should be sometimes, but definitely not always as just because something may be controversial does not mean it should be censored.

This contradicts everything that was previously stated about the case being in favor of Johnson.

His actions expressed his deep disapproval for the nation's policies.

concurrence

A) Wrong amendment B) I would have written it as is the act of burning the American flag protected under the first amendment?

Burned an American flag

Gregory Lee Johnson

decision year must be included

should be written in italics

There was nothing about it being limited to certain religious groups, the offer was extended to all low income students not based on religion.

No? The supreme court decided that it was the parents' choice of where to enroll their children and since the government did not decide for them and they did have the choice between religious and secular that it did not violate

This just contradicts their whole argument

There is nothing wrong but this is for me to come back to and remember that their reasoning was through the "lemon test" which is a series of 3 questions... was the whole reasoning behind the funding secular? Is the primary effect to advance or inhibit religion? Was the decision made through individual or forced through the government?

concurring

A it was actually 82% of the schools were religious and the reason for Harris' claim was that it appeared like the government was influencing religion on the students since that was most of what was available and B) what is currently stated in this brief does not make sense and contradicts the claim of there being a first amendment problem which was how I was able to point out that the numbers must have been opposite of the true data before doing research. The problem was that only 14% were non religious rather than religious as stated

Is actually 96% at religious private

Cleveland

It was 5-4

After further research, I found that this is a case decided in 2002

In the case facts they say first amendment is in question not the 14th

Needs to be volume, abbrev. for court reporter, starting page number, and then the year

In the legal citation, the year is not optional like it is in the case name

Does this imply that powers cannot be partial? Like the state governments cannot have the power to tax only certain things it is either they have the power to tax or not?

Is this essentially just summarizing that both the states and the central government are sovereign, so Maryland cannot impose a tax on the Bank because that would be considered as impeding on the congress using their implied powers of the constitution to carry out their responsibilities and because it renders the central government's creation of that bank useless?

Is this an issue because one of the concurrent powers is the power to tax? If not, is there ever a time where the concurrent powers make things somewhat complex?

I feel like this is not true. It is super confusing and congress did not rid itself of lawmaking power?

should be concurring

should be for

thought we were talking about the president

should be no. There would be no statute to authorize the possession of property

I believe the legal issue is supposed to specifically mention a law or element of the constitution which this does not

This says 1951, but the Vietnam war started in 1955

What exactly is this discussing? Is it talking about representation and how when people choose their president they are thinking of what values will exert the most happiness for them? Is this talking about utility? Also, what is meant by "original" as in original right or original will

This confuses me as wheenever I think of judicial review I just think of if a law is unconstitutional the supreme court can throw it out, but what would it mean to disregard the law or conformably to the law? If a law is declared unconstitutional is it not just immediately out or no?

who is he in this phrase? Here, the president's power to make appointments is being discussed and then it continues on to talk about the powers being "non resumeable". Essentially, who cannot remove the officer and who can and who is "he" in the sentence?

I think this argument shows clear in favor of the church as he is saying all in all, if it is a necessity and about public safety, religion should not matter. He might be implying that a playground meant to keep kids healthy should be on the matter of public health not religion

This is an argument that most definitely argues in favor of the church as he clearly states they should not be deprived

I think she might be the second dissenting justice as she goes against David Cortman strongly here. She says they are able to deny members thus they are private thus they don't get immediate right to public money

Here, it is pretty evident to me that Sonia is one of the dissenting judges as she argues against David that there is no coercion to beliefs to deprive of the benefit. She also repetitively states that no one is taking away the playground.

this is what I was discussing earlier... Isn't it against the free exercise idea to not help fund the school? Just because they're religious now they are being discriminated against in terms of aid? Favoring one religion is not allowed, but is favoring no religion allowed?

How would they decide where the line can be drawn? With what grants can the states say you must not use these for religious activity? If David here references textbooks as "too far" what else is and what isn't? Is there any part of the constitution that states what the conditions of grants can look like?

If the whole goal is to ensure religion is able to be freely practiced (1st amendment) why would there be discussion about whether or not the government should provide basic assets to support the school on the account of worrying they are then supporting that religion? Wouldn't it be not allowing the school to freely practice religion/ not supporting choice of practice of religion if they didn't help provide some essentials they need?