44 Matching Annotations
  1. Nov 2021
    1. However, if Texas' law is related to expression, then the O'Brien test would not apply

      The O'brien test would apply in this context

    2. Dissent by Justince Kennedy

      He is actually in the majority

    3. the Texas law is a permissible regulation of speech.

      This is not the result they came from with this flawed reasoning

    4. argues that 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.

      They argue the opposite and say that just because something offends others doesn't mean it should be automatically banned

    5. The Court agrees

      The Court does not agree to this

    6. here is no evidence of an expressive element in his actions.

      It was seen as expressive

    7. Does an act of Congress prohibiting the burning of the American flag

      I don't think Congress explicitly prohibited this. It was a Texas law that got Johnson in trouble and the Court is trying to determine if his actions are protected under the First Amendment

    8. Second Amendment freedom of expression

      This is the wrong amendment that is relevant to case

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

      This is not what he did. He burned it

    10. Arthur Smith

      Not the right name

    1. dissenting

      wrong position

    2. 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.

      It is arguing that the programs give options which helps make it neutral

    3. Here, the program is not one of true private choice

      They're arguing the opposite

    4. he program most likely violates the establishment clause

      Sounds like the opposite of what they're reasoning

    5. in favor of Zelman

      They ruled the opposite

    6. 7–2

      Wrong vote number

    7. 14th Amendment

      Wrong amendment

    8. free exercise clause

      Wrong clause

    9. (1982

      Wrong year

    10. Baltimore

      Wrong school district

  2. Oct 2021
    1. But if the full application of this argument could be admitted, it might bring into question the right of Congress to tax the State banks, and could not prove the rights of the States to tax the Bank of the United States.

      Based on the relationship between State, banks, and General Government, is this suggesting a contradiction or non mutual relationship between the 3 in this line of argument?

    2. every argument which would sustain the right of the General Government to tax banks chartered by the States, will equally sustain the right of the States to tax banks chartered by the General Government.

      Is this relationship between State, banks, and General Government rooted in reciprocity or mutual responsiblity?

    3. No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American people into one common mass. Of consequence, when they act, they act in their States.

      Why is where the assembly took place relevant to the case and why exactly are they defending it?

    1. Roberts

      Wrong justice

    2. Separate Opinions

      Missing a justice

    3. concurring in the judgment of the Court

      Not the right justice concurring and opposite side

    4. dissenting

      Opposite side

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

      Not really the reasoning or what the Court actually said. This part throws the 4th point off

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

      Defended the opposite. Not quite the correct reasoning

    7. Truman argued that the inherent powers of the office justified such an action despite a law to the contrary

      Not exact reasoning

    8. ruled against

      Not who they ruled against. Confuses the ruling

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

      Wrong branch being discussed in question

    10. Vietnam War,

      Wrong country we were at war with

    11. sugar manufacturing industry

      Wrong type of industry

  3. Sep 2021
    1. If, however, such a bill should be passed and a person should be prosecuted under it; must the court condemn to death those victims whom the constitution endeavors to preserve?

      I'm a little confused on how this analogy fits in. Is this meaning that the bill passed should be enforced by the courts? If this is true how exactly does this fit in the argument?

    2. If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

      What would make the constitution not superior if put in the situation of conflict? From my understanding the Constitution is going to be more superior or hold more weight

    3. and consequently if the officer is by law not removable at the will of the President

      In what circumstances is the officer not removable at the will of the President in this context? From my knowledge the house impeaches and the Senate holds the trial

    1. No. I -- we say that there is not an Establishment Clause violation

      What exactly is the problem with the Establishment clause if there is no violation? Layton's argument becomes unclear and confusing for me

    2. I don't think they should

      In this case scenario, how would public funding to religious activity not be a violation of Equal Protection Clause?

    3. 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. And doesn't that fit this case?

      I think her opinion is leaning more towards the side of not finding the state's funding a violation. The argument is that the framers wanted to exclude religious institutions from public funding and this school fits the criteria for exclusion

    4. Well, discrimination on the basis of status of religion, there's no -- no line-drawing problem there.

      I think this is clear that the state not funding the religious school was discriminatory in this justice's point of view. He clearly states that there is no line to be drawn

    5. We give everybody public health protection, but not a church. That's -- that's the law in my imaginary State. And I'm saying, does the Constitution, which guarantees free exercise of religion, permit such laws?

      I think the types of questions asked are moreso in favor of the church because they probe about the protections of religious institutions and why State and federal law might protect it

    6. The argument becomes a little tricky for me at this point. It seems most of the justices agree there is not establishment clause violation so what exactly are the limits they're speaking of?

    7. We seem to be confusing money with religious practice.

      Her language suggest that there is a misunderstanding of what is actually being argued and that the side in favor of no funding is arguing something moot because there is no religious violation at all. The Establishment clause is not tying in in her opinion