13 Matching Annotations
  1. Nov 2017
    1. No. By a vote of 7–2 the Court ruled in favor of Zelman.

      I noted here that here in this Judge the Brief, a vote of 7-2 was the result. While I can't find an official vote result in Epstein and Walker, it does say that Justice Bryer, Souter and Ginsburg were dissenting. I believe this would make the vote of 5-4 in favor of Zelman? I say this with a question mark because this is also a bit confusing. Not 7-2. Error.

    2. O'Connor: dissenting

      In the Epstein and Walker text, the Opinion of the Court showed Justice O'Connor's concurring opinion (pg. 423) not a dissenting one which is depicted here. This has to be an error.

    3. Reasoning

      I cannot find anywhere on this brief which justice who actually wrote this opinion of reasoning. Didn't it say in the case brief document we have under Case Briefs in blackboard make this a requirement? For that, I think this is an Error.

    4. The Baltimore school district faced a crisis, as studies found it to be one of the worst-performing districts in the country

      This part of the brief says Baltimore School District but in Epstein and Walker the Opinion of the Court deals with a Cleveland Public Schools school district. I do not see Baltimore mentioned in the Opinion provided in our textbook. Error.

    5. 10 percent of the private schools available were religious,

      While it wasn't necessarily in the Opinion, the textbook mentions that not 10% of private schools were religious but instead, a whopping 80%! Error.

    6. only 5 percent of students used their vouchers at private schools

      Here again, the brief gives a much different number. According to this brief only 5% of students utilized their vouchers at private schools. Epstein and Walker differ by a huge proportion here, stating 96.7% of the students used tuition vouchers to attend public schools. Error.

  2. Oct 2017
    1. Its means are adequate to its ends, and on those means alone was it expected to rely for the accomplishment of its ends.

      This language/wording has confused me. Could someone maybe clarify this passage? Im assuming it is stating along the lines of government rights to act along with the duty to perform that act.

    2. A Constitution, to contain an accurate detail of all the subdivisions of which its great powers will admit, and of all the means by which they may be carried into execution, would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind

      Maybe the wording has thrown be off a little bit but is this essentially getting to the point of which the power is being given should be in the interest of the nation to facilitate the execution of those powers?

    3. and that the Constitution leaves them this right, in the confidence that they will not abuse it....

      I am a little confused with this section. Isn't this suggesting that the power of taxing the people as well as their property essential in the existence our government? Since the only security over this is in the government structure itself. I think I am just over looking this.

  3. Sep 2017
    1. So, if he conceives that, by virtue of his appointment, he has a legal right, either to the commission which has been made out for him, or to a copy of that commission, it is equally a question examinable in a court, and the decision of the court upon it must depend on the opinion entertained of his appointment.

      Is this ensuring in that he has the right for the case to be heard and what is well deserving of his legally?

    2. Those then who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law.

      How in the world can this even happen when the court uses the constitution as the superior? Or did I clearly miss something in that? I guess along the lines of refusing to admit key information in a case and then ordering the jury to refrain from using it because of the process of obtaining it being illegal etc etc. Forgive me, but this is confusing!

    3. 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

      Don't the courts always regard the Constitution and claim it as the superior? Maybe it's just me overlooking what is being said or literally looking too hard here but it may be confusing to throw in something that may be easily overlooked.

    4. This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns, to different departments, their respective powers. It may either stop here; or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments

      While not necessarily confusing here, what may be some of the certain limits imposed by the departments? Can we take this a step further or just leave it?