whether most schools in the program are religious.

      The case clearly states that there is not evidence that there is a lack of opportunities for Cleveland parents to pick a secular school.

    2. Only certain religious groups are free to participate

      Everyone is free to participate.

    3. part of an attempt to channel funds to wealthy citizens who send their children to religious schools

      The purpose is to try to get the children out of a failed school district and into a better one so that they can continue their education. It is also for the lower income families because they are the ones getting the money and given priority for admission into the schools.

    4. not neutral

      The ohio program is neutral in all respects.

    5. not one of true private choice

      it is of true private choice because the parents still get to choose where to send their children.

    6. most likely violates

      program does not violate the establishment clause.

    7. Epstein and Walker, p194

      The citation should be 536 U.S. 639 (2002)

    8. (1982)

      This should not be there.

    9. dissenting


    10. 7–2

      The vote was 5-4

    11. Baltimore

      It was the Cleveland School District.

    1. that the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create

      Is this statement saying that the executive branch can dismember something but not necessarily create something? Or is it saying that if they cannot create something than it is useless to defeat something?

    2. prolixity of a legal code,

      What does this mean? What is a prolixity and how it is related to a legal code? Also, what is the legal code?

    3. oath of fidelity

      Is this oath a real thing that judicial and executive officers have to do or is this more of a hypothetical oath that they swear to always abide by the constitution?

    1. against

      The court ruled in favor of Youngstown Sheet and Tube.

    2. dissenting

      He also had a concurring opinion, not dissenting.

    3. Vietnam War

      The Korean War was happening not the Vietnam War.

    4. sugar manufacturing industry,

      It was actually about the steel industry.

  3. Sep 2019
    1. It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such a construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it

      Is this statement saying that with every clause there is going to be an effect that the people or the judges or whoever might not like? So it could be helping out one group but hindering another group?

    2. 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, it must be because the law is unconstitutional, and therefore absolutely incapable of conferring the authority, and assigning the duties which its words purport to confer and assign

      What is a "writ of mandamus"? It seems very important especially in this context. Also, why does Justice Marshall say that the law would then be unconstitutional if the US could not issue this writ to the secretary of state?

    3. If, for example, Mr. Marbury had taken the oaths of a magistrate, and proceeded to act as one; in consequence of which a suit had been instituted against him, in which his defence had depended on his being a magistrate; the validity of his appointment must have been determined by judicial authority

      In this statement, is he trying to make a point that even though Marbury is someone who administers the law, he still has to go through the same judicial process as everyone else? I guess I do not see the relevance of this statement.

    1. -- not under -- not under Locke, right? Locke drew a distinction between assistance for devotional, theological education and scholarship and others.

      I think justice Roberts also voted against the church. This statement to me makes it seem like the government has the right to deny funding for the church.

    2. They can do religious exercise. We don't want to fund religious exercise.

      I feel like Justice Kagan is a dissenting vote. I feel like this statement makes it seem like her opinion is that the state should not fund any religious activities.

    3. We don't want -- we don't -- we don't want to because they're a church. That's why not. Same with fire protection. Same with vaccination programs. Same with public health. Same with helping children who get sick at school. Okay? You know, the hypotheticals are obvious.

      I feel like Justice Breyer voted in the majority for the church. This statement seems like he is very defensive about the state not providing what I assume he thinks are proper funds.

    4. States have their own very longstanding law.

      I have a feeling that the only reason they have to have this court case is because of just a law that has been going on for decades, but not something that she actually believes in.

    5. I think it would depending on how religious it is

      Why would how "religious" the church is have anything to do with if they consider the playground to be part of the church? Is he saying that a more conservative church consider the playground to be their property, but a more progressive church would not? That just does not seem like a good argument to me

    6. Establishment Clause

      This has been mentioned twice now. What is the establishment clause and how does it play a part in this case?

    7. amicus briefs

      What is an amicus brief?