Opinions are partially correct they are actually: Opinion of the court: Brennan Concurring: Kenny Dissenting: Rehnquist, Stevens

I cant find the exact part where it specifies always being able to prohibit expression when its offensive or disagreeable. but I definitely think this is wrong

AND non verbal conduct. Not sure if this counts as a flaw. Its missing a part.

I believe this is incorrect: I think this is the correct reasoning regarding legitimate interest in the question of flag desecration "we do not doubt that the government has a legitimate interest in making efforts to "preserv[e] the national flag as an unalloyed symbol of our country."

it should be regarding the first amendment not second!

this didn't happen. in front of Dallas city hall Johnson unfurled the American flag, doused it with kerosene and set it on fire. as the flag burned protestors were chanting "red white and blue we spit on you"

case does not regard Arthur smith, its Gregory Lee Johnson

missing parts of the citation: 491 U.S. 397 (1989)

Correct legal citation..

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002).

no this is wrong.. the text says that "It is part of a general and multifaceted undertaking by the State of Ohio to provide educational opportunities to the children of a failed school district"

this is incorrect,

the Ohio program is neutral in all respects toward religion.

O'Connor did not dissent, here is the correct conclusions:

OPINION OF THE COURT: Rehnquist CONCURRING OPINIONS: O’Connor, Thomas DISSENTING OPINIONS: Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens

Decision was not 7-2... it was 5-4, ruling that that the Ohio school-voucher program did not violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris is not on page 194, its on 395

this is wrong, it wasn't in 1982, the book states the case as

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002)

Incorrect. The constitutionality does NOT turn on whether and why in a particular area...

Shouldn't it not violate if they are neutral? I think this is wrong

book says "The program permits the participation of all schools within the district, religious or nonreligious"

I don't think this is apart of the opinion, I cant find where it says that only certain groups are free to participate.

This area is incorrect, the books version states, "Although no public schools from adjacent districts opted to participate in the program, fifty-six private schools, 80 percent of them religious, did. Religious schools were the choice of the parents of 97 percent of the students who used tuition vouchers to attend private schools."

Wrong, Cleveland school district faced a crisis

Incorrect wording. the instant program IS one of true private choice.

Wrong, it supposed to be did the voucher program violate the establishment clause?

I don't understand what this is saying? So on the basis of Marylands contends it changes the meaning of what the Bank means in the constitution?? I'm not sure if I even read it correctly the end of the sentence isn't making sense to me. Changes the character of what instrument? Constitution?

What does this mean? so the bank of the united states is inherently also the supreme law of the land?

Whats the term "instrument" referring to here? the constitution? or the creation of it?

Black wrote for the majority opinion

incorrect: not a justice on this panel/ case/ trial

missing info: Justices's Reed and Minton also joined in the dissent

incorrect: concurring

incorrect: The Court held that the President's military power as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces did not extend to labor disputes.

incorrect: No. The President of the United States has no Federal statute that authorizes him to issue an order to seize private property.

incorrect: not necessarily union but "Can the President constitutionally authorize the Secretary of Commerce to take possession and operate steel mills?"

incorrect: the book version states: "President Harry S. Truman was not about to let a strike hit the steel industry. The nation was engaged in a war in Korea, and steel production was necessary to produce weapons and other military equipment."

this is incorrect in the book version it states: steel manufacturing industry

So a mandamus can only be applied to Appellate jurisdiction and not Original? Or can it be applied to both if met with the "specificity" of the original jurisdiction requirements?

What does that mean appellate can be exercised in a variety of forms? Is this referring to the different types of lower courts that hears under this type of jurisdiction?

So where does appellate jurisdiction come in? I only see this statement mention original jurisdiction but in the video Prof explained the Constitutional Article III held the Supreme Court has power to do both. So in what circumstances does appellate court because the jurisdiction for a case/trial?

Does Lockey vs Davey involve the qustion of scholarship (of religious schools) provided from government money? Thats what I'm gathering but I'm not sure. Not familiar with the case but before I look it up I'm guessing it has to do with government funded school scholarships secular vs non secular?

What is the World Vision Brief? Is this apart of the amicus brief? Im confused and already not familiar about what exactly an amicus brief is.

I think Justice Alito is apart of the Majority opinion. I think this because of the way he's questioning Layton. He asks him about a scenario involving anti-semetic synagogue group or a masque and if thats considered to be at high risk of attack by an anti muslim group. He follows up with asking how this Missouri constitution would interpret / permit this type of situation. he also asks for hi to define the meaning of a church and is a religious affiliated school not a church under the Missouri Constitution. All of this questioning and the way he keeps asking him these types of questions about specification lead me to believe he's in the Majority

I think Justice Kennedy is one of the Majority opinions because he begins by already saying there is no serious risk of an establishment violation. He also isn't going back and forth with Cortman like Sotoayor does so that in itself gives me a hint that Sotomyaor is one of the dissenting while Kennedy is a Majorty

So how is this measured? How is the court able to tell how "religious" a school is and does how "religious; they are determine the funding amount they receive?

I think RBG is the second dissenting opinion. Her questioning here focuses on the selection of children at the church and how- if it were to be in favor of the church would they still be able to narrow down admissions policy, like which religious children they'll accept, and still receive government funding?

I think Justice Sotomayor if going to be one of the two dissenting opinions. this feel obvious in the way she questioning Cortman back and fourth. Also because her questioning includes asking about how you would separate its secular function from its religious function? The church isn't going o stop operation because of the playground initially.