38 Matching Annotations
  1. Nov 2021
    1. turns on

      does not turn on

    2. likely violates the establishment clause.

      "is not subject to challenge under establishment clause"

    1. Clark: concurring in the judgment of the Court

      Mr. Justice Jackson concurred in the judgement and opinion of the court

    1. is no evidence

      There is evidence

    2. may always

      The first amendment does not prohibit

    3. Dissent

      He had a concurring opinion

    4. the Second Amendment

      It should be the first amendment

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

      It was over the fact that there was a burning of the Flag not a painting on his chest

    6. Arthur Smith

      Gregory Lee Johnson is the protestor in this case

  2. Oct 2021
    1. Taxation, it is said, does not necessarily and unavoidably destroy.

      Taxation seems to be a big pinpoint of this argument. In history we have seen many problems with "taxation without representation" or misuse of taxing in this case, but we also see problems today with people not agreeing with where the tax money goes, or especially problems with getting tax returns. Do you think taxation is going to continue being a problem?

    2. may be carried into execution, would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. It would probably never be understood by the public.

      I am lost here. Is this referring to the idea that if the constitution had every subdivision of rules stated that it would not be embraced by human kind and that it would never be understood by the public? Because wouldn't a constitution with accurate details be the most accepted to the public?

    3. Among the enumerated powers, we do not find that of establishing a bank or creating a corporation

      While the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land, obviously the Constitution does not outline every possibility of things that happen within society (like the establishing of a bank or creating a corporation). Is the creation of something or a situation where things happen due to the lack of guidelines in the constitution common? Do you think it is fair that new rules and regulations be made in addition to there being none directly stated about these given situations?

    1. can be upheld

      Cannot be upheld

    2. ruled against Youngstown Sheet & Tube.

      The court ruled in favor of Youngstown Sheet & Tube

    3. Can Congress take over an industry in order to prevent a union from striking?

      The legal issue in this case is if the President was acting within his constitutional power when he issued and order directing the Secretary of Commerce to tae possession of and operate most of the Nation's steel mills.

    4. dissenting

      He was concurring

    5. nherent powers of the office justified such an action despite a law to the contrary

      Truman argued that the power granted to him as commander in chief was enough to authorize the action

    6. sugar manufacturing industry

      This is incorrect, the case has to deal with the steel industry.

  3. Sep 2021
    1. to issue writs of mandamus to public officers, appears not to be warranted by the constitution

      Where does the issue writs of mandamus come from then if not the constitution? I thought that the way judicial courts act were all centered around the constitutional law. But the way this is worded, it appears that mandamus is not in reference to the constitution.

    2. Affirmative words are often, in their operation, negative of other objects than those affirmed; and in this case, a negative or exclusive sense must be given to them or they have no operation at all.

      I am confused on what affirmative words are. What do they have to do with this case? If anything, shouldn't there need to be positive affirmation words towards the case? If it is only negative, then wouldn't that be the opposite of having no operation at all?

    3. The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right.

      Does this simply suggest our government is laws and doesn't have much to do with the men that are supposed to uphold them? What legal right are they referring to?

    1. For example, in that case, we have independent decisionmaking, which has been key to many of this Court's decisions.

      Layton is in majority rule for the church funding the playground by his statement of independent decision making. He specifically says its in the hands of the state.

    2. Because I don't think this is one of the difficult cases.

      I think the simplicity of this statement demonstrates what side of the argument Cortman is on. Clearly, so far throughout the entire case he has been defending the funding of the playground. While other are challenging his idea, he flat out says this case is not that difficult.

    3. Well -- well, for -- if the political winds change, we have -- we have this policy by Facebook or press release. So it can easily be changed back if political --

      How often does social media play a part into political bias? How are judges or trial members able to keep their rulings separate from the bias they're hearing in the news or headlines?

    4. But there's -- there's government coercion when you say there's a public benefit, and the only way you could receive that public benefit is if you do not exercise your religion.

      I understand the idea that public benefit from the government and religious states should not mix. Are there other examples of government coercion to public benefit you could provide as examples?

    5. we don't want to, as a country -- well, the vast majority of States, to fund houses of worship.

      I also read this as a sign of a dissenting justice. I believe Sotomayor is a dissenting justice because she strictly says the state does not fund places of worship. She goes on to say that if the state is free from places of worship, then funding it would affect free exercise.

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

      I believe this is Kagan's way of dissenting this argument on funding a playground. She is clearly rebuttling the fact that a church can do their religious exercise, but they as a Supreme Court do not fund religious exercise.

    7. Does it have to be -- is this a matter of the form of the ownership of a facility? Is this playground considered to be -- by the State to be part of the church because of its proximity to the church? What if it was a -- what if we had a -- a religiously affiliated school that was not adjacent to a church and it had a playground.

      My first question would be on how the courts are able to decide proximity of something to an establishment. In this example, if the playground is on a church's property then is it owned by the church? Is it the same thing of if a park bench is on a restaurants property, but is still owned by the village? How do they tell the difference? Does it have to deal with rule of law?