30 Matching Annotations
  1. Nov 2021
    1. Additionally, the constitutionality of this program turns on whether most schools in the program are religious.

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

    2. the program most likely violates the establishment clause.

      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"

    3. dropped out

      Dropped out or failed

    4. Only certain religious groups are free to participate.

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

    5. Simmons-Harris sued, charging that the voucher program violated the First Amendment's free exercise clause because only 10 percent of the private schools available were religious, and only 5 percent of students used their vouchers at private schools.

      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."

    6. The Baltimore school district faced a crisis

      Wrong, Cleveland school district faced a crisis

    7. is not

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

    8. 14th Amendment

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

  2. Oct 2021
    1. we shall find it capable of changing totally the character of that instrument

      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?

    2. the Bank of the United States is a law made in pursuance of the Constitution, and is a part of the supreme law of the land....

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

    3. the instrument,

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

    1. Separate Opinions

      Black wrote for the majority opinion

    2. Roberts:

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

    3. dissenting

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

    4. dissenting

      incorrect: concurring

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

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

    6. Yes. By a vote of 6-3 the Court ruled against Youngstown Sheet & Tube.

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

    7. Can Congress take over an industry in order to prevent a union from striking?

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

    8. Vietnam War, President Truman issued an executive order commanding the secretary of commerce to seize the nation's steel mills and keep them in operation

      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."

    9. sugar manufacturing industry,

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

  3. Sep 2021
    1. mandamus should be used for that purpose, that will must be obeyed. This is true, yet the jurisdiction must be appellate, not original.

      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?

    2. appellate jurisdiction may be exercised in a variety of forms

      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?

    3. original 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?

    1. Locke v. Davey

      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?

    2. World Vision brief,

      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.

    3. Samuel A. Alito, Jr.

      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

    4. Anthony M. Kennedy

      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

    5. And so there's a question about how religious you may be in order to receive the benefit or not.

      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?

    6. Ruth Bader Ginsburg

      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?

    7. So how is the building separate from the religious exercise therein?

      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.