41 Matching Annotations
  1. Apr 2020
    1. Looking at Johnson's actions, there is no evidence of an expressive element in his actions.

      Johnson's burning of the flag was seen as involving elements of communication, therefore implicating the first amendment.

    2. The state also says that it has an interest in preserving the flag as a symbol of national unity. The Court agrees and argues that the most important principle behind the First Amendment is that government may always prohibit the expression of an idea whenever society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. As a result, the Texas law is a permissible regulation of speech.

      The court decides that since Johnson did not intend to or succeed in disturbing the peace, this difference of opinion made Texas' statute unconstitutional.

    3. Dissent


    4. painted an American flag on his bare chest, but painted it upside down

      The conviction was based on Johnson burning a flag, not painting a flag on his chest

    5. Arthur Smith

      the person at question is Gregory Lee Johnson

    6. assembled outside the convention hall

      protesters were marching through the streets, not gathered outside the hall

    7. 397

      The (1989) should be in the citation rather than next to the case name

  2. Mar 2020
    1. Here, the program is not one of true private choice. It is not neutral in all respects toward religion and is part of an attempt to channel funds to wealthy citizens who send their children to religious schools. Only certain religious groups are free to participate.

      This program was ruled constitutional, just like the others in its category.

    2. the program most likely violates the establishment clause

      These cases proved that the act was constitutional, based on their rulings.

    3. dissenting


    4. 7–2

      The vote was 5-4, not 7-2.

    5. the 14th Amendment

      Not regarding the 14th amendment as a whole. This case strictly focuses on the establishment clause.

    6. only 10 percent of the private schools available were religious, and only 5 percent of students used their vouchers at private schools.

      These statistics are different than those written in the case. 80% of the private school options were religious and 96.7% of the students went to private schools using their vouchers.

    7. free exercise clause

      The suit was filed due to the violation of the establishment clause, rather than the free exercise clause.

    8. students

      Parents could choose from these alternatives for their children, it was not the student's choice

    9. Baltimore

      This is the wrong school district, the correct district is Cleveland.

    10. Epstein and Walker, p194

      This is not the correct form for a legal citation

    11. 1982

      This case occurred in 2002, not 1982.

  3. Feb 2020
    1. he result of its measures uncertain, and create a dependence on other Governments which might disappoint its most important designs, and is incompatible with the language of the Constitution.

      Is Marshall saying that state governments are designed to never depend on one another? Is each state government an individual entity? How, then, do they come together in the federal government and work within the same general rules if they are all separate from one another?

    2. The men who drew and adopted this amendment had experienced the embarrassments resulting from the insertion of this word in the Articles of Confederation, and probably omitted it to avoid those embarrassments

      Is this an effective argument? Marshall's use of the word "probably" makes it seem to me like he is guessing and there is no foundation or structure to this argument he is making.

    3. No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American people into one common mass.

      I'm not exactly sure what Marshall means by this. Is he saying that the differences in opinion between states is not accounted for? I thought that that federal government was supposed to be composed of several representatives from different states that represents the overall opinions of the people, thereby establishing one common mass.

    1. Roberts: dissenting

      Roberts is not mentioned in the case in the textbook

    2. dissenting


    3. 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.

      This order does not involve a Congressional policy, it is a presidential policy created unconstitutionally.

    4. Congress take over an industry

      The president is the subject of the issue, not Congress.

    5. g power in the United States is within Congress's domain, but Congress has clearly chosen to rid itself of that power and give it to the president.

      The president does not have lawmaking power. This power is given to Congress by the Constitution and remains solely in Congress' control

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

      This action cannot be upheld because the President's military power does not allow him to order a seize on private property in order to prevent a strike.

    7. ruled against

      the court ruled in favor of the steel industry by a vote of 6-3

    8. Vietnam War

      The nation was involved in the Korean War, not the Vietnam War

    9. sugar manufacturing industry

      The labor dispute occurred in the steel industry, not sugar

    10. The labor dispute occurred in the steel industry, not sugar manufacturing

  4. Jan 2020
    1. "the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party. In all other cases, the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction."

      Should the Supreme Court have had appellate jurisdiction in this case then?

    2. If, by law, the officer be removable at the will of the President, then a new appointment may be immediately made,

      Does this mean that if Marbury were appointed by Adams he could simply have his position terminated by Jefferson and be replaced?

    3. the appointment was not revocable; but vested in the officer legal rights, which are protected by the laws of his country.

      If Marbury was appointed by the president and the appointment cannot be revoked, then why, in the end, is Marbury not offered his appointment? Just because mandamus wasn't the right way to approach the case shouldn't mean that the appointments are invalid.

    1. And this Court has seldom, if ever, actually said it's okay to write a check from the public treasury to a church. So this -- we're providing a service. And the service there is not being provided solely for the benefit of the church. The service is being provided for police and fire for the benefit of the public safety --

      Layton seems to be contradicting himself. Is he in favor of the state, who typically does not give money to the church, or is he in favor of the public safety aspect?

    2. But -- see, but that's what makes the case a -- just a little bit -- in -- in -- in my last hypothetical about earthquake safety, any problem there with giving the money to a church and spending extra money for the cross in the window? It's all -- it's for public safety.

      I think this statement shows that Kennedy is in favor of Trinity Lutheran because he puts his hypothetical situation under the same umbrella as the current case and says "it's all for public safety". This shows that he is less worried about the religious aspect and more worried about the safety of the children.

    3. Here, there's nothing being taken away from.

      I think Sotomayor is one of the justices that dissents from the overall result of this case because she is strictly arguing that the religious school is not having anything taken away from them and they are not being kept from receiving public benefit.

    4. t the beginning of the line of questioning that Justice Sotomayor just finished, she began with the suggestion that perhaps this amendment reflects an admirable historical tradition that should be respected. Do you think that that is the proper way to analyze this question?

      Alito seems to be disagreeing with Sotomayor and giving Cortman another chance to look at this question a different way, so I think that he is also in favor of Trinity Lutheran.

    5. In that case, why, just -- just like you and the other side to spend a minute on this, just a minute, why isn't the case moot? That is, we have a governor.

      This seems to me that Breyer is not thrilled about arguing this case any further and believes that there is no need for further action, therefore, I think he dissents from the final decision.

    6. But suppose it didn't.

      Doesn't this add an extra issue that doesn't have anything to do with the matter at hand? Why is it important to discuss this when it is stated that the admissions policy is non-discriminatory?

    7. Isn't it the consequence of your argument that the church can use the playground for more religious activities if the public school can use the playground for other non-playground activities?

      Is this really related to this specific case since the entire argument is based upon the religious aspect? A public school using the playground for other functions such as auctions has no religious affiliation, so I do not understand how this relates to this specific case.