Congress isn't really at question, it's asking if desecration of the flag, or flag burning, is part of "symbolic speech" protected by the first amendment.

Texas' interest in preserving the flag's symbolic role doesn't allow it to prohibit words or expressive conduct critical of the flag, and it doest prohibit it to forbid destruction of the flag.

No, the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea just because society finds it offensive or disagreeable

No, one of the demonstrators gave Johnson an American flag, and then Johnson set it on fire. The then chanted, "America, the red, white and blue, we spit on you"

The group of demonstrators marched through the city while the party was meeting.

Justice Kennedy had a concurring opinion.

Not exactly, it should ask if it is a form of speech protected by the first amendment

No, the program was open to all religious groups.

No, the program is not challengeable under the establishment clause. So, religion can only reach the students by deliberate choices made by their guardians when deciding where to enroll them.

No, the Ohio program is neutral in all respects towards religion. It provides benefits to a larger group of individuals.

No, 96.7% used the vouchers at private schools.

No, 56 private schools, 80% religious.

No, concurring.

No, in a 5-4 opinion the court said that the pilot project doesn't violate the establishment clause.

No, the question was if the Ohio School Voucher program was in violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment.

No! This happened in the Cleveland Ohio Metropolitan School District.

Citation is wrong. It should be: 536 U.S. 639 (2002)

Jackson had a concurring opinion.

Minton, Vinson and Reed were the 3 minority. Black, Frankfurter, Jackson, Douglas, Burton and Clark were the 6 majority. Justice Black delivered the opinion of the court.

No, Truman's action cannot be upheld as an exercise of his inherent military power as commander-in-chief.

No, the court stated that the President did not have the authority to issue this order. The President needs to have congressional authority or it should be stated in the Constitution.

I believe that this should question if the President (in this case, Truman) has the ability to take over/ seize an industry to prevent a union from striking.

This is supposed to be the Korean War.

The disagreement began with the steel mill owners and their employees. On April 4th, 1952, the union strike stated they would begin the strike on April 9th.

There is no problem here with the citation (unless I am being tricked)?

The top of my tab says: Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002). This is different from the case name of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952)

Also, the year is not needed (1952) in the case name since the legal citation is included.

Is this saying that there is no one that would dare consider joining the states into one whole entity, without states? What is being talked about when Marshall questions "Where else should they have assembled?"

At the beginning, Marshall said that, "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." I find it confusing that he ends this paragraph saying that states didn't design their government to be dependent on the states, when at the beginning he includes that states possess the supreme dominion. Is he trying to get across that the state and national government have different powers?

What is meant by: "the execution of the great powers assigned to it?" Would this include the powers that state banks and national banks have? What dependence is being referenced here (a financial one?)

Just to clarify, the "writ of mandamus" refers to the command made that the judicial appointments must be handout? So when it is said that the writ of mandamus isn't the remedy, it is saying that the appointments should NOT be handout?

What is meant here by a "copy of that commission"? I understand that it may be his legal right to the commission itself, but is the copy of it referring to a different position or an actual physical copy of it?

The phrasing used here is tricky to me. Is this going back to vague vs specific language used in parts of the constitution? What is meant by "therefore such a construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it"?

In the discussion between Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David A Cortman, Judge RBG ends it with the thought that "and still get the public money" referring to if a church could choose what students it takes based on their practicing religion. By saying this I believe it shows how in some ways it does cross the line of the establishment clause. This makes me believe that Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.

Judge Roberts points out a way that religious discrimination may occur in other settings. He asks if that could be prohibited or not. I see that this may be swaying towards supporting Trinity Lutheran as discrimination occurs in a variety of settings with religious and secular students, showing that this could violate the first amendments, therefore proving his backing for Trinity Lutheran.

Judge Elena Kagan asks the question of how this program, that is neutral and supposed to be a competitive program where the applicant judges are not aware of the schools religious or secular affiliation seems that she sees how the interests of Trinity Lutheran Church shouldn't decide if they or if they don't receive the tires/playground area. Her statement saying that "this is a program open to everyone" shows her support for the church.

What is this computer argument going on here? Were the computers a state funded resource that went to all schools, regardless of secular or religious affiliation? How is this relating to the playground surface?

As this relates back to public safety, I don't understand what it has to do with proving a point in this case. Is Judge Breyer trying to convey the idea that the protection of religious institutions are left out of the law, and such interprets the idea of the tires as a safety issue, making it seem like the constitution free exercise of religion doesn't protect this playground issue either?

Is the definition of a "church" up for a different interpretation for each state to decide on or is there a federal, universal definition to guide decision making?

Judge Sonia Sotomayer really clears things up a bit here (in my opinion) she lays out a large idea that this doesn't effect the free-exercise question, nor is it asking the church to change its beliefs. It's simply saying that they don't want to cross a line and be involved or look more partial to that church. But if the students need that new playground surface, aren't they being penalized by not receiving the resource for that playground?