49 Matching Annotations
  1. Nov 2019
    1. If the Court doesn't find any actual government interest at all

      This should read something to the effect that the government's interest should be unconnected to expression rather than no interest at all.

    2. whenever

      This should read simply because instead of whenever.

    3. always

      This should read not instead of always.

    4. Separate Opinions

      Missing the Opinion of the Court, written by Justice Brennan.

    5. Dissent

      Justice Kennedy gave a concurring opinion, not a dissenting one.

    6. no

      There was evidence, that's why the Court ruled as it did.

    7. Second

      The Amendment in question is the First Amendment, not the Second.

    8. One of the protesters, Arthur Smith, painted an American flag on his bare chest, but painted it upside down.

      If this is part of what happened, it is irrelevant to Johnson's case - it was never mentioned in the description of the case facts.

    9. 491 U.S. 397

      This is where the year of the case should be listed. This should read "491 U.S. 397 (1989)"

    10. (1989)

      The year should not be listed in this section.

    1. Separate Opinions

      There are two missing opinions in this section:

      Rehnquist: opinion of the Court Ginsburg: dissenting

    2. dissenting

      O'Connor's opinion was concurring, not dissenting.

    3. turns on whether most schools in the program are religious.

      The constitutionality of the program dealt with how the funds got to the religious schools (via the parents' choice), not whether the programs were religious.

    4. 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.

      This entire point is incorrect. The Court determined it was neutral toward religion and was an attempt to allow lower-income families the opportunity to allow their children to attend better performing schools and was not specific regarding any religion.

    5. most likely violates

      The Court's previous cases in regard to this issue were determined not to have violated the establishment clause.

    6. most likely violates

      The Court's previous cases in regard to this issue were determined not to have violated the establishment clause.

    7. schools

      A key word is missing here - it's not just aid to schools, but aid directly to religious schools.

    8. 7–2

      The vote was 5-4, not 7-2.

    9. 14th

      While the establishment clause applied to the state because of the 14th Amendment, the issue at hand was whether or not the Cleveland school district's program violated the establishment clause from the 1st Amendment.

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

      There's no mention of how many students used them at private schools, but 96.7 percent of those that chose to use the vouchers used them at the various religiously-affiliated private schools.

    11. only 10

      80 percent of the available, participating schools were religious, not 10 percent.

    12. dropped out

      It was a combination of failing or dropping out, not just dropping out.

    13. Baltimore

      The case dealt with the Cleveland school district, not the Baltimore school district.

    14. Epstein and Walker, p194

      The correct citation should read 536 U.S. 639.

    15. Legal

      Should read "Case" not "Legal".

    16. 1982

      The case was in 2002, not 1982.

  2. Oct 2019
    1. It would probably never be understood by the public.

      Isn't this, by nature, the reason that we have the judicial branch of the government? Their job is to interpret the Constitution so that people can better understand how the law works, I thought, so isn't it still not understood by the public?

    2. It was reported to the then existing Congress of the United States with a request that it might be submitted to a convention of delegates, chosen in each State by the people thereof, under the recommendation of its legislature, for their assent and ratification.

      Is Marshall saying that the people chose the delegates directly or that the legislature chose the delegates for each state?

    3. who alone are truly sovereign

      Is Marshall saying this from his own personal perspective or is he saying that this is the claim made by the state of Maryland?

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

      Congress has not rid itself of lawmaking power. That power still belongs to them, as per Article I of the Constitution.

    2. Roberts: dissenting

      Justice Roberts could not have offered an opinion in this case as he was not appointed until 2003.

    3. dissenting

      Jackson issued a concurring opinion, not a dissenting one.

    4. Holding

      The author of the Opinion of the Court - it was written by Justice Black.

    5. against

      The Court ruled in favor Youngstown Sheet & Tube, not against.

    6. Congress

      Congress didn't take over the industry. Truman ordered the Secretary of Commerce to seize the steel mills.

    7. forbade this type of action

      The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 didn't forbid the action that President Truman took, it required 80 days to allow the sides to cool off and try and come to a reconciliation before the President was allowed to take action.

    8. Vietnam

      The U.S. was involved in Korea, not Vietnam.

    9. sugar manufacturing

      The dispute was in the steel industry, not sugar manufacturing.

    10. 1952

      This is an incorrect Case Name as the year of the case should not be included in this section.

  3. Sep 2019
    1. From these, and many other selections which might be made, it is apparent, that the framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument, as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature.

      Is this where Marshall makes his ultimate point that the Constitution is the final word over any legal matters and that anything that is contrary to the Constitution is automatically dismissable?

    2. It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.

      Can this come across a little ambiguously in that the judicial branch makes the laws or that it simply interprets them and puts them in layman terms?

    3. the power remains to the legislature, to assign original jurisdiction to that court in other cases than those specified in the article which has been recited

      Is Marshall saying that the Constitution is what gives the legislature the power to assign original jurisdiction or that this comes from the Judiciary Act of 1789?

    1. It's not even the entire playground.

      If it's the surface of the whole playground, even though it isn't specific pieces of equipment on the playground, doesn't it cover the entire thing as it is meant to make the playground as a whole safer?

    2. 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?

      Justice Sotomayor seems to lay out a valid argument for what many would look at as the main issue in this case, that the State of Missouri would be paying out funds directly to a church to spread its religious message.

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

      Justice Ginsburg, very early in this case, seemed to lay out her case for dissenting from what she believes will be the ultimate outcome of this case by using the example of a case in 1947 that said that tax money collected should not be used to improve any sort of religious property.

    4. So what is the definition of a church? So a religiously-affiliated school is not a church under the -- under the Missouri constitution?

      Based on the direction of Justice Alito's questioning in this exchange, he seems to be intentionally leading Mr. Layton down a path of why there seems to be a double-standard between this case and a previous case argued in the Missouri Supreme Court. This leads me to believe that Justice Alito's mind is already made up in which way he is leaning in this case.

    5. Has the -- has the -- the State courts, have they ever said the amendment prevents the State from giving grants or from spending money on police protection for churches

      Based on this line of questioning, Justice Breyer seems to show his opinion of the case that the church should be entitled to the money because of his references to other ways that the state spends its money on other programs that benefit the church, such as police and fire protection, something that people would generally not bat an eye at.

    6. they have a free exercise right to religious autonomy to decide who their members are.

      Is he saying here that the right to exercise freedom of religion is more important than the separation of church and state?

    7. if for some reason someone prays one day there or they decide to go outside for -- for one event, that doesn't -- it's not the government there who's advancing religion.

      If, by making the improvements to the playground surface, it allows for the potential for additional activities for the church to hold on the playground such as prayer services or other religious ceremonies, wouldn't that, by the letter of the law, mean that their mission of spreading their religion by enhanced by the grant money from the government?