Kennedy did not dissent. He was in the majority, but he did have a concurring opinion.

is NOT a permissible regulation of speech

"may not" Distasteful speech, even hate speech, can be protected under the first amendment

First Amendment, freedom of speech/expression

He was given an American flag by someone else, and then he proceeded to light it on fire.

Gregory Lee Johnson

It is neutral in that while religion may be involved, it does not specifically mention whether the money should be used for a religious or non-religious school. That is up to the individual to decide.

In his opinion piece, Rehnquist mentions how the only preference taken in administrating the funds was that "the program is a preference for low-income families, who receive greater assistance and are given priority for admission at participating schools" (415).

The program DOES NOT violate the establishment clause in these three court cases. The Supreme Court deems them to be constitutional and not in violation of the establishment clause, because they are providing funds to a program that helps out a "broad class of citizens" even if their intent is to go to a religious school. The money is used for their educational purpose, and not directly to the school itself.

Stevens dissented, but he did not write a separate opinion on his own

concurring

Court ruled 5-4 against Zelman

First Amendment, establishment clause

96.7% used vouchers

80% were religious

pg. 412-417

2002

Cleveland, not Baltimore

I'm guessing he means that the Federal Government cannot rely or depend on state governments to carry out essential functions? What functions would these be?

Is Marshall trying to protect the Federal Government from the states with this statement? Often, we hear about protecting citizens from the federal government, but not often do we hear about the federal government being protected from the states.

Are they implying that the federal legislature contains members of all states, and therefore they can be trusted with matters that concern all citizens?

Can the President, not Congress, take over an industry in order to prevent a national emergency?

The Constitution can be vague here, especially when it comes to emergency powers. There is nothing that states the President can seize private property from a firm in order to fulfill a national security concern. The Court rules that the executive branch and Congress may have "concurrent authority" in these situations.

There is no set policy set by Congress here. They have not passed any laws that require the steel industry to comply with the war effort in Korea.

Congress never rid itself of this power, and it never delegated this power to the President. As the court says, the President can "rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter"

The Court strikes this down, and rules that this is not a proper example of the President's inherent power as a military commander.

in favor of the steel industry, and against the executive branch

Roberts was not a Supreme Court Justice at this time. Justice Black is missing here

This is missing Minton and Reed as the two other Justices who dissented

This is incorrect, Jackson was one of the majority votes

The US was not directly engaged in a war in Vietnam at this point, but rather was in the Korean War in 1951

the correct industry would be the *steel industry

It seems the biggest question Marshall has here is the question, "Do we listen to the newest laws, or the original statements of the Constitution?". This is interesting in that Marshall is a federalist and preferred centralized power. It seems here that while he prefers a strong central government, he also wants one that is held strongly in check by a judicial branch.

Did John Marshall fear the legislative branch the most? It seems that a lot of the founding fathers were most fearful of the executive branch, as they had just fought a revolution against a royal king. However, it seems here that Marshall is worried about a legislature that can simply change laws that it doesn't like at any given time.

I'm assuming here he is implying that the Supreme Court has the original say or decision when it comes to public officials? As in, people who work for the government?

I believe that Alito is one of the majority members for this case. He brings up a good point here of possible discrimination against institutions solely based on their religious affiliation. If a bomb (or fire) had damaged a row of both non-religious as well as religious buildings, would it be unfair if the religious buildings were denied money to help repair their structure?

I think Kagan is included in the majority vote. While she isn't necessarily taking sides here, I think she is comparing this to a previous case where a religious institution was able to receive funds because they were able to show the separation between education and their religious intent.

I think this segment clues in to Ginsburg being one of the dissenters. I think she is cautious about the idea of religious institutions being funded in some way by a general public.

What is this 39 state tradition? And what states have not followed that tradition?

Also, Locke v Davey has been mentioned a few times, what was decided in this case and why is it significant to this case? (I'm assuming it has something to do with religion and free exercise)

What is this balance that he is referring to? It seems that the establishment clause and the free exercise clause are opposite ends that counter each other in some way.

I think this points toward Sotomayor being one of the dissenters. In this passage, I think it is clear that she believes that the government is not technically taking anything away from the church, or in this case, not allowing the playground to open.

What are the official rules with States denying funds for religious use? How does this compare with the federal government? Are there are distinct rules, or are they pretty general/open to interpretation?