- Nov 2019
-
mmcr.education mmcr.education
-
Does an act of Congress
Does an act of a state, not congress.
-
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.
In the book it is stated, "if the State's regulation is not related to expression, then the less stringent standard we announced in US v. O'Brien for regulations of noncommunicative conduct controls".
-
permissible regulation of speech.
It was not a permissible regulation of speech.
-
may always prohibit
the government may not prohibit
-
there is no evidence of an expressive element in his actions.
There was evidence of an expressive element in his actions.
-
Dissent by Justince Kennedy
Kennedy was a concurring opinion.
-
Arthur Smith, painted an American flag on his bare chest, but painted it upside down.
Arthur Smith was not the person that was charged with violating the law. It was Gregory Lee Johnson, and he covered a flag with kerosene and burnt it.
-
- Oct 2019
-
mmcr.education mmcr.education
-
because only 10 percent of the private schools available were religious, and only 5 percent of students used their vouchers at private schools.
This was not stated in the brief in the textbook.
-
the program most likely violates the establishment clause.
The program does not violate the establishment clause.
-
Only certain religious groups are free to participate.
All religious groups were free to participate.
-
is part of an attempt to channel funds to wealthy citizens who send their children to religious schools.
It was an attempt to provide educational opportunities for low-income children of a failed school district.
-
It is not neutral
It was neutral in all respects toward religion.
-
the program is not one of true private choice
In the book it is stated "the program challenged here is a program of true private choice"
-
dissenting
O'Connor was a concurring opinion.
-
14th Amendment
1st Amendment not the 14th.
-
7–2
It was a 5-4 vote for no, not 7-2.
-
(1982)
The year is wrong, it was in 2002.
-
p194
The page number is wrong, it is located on page 412.
-
-
mmcr.education mmcr.education
-
This, then, is not a case of confidence, and we must consider it is as it really is.
What does he mean when he says "we must consider it is as it really is"? I am confused by this, because he states that it is not a case of confidence, but does not state what it is then.
-
Taxation, 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.
In this statement, they talk about taxation being carried through the power of destruction. What were they afraid that taxation would destroy if given the opportunity? Just the confidence that the American people have in the government?
-
Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves.
I am also confused by this statement. What is considered a "great outline"? And what is also meant by "minor ingredients"? Who was the ones who decided which each meant, the founders of the Constitution?
-
-
mmcr.education mmcr.education
-
Yes. By a vote of 6-3 the Court ruled against
The Court ruled in favor of Youngstown Sheet & Tube.
-
Can Congress
The issue was whether the President could take over an industry.
-
can be upheld
In the Opinion of the Court, it is explained that it could not be upheld as an exercise of the presidents inherent military powers.
-
secretary of commerce
Secretary of Commerce should be capitalized.
-
Vietnam War,
It was the Korean war.
-
sugar manufacturing
It was a steel industry.
-
dissenting
Roberts did not had a reported opinion in the book.
-
dissenting
Jackson had a concurring opinion.
-
- Sep 2019
-
mmcr.education mmcr.education
-
"No person," says the constitution, "shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the fame overt act, or on confession in open court."
I am also confused on those particular quote. I feel that someone being convicted of treason does not have anything to do with the Marbury case. How does this have anything to do with the case at hand?
-
The constitution declares that "no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed."
What is a bill of attainder? And why is it so important to this particular case on why one can not be passed?
-
This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act, which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void; is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare, that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual.
I am confused by this part. I am not sure if I am just reading it wrong and just misunderstanding or if it is worded poorly. I guess my question would be how would the principles and theory of the government be entirely void according to this doctrine?
-
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
I am confused on why he says that the law would be unconstitutional if the court is unable to issue a writ of mandamus?
-
-
mmcr.education mmcr.education
-
It would depend on the nature of the two.
I believe that Justice Layton is also apart of the majority. Due to him saying that it "depends on the nature of the two". He is saying that depending on what the private school is asking, one may be eligible to funding and another may not.
-
And Missouri Supreme Court case law says the way we decide those questions is -- is -- is how much religious influence is there in a church? In other words, are they serious about their faith?
I also have the same question as the two previous ones. As I was reading this portion, the first thing that I thought of was how does one measure how religious one origination actually is? Are there set guidelines that they are to follow in order to prove they are at a certain level of their faith?
-
Establishment Clause
Since the Establishment Clause has been brought up multiple times now, how is that important?
-
Let's suppose that the public school sometimes uses its playground for things other than children playing, whatever they're going to have, a -- you know, an auction or anything else. Isn't it the consequence of your argument that the church can use the playground for more religious activities if the public school can use the playground for other non-playground activities?
I believe Roberts is part of the majority. He is claiming that if a public school can use their playground for something other than what it is intended, why can't a private school also do that?
-
World Vision brief,
What is a World Vision brief? How does it relate to this case?
-
Or how about if it chooses on a sunny day to do its religious instruction outside. How does the State know or how can it control without then controlling on the -- on the basis of belief and viewpoint? How could they control against that involvement
I think that Justice Sotomayor is a dissenter because of the way she is forming these questions. She is trying to get the underlining ideas behind why Cortman is arguing in favor of the church receiving funding. She is very particular in the way she is asking these questions.
-
Everson case back in 1947, this Court said in no uncertain terms what the Framers didn't want was tax money imposed to pay for building or maintaining churches or church property.
Due to Ginsburg talking about what the framers had intended, I would assume that she is one of the dissenters. She claims that the Framers did not want to use tax money to pay for maintaining churches, or their property. This shows that she is in favor of what the framers had originally stated and intended.
-