28 Matching Annotations
  1. Nov 2021
    1. He was convicted and sentenced to one year in prison and a $2,000 fine.

      Should include lower court decisions and how it landed in the Supreme Court

    2. During the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas, protesters assembled outside the convention hall. One of the protesters, Arthur Smith, painted an American flag on his bare chest, but painted it upside down.

      Not the proper facts

    3. always prohibit the expression of an idea whenever society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.

      This is not true, just because society finds it offensive doesn't mean it your First Amendment right is prohibited.

    4. Dissent by Justince Kennedy

      Kennedy was part of the majority rule, not dissent

    5. 491 U.S. 397

      Missing year of case

    6. U.S. v. O'Brien

      Missing year of case

    7. Yes. By a vote of 5‐4 the Court ruled in favor of Johnson.

      Missing the name of the Justice who wrote the majority opinion.

  2. Oct 2021
    1. but by people over whom they claim no control.

      Is this suggesting that if States were allowed to tax the Federal Government, would States hold power and authority over citizens outside of their state? Would State laws apply universally?

    2. incompatible with the language of the Constitution.

      How exactly is the necessity of resorting to mean which it cannot control not compatible with the language outlined in the Constitution?

    3. thus leaving the question whether the particular power which may become the subject of contest has been delegated to the one Government, or prohibited to the other, to depend on a fair construction of the whole instrument.

      Is this suggesting that there is isn't any sort of protocol for when certain issues arise that causes question on what government has authority over said issue?

    1. In the president's favor is the fact that his order commands the steel industry to follow policy set by Congress, not the president himself.

      Policy was not set by Congress

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

      It cannot be sustained as an exercise of the President's military power as Commander in Cheif.

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

      Congress did not rid itself of the power to create to the president.

    4. Congress

      The Executive Branch, not Congress

    5. sugar manufacturing

      Steel not sugar industry.

    6. Roberts: dissenting

      Roberts was not a judge, missing Minton and Reed

    7. dissenting

      Concurring opinion, not dissenting

    8. in the judgment of the Court

      Can be deleted

  3. Sep 2021
    1. The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury

      Is this inciting that in order to be given civil liberty, you must obeyed by the laws set in place?

    2. If the solicitude of the convention, respecting our peace with foreign powers, induced a provision that the supreme court should take original jurisdiction in cases which might be supposed to affect them; yet the clause would have proceeded no further than to provide for such cases, if no further restriction on the powers of congress had been intended.

      What exactly is this stating? I this suggesting that the courts don't have any jurisdiction over foreign powers, and only take cases that are related to their branch?

    3. If any other construction would render the clause inoperative, that is an additional reason for rejecting such other construction, and for adhering to their obvious meaning.

      I do not understand how this statement relates to what was said before. If I'm correct, the previous statements was suggesting that the supreme and inferior courts have certain jurisdiction. Are they saying that how jurisdiction is determined may change over time?

    1. This is a New York City program that provides security -- money for security enhancements at schools where there's fear of shooting or other school violence.

      With all of these previous statements, it's clear that Justice Alito is on the majority side. With these statements and questions, he's arguing that it isn't fair under Missouri law that churches wouldn't be subjected to these different examples presented just because of their religious affiliation.

    2. Have they ever said that it prevents the State from, say, having a -- a border guard, you know, crossing guards or fire protection? Or, let's say, health inspections?

      With this question, it is clear that Justice Breyer is on the majority size. He is arguing that churches are subject to other government benefits that are similar to the one in this case.

    3. Blaine Amendments that was not found in Locke v. Davey

      What are the Blaine Amendments? How are they applied to the Locke v. Davey case, and does that case relate to this case?

    4. What do we do with discrimination for religion under your theory? Because the way you're going in your theory is an expansion of McDaniel; but putting aside that it's an expansion of McDaniel, what are we going to end up with when secular people say religious people are being discriminated in favor of and against us? If status should not be an effect on free exercise, what are we going to do with tax benefits?

      How exactly is she advocating for her argument in this question? To my understanding the is contradicting her previous argument, which I'm sure is not her goal.

    5. So I'm not sure how this is a free-exercise question, because there is no effect on the religious beliefs.

      With these statements hear, it is clear that Justice Sontomayor is on the dissent side of the case. Her argument here and what she is trying to get across is that this decision is in no way inhibiting the churches exercise of religion. The church is just not a candidate for this public money because they are a place of worship, not a public place that is open to all and every type of religion.

    6. They want the paving of their playground. Could -- could this -- could they demand as a matter of Federal constitutional right that that playground be funded, even though they have an -- an admissions policy that favors members of their church?

      With this question, I think it's clear the Justice Ginesburg is on the dissent side. Hearing the questions com before, specifically in regards to the Establishment Clause, she does not agree with Cortman's answers, and is trying to find more clarity in his argument.

    7. Establishment Clause

      What exactly is the Establishment Clause? How are the questions asked by the previous Justices verging on it, and in what other ways is the case related to the Clause?