the most important principle behind the First Amendment is that government may always prohibit the expression of an idea whenever society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.
False. Society's outrage or disapproval alone cannot justly the suppression of free speech.
there is no evidence of an expressive element in his actions.
Johnsons actions did constitute as an expressive action allowing him to invoke his First Amendment Right.
Does an act of Congress prohibiting the burning of the American flag violate the Second Amendment freedom of expression?
The issue in this case is whether or not the destruction of an American flag, by burning or otherwise, is a form of speech that is protected under the First Amendment?"
491 U.S. 397
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)
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.
Gregory Lee Johnson was handed an American Flag by another protestor. Once the protestors reached Dallas City Hall Johnson poured kerosine on the flag and set it on fire.
Johnson was charged with desecration of a venerated object in violation of a Texas statute.
Dissent by Justince Kennedy
Kennedy was concurring with Brennan and the majority, not dissenting
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.
The reasoning stated that the program WAS one of private choice in that there was no evidence to support that the state deliberately screwed incentive toward religious schools
O'Connor: dissenting
O' Conner was concurring not dissenting
program most likely violates the establishment clause.
held that the program did not violate the Establishment Clause
dropped out before graduation.
FAILED or dropped out before graduation
Stevens: dissenting
Stevens did not address his own dissenting opinion, he joined Breyer and Souter in their dissenting opinions
No. By a vote of 7–2 the Court ruled in favor of Zelman.
Held. By a vote of 5-4 the court held that the school voucher program was not in violation of the Establishment Clause and declared Clevelands program religiously neutral
Does the voucher program offend the 14th Amendment to the Constitution?
Does the voucher program violate the Establishment Clause by allowing parents to send their child to a private school where the vast majority of participating schools are affiliated with religious groups
only 10 percent of the private schools available were religious, and only 5 percent of students used their vouchers at private schools.
86 percent of participating private schools where religious, with 96.7 percent of students using their vouchers to attend private school to which no public schools opted to participate.
free exercise clause
Establishment Clause
district.
with that school obtaining $2,250 in addition to normal state funding per student enrolled
Baltimore
The Cleveland City School District
Epstein and Walker, p194
the legal citation for this case reads as follows: Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (00-1751) 536 U.S. 639 (2002)
(1982)
The year this case was decided was 2002 not 1982, and the year is not part of the case name rather the legal citation.
If the States may tax one instrument, employed by the Government in the execution of its powers, they may tax any and every other instrument. They may tax the mail; they may tax the mint; they may tax patent rights; they may tax the papers of the custom house; they may tax judicial process; they may tax all the means employed by the Government to an excess which would defeat all the ends of Government. This was not intended by the American people. They did not design to make their Government dependent on the States....
Is this stating that by letting the state (in this case Maryland) tax the bank that then opens up the ability to tax all instruments employed by the government.. thus taking the federal governments power away and giving it to the states essentially allowing them to become independent nations if you will?
It is the Government of all; its powers are delegated by all; it represents all, and acts for all. Though any one State may be willing to control its operations, no State is willing to allow others to control them. The nation, on those subjects on which it can act, must necessarily bind its component parts.
Is this stating that although State Governments are willing to cover there own operations, since they are not willing to let others control them and the Government is of all, delegated by all, represents all, and acts for all the Federal Government on subjects in which it can act, must act as the "glue" between the states, to maintain the Government of the people?
In discussing this ... the counsel for the State of Maryland have deemed it of some importance, in the construction of the Constitution, to consider that instrument not as emanating from the people, but as the act of sovereign and independent States. The powers of the General Government, it has been said, are delegated by the States, who alone are truly sovereign, and must be exercised in subordination to the States, who alone possess supreme dominion.
Is this stating that Maryland believes that if the true sovereign power lies with the independent states they should control the operation of the government?.. not the constitution (federal government)??
Vietnam War
Korean War
In the president's favor is the fact that his order commands the steel industry to follow policy set by Congress, not the president himself. The lawmaking power in the United States is within Congress's domain, but Congress has clearly chosen to rid itself of that power and give it to the president.
the lawmaking power here is solely given to congress by the constitution
Clark: concurring in the judgment of the Court
Jackson was concurring in judgement, not Clark
Jackson: dissenting
Justice Jackson was concurring in judgement, not dissenting
343 U.S. 579 (1952)
legal citation must include the case name or an abbreviation of the case name
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952)
The year does not follow the Case Name
Vinson: dissenting
There were two other dissenting opinions: Minton and Reed
Roberts: dissenting
Roberts was not a Justice at this time
sugar manufacturing industry
Steel Industry, not sugar manufacturing
Yes. By a vote of 6-3 the Court ruled against Youngstown Sheet & Tube.
No, by a vote of 6-3 the court ruled in favor of Youngstown Sheet & Tube
Truman's action can be upheld as an exercise of the president's inherent military power as commander-in-chief.
Trumans action CANNOT be upheld as an exercise of the Presidents inherent military power as commander and chief.
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?
Is Marshall stating here that the verbiage of the Constitution has always intended for the courts role to be to protect and enforce the principles of the Constitution over a legislative act?
The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution.
Does this statement support Marshalls goal of establishing a more prominent role for the Supreme Court in the political process of the United States? I feel that this it true for it established the role of the Supreme Court of settling conflicts that arise between the law and the Constitution. Right?
So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
Is Marshall using this statement to support his premise that the Constitution must be upheld against any law or ordinance?.. I think I may be getting lost in the verbiage... he seems to be entertaining the thought of both disregarding the law and disregarding constitution. However, his whole argument is that you cannot disregard the Constitution, there for the writ of mandamus is unconstitutional and cannot govern the case. Right?
They want the paving of their playground. Could -- could this -- could they demand as a matter of Federal constitutional right that that playground be funded, even though they have an -- an admissions policy that favors members of their church?
I believe this hypothetical situation identifies Justice Ginsburg as the 2nd dissenting Justice. In this hypothetical she is proposing that they can demand the playground be funded and have an admissions policy, which would not be allowed, as it would violate the Establishment Clause in favor of the members that church over others with different political views. I believe by discussing these hypotheticals Justice Ginsburg was trying to showcase the fine line of church and state and why we must tread very carefully in these situations.
Very well. If it does not permit a law that pays money out of the treasury for the health of the children in the church, school, or even going to church, how does it permit Missouri to deny money to the same place for helping children not fall in the playground, cut their knees, get tetanus, break a leg, et cetera? What's the difference?
I believe the this statement identifies Justice Breyer as part of the majority, in support of the church. If we are unable to say that we can withhold funds for fire protection and public health protection, how can we deny money to the same place for the playground? A place where a child could potentially injure themselves or a fire could break out.
So suppose you -- we have the -- a school that's run by the Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia. And then next to it we have a -- a Jesuit elementary and secondary school. One would be eligible, one would not be eligible?
Would awarding eligibility to one of these establishments and not the other be a violation of the Establishment Clause? As they are both considered to be affiliated with religious organizations?
So one of them is a Federal nonprofit security grant program providing grants through the Department of Homeland Security to harden -- harden nonprofit organization facilities that are deemed to be at high risk for terrorist attacks.
I believe this statement by Justice Alito identifies him as part of the majority for he inquires about certain federal grants that are in-place to provide security to organizations deemed high risk of terrorism attacks, asking if the state of Missouri would permit these grants to a Synagogue. The nature of his question I believe supports the church because it is showing federal grants that are currently being used to fund places of worship within the United States.
There are Establishment Clause concerns here, even if there's not a violation. And those concerns arise both with regard to endorsement and with regard to entanglement.
I am confused by Laytons statement here. He stated that they look at the Establishment clause to support the States argument in his opening statement. Then goes on to state that there are no Establishment Clause violation, but there are Establishment Clause concerns. Is Layton arguing that there is or is not an Establishment Clause problem in this case??
In that case, why, just -- just like you and the other side to spend a minute on this, just a minute, why isn't the case moot?
I am confused by what point Justice Breyer is trying to make here. Is he stating that because the Amendment is not preventing the government from awarding grants and protection to the church that the basis for Courtman's argument is therefore moot?
I think that's the materials that you're -- that the church is advertising. How do you separate out its secular function from its religious function?
I believe this statement by Justice Sotomayor identifies her was one of two dissenting Justices because she asks the question of how the religious function of the church will be used on the playground, previously stating that she believes the playground is a ministry of the church and with the notion that play can be conducted in a religious valuable way, how can you separate secular and religious functions of the playground.