- Nov 2015
-
www.mmcr.us www.mmcr.us
-
Dissent by Roberts
Check correctness of the Justice who gave the dissenting opinions. Also, there were 3 Justices who joined in the dissent that should be listed.
-
The First Amendment does not provide protection for those trying to associate with other fellow citizens. The government has the legal authority to ban groups or to force a group to accept certain members when doing so would promote a valid government policy. The Court determined that including a homosexual scout master would have no impact whatsoever upon the moral message the BSA expresses. The Court also believed that New Jersey's public accommodations law would serve as a separate justification for limiting the BSA's alleged right to freedom of expressive association. The state's interest in preventing discrimination in public settings is of utmost importance in this case.
Much of the reasoning for this case was skipped an it appears some of your points are out of context. It is important to keep the reasoning in flow with the actual opinion so that it may be understood. Each point generally feeds of the prior in the line of thinking the justice presents. Having all major points of reasoning is equally important in understanding the ruling.
-
The Court determined that including a homosexual scout master would have no impact whatsoever upon the moral message the BSA expresses.
Please review this point for correctness and context for the Supreme Courts reasoning of the ruling at hand.
-
Does the 14th Amendment due process clause forbid the Boy Scouts of America from denying membership to homosexuals?
The Amendment in question is not correct. Please review the legal issues surrounding the case again.
-
Dale filed suit claiming that the revocation of his membership violated a New Jersey law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation in public accommodations.
This case involved a counter sue that should be listed in the case facts.
-
Epstein and Walker, p530
Proper citation is not provided here. Look for the U.S Reports citation provided in the text below the case name. Also, no author should be included in this section.
-
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000)
Year belongs with the case citation not with the case name.
-
-
www.mmcr.us www.mmcr.us
-
Dissent by Justince Kennedy Dissent by Rehnquist Dissent by Stevens
Check correctness for which Justices dissented in this case.
-
communication" to implicate the First Amendment. The context here was key. We have limited the O'Brien test to those cases in which "the governmental interest is
Important points of reasoning were skipped between point 2 and 3 or your brief as well as between other points in the reasoning. Please look again at the opinion and be sure to include all points that helped determine the final ruling.
-
The state then asserts that it has an interest in preserving the flag as a symbol of national unity. The bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment is that the government may always prohibit the expression of an idea because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. Therefore, the Texas law is a permissible regulation of speech..
Please review this point for factual correctness and also re-examine the final ruling.
-
"the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression." In so doing, we have highlighted the requirement that the governmental interest in question be unconnected to expression in order to come under O'Brien's less demanding rule.
You should avoid using quotes from the opinion. Try paraphrasing and putting them into your own words.
-
"sufficiently imbued with elements of communication"
You should not be using direct quotes.
-
It could also be that there is no state interest in flag desecration.
Re-examine this part of the opinion. This appears to be incorrectly stating what this portion of the opinion meant.
-
If the state's regulation is unrelated to expression, then the less stringent standard of U.S. v. O'Brien (for regulations of noncommunicative conduct) controls.
Do not use direct wording from the opinion. This should be paraphrased.
-
Does an act of Congress prohibiting the burning of the American flag violate the Second Amendment freedom of expression?
-Look at legal issues again for whose law was broken that resulted in the arrest. -Look again at the Amendment in question and verify the legal issue at hand.
-
Arthur Smith, painted an American flag on his bare chest, but painted it upside down
Check the name of the person who committed the act as well as what the act in question was.
-
491 U.S. 397
Insert date here for proper citation.
-
Texas v. Johnson (1989)
Date should not be included here.
-
-
www.mmcr.us www.mmcr.us
-
It is clear that the intended effect of the pamphlets was to influence people to obstruct the draft. In many places and in ordinary times, what the defendant said would have been within his constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends on the circumstances in which it occurs. The most stringent protection of free speech does not protect a man from falsely shouting, "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater. The main question is whether the words are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a "limited and eventual danger" that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. In this case, because the country was NOT at war, the words in the pamphlets do not create a limited and eventual danger.
-The reasoning for this case extends beyond these three points.
- The correctness of point #3 needs to looked at in multiple areas. Examining the wording on page 440 should provide the correct answers to how this case was actually reasoned. -Special attention should be given to the "test" used in determining the ruling.
-
Dissent by Justice Pitney
There were no dissenting opinions for this ruling. Also, look at Justice Pitneys actual vote for this case.
-
Yes, by a vote of 6–3 the Court ruled in favor of Schenck.
- Answer is not clear with what exactly the court ruled. In many rulings, there is a point(s) being made that should be directly listed.
- Vote count is incorrect (ruling was unanimous)
- Ruling is incorrect.
-
United States v. Schenck (1919) Case Facts
citation is missing
-
overthrow of the government and resist the draft
Only part of this is true. It is important to be factually correct to properly understand the ruling.
-
United States v. Schenck (1919)
Names involved in case are reversed. It is important to know who is suing who. It also separates different cases in situations where their may be a counter-sue.
-
- Oct 2015
-
www.mmcr.us www.mmcr.us
-
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.
Does this passage from Chief Justice Marshall suggest that the State of Maryland is arguing itself to hold a higher power over the general government and the state itself gives its power to the federal government?
-
The Court has bestowed on this subject its most deliberate consideration. The result is a conviction that the States have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by Congress to carry into execution the powers vested in the General Government. This is, we think, the unavoidable consequence of that supremacy which the Constitution has declared.
I understand the final ruling for the most part but am not fully aware of the consequences this ruling will have. Does this ruling carry into every other area of taxation on the federal government? Does this mean that if the government owns property in another state that they are exempt of paying property tax? If a federal bank buys supplies from a business within the state, do they pay sales tax? I am just curious if this ruling applies to every form of taxation to the federal government.
-
That the power to tax involves the power to destroy; that the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create; that there is a plain repugnance in conferring on one Government a power to control the constitutional measures of another, which other, with respect to those very measures, is declared to be supreme over that which exerts the control, are propositions not to be denied. But all inconsistencies are to be reconciled by the magic of the word CONFIDENCE. Taxation, it is said, does not necessarily and unavoidably destroy. To carry it to the excess of destruction would be an abuse, to presume which would banish that confidence which is essential to all Government. But is this a case of confidence? Would the people of any one State trust those of another with a power to control the most insignificant operations of their State Government? We know they would not. Why, then, should we suppose that the people of any one State should be willing to trust those of another with a power to control the operations of a Government to which they have confided their most important and most valuable interests? In the Legislature of the Union alone are all represented. The Legislature of the Union alone, therefore, can be trusted by the people with the power of controlling measures which concern all, in the confidence that it will not be abused. This, then, is not a case of confidence, and we must consider it is as it really is.
I know this is a largely highlighted portion of the opinion but I think it is all leading to the same point and would like someone to clarify for me what it says. Do these two passages say that it is not right for the State of Maryland to tax the federal government (a federal bank) because it is just one state in the Union and that doing so gives too much power over the government that it holds allegiance too in regards to representation of the entire Union/people? Or do these passages suggest that the power to tax the federal government enables the ability to weaken or destroy the federal government and is therefore an abuse of power the states should not have?
-
After this declaration, it can scarcely be necessary to say that the existence of State banks can have no possible influence on the question. No trace is to be found in the Constitution of an intention to create a dependence of the Government of the Union on those of the States, for the execution of the great powers assigned to it. Its means are adequate to its ends, and on those means alone was it expected to rely for the accomplishment of its ends. To impose on it the necessity of resorting to means which it cannot control, which another Government may furnish or withhold, would render its course precarious, the result of its measures uncertain, and create a dependence on other Governments which might disappoint its most important designs, and is incompatible with the language of the Constitution.
I understand this passage to mean that the federal government has a right to create it's own bank because it is the means to an end by the powers granted to it by the constitution. I am confused by the very beginning sentence about the "existence of state banks can have no possible influence on the question." What does this first sentence mean in regards to the entire passage or question at hand? I am struggling to understand the relevance. Is this a reference to how Maryland handles taxing it's state banks and suggesting that how it taxes it's state banks is irrelevant to the question presented to the court?
-
- Sep 2015
-
www.mmcr.us www.mmcr.us
-
The secretary of state, being a person holding an office under the authority of the United States, is precisely within the letter of the description; and if this court is not authorized to issue a writ of mandamus to such an officer, it must be because the law is unconstitutional, and therefore absolutely incapable of conferring the authority, and assigning the duties which its words purport to confer and assign.
Does this suggest that The Supreme Court should be capable of issuing a writ of mandamus but cannot because the law was written in an unconstitutional way or is the court suggesting that Marbury should have taken the matter to the appellate courts because that is how the constitution laid out the jurisdiction? I still struggle to see how Marbury could have properly taken this case through the legal system if he was already doing what the law permitted at the time. Was there no other remedy to get his commission papers?
-
To enable this court then to issue a mandamus, it must be shown to be an exercise of appellate jurisdiction, or to be necessary to enable them to exercise appellate jurisdiction. It has been stated at the bar that the appellate jurisdiction may be exercised in a variety of forms, and that if it be the will of the legislature that a mandamus should be used for that purpose, that will must be obeyed. This is true, yet the jurisdiction must be appellate, not original.
If the Judiciary Act of 1789 included the law allowing The Supreme Court to issue writ of mandamus does this excerpt mean that the court ruling just changed the law to correct the jurisdiction or did the entire law become void?
-
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. It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such a construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.
Do these two passages indicate that the courts are going to interpret clauses that are not specifically spelled out and determine what they should be? What does Marshall mean by this?
-