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
This is false. The Court actually agrees and argues that the most important principle behind the First Amendment is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea whenever society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.
Second Amendment
Freedom of Speech is not under the Second Amendment, it is under the First Amendment.
Arthur Smith
It was not Arthur Smith, it was Gregory Lee Johnson.
One of the protesters, Arthur Smith, painted an American flag on his bare chest, but painted it upside down.
The problem was not that someone painted an American flag upside down on their chest, it was that someone burned the American flag.
Dissent by Justince Kennedy
This is incorrect. Justince Kennedy had a concurring opinion.
491 U.S. 397
This citation is almost correct. It is missing the date in parentheses. It should look like: 491 U.S. 397 (1989)
ere, the program is not one of true private choice
This is false. The program is one of true private choice because it allows individuals to practice free choice among the options of public and private, secular and religious.
5 percent
96.7%
10 percent
80%
free exercise clause
Establishment clause
Baltimore school district
The Cleveland School District.
14th Amendment
This is incorrect. The legal issue is "Does the voucher program offend the First Amendment's establishment clause"
O'Connor: dissenting
This is incorrect. O'Connor was a concurring opinion.
7–2
This is incorrect. By a vote of 5-4 the Court ruled in favor of Zelman.
Epstein and Walker, p194
This is not the correct way to right a legal citation, it should be written as 536 US. 639 (2002)
1982
(2002) This case was decided in 2002, not 1982.
The result is a conviction that the States have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by Congress to carry into execution the powers vested in the General Government.
Is this this final decision because if the states did have the power then they would ultimately have more power then the federal government?
If we apply the principle for which the State of Maryland contends, to the Constitution generally,
This is confusing to me. If the constitution is the supreme law of the land, why would u apply that principle which would totally change and interfere with that?
tax that branch?.
Im confused with the whole taxing part. I understand that this is debating establishing a national bank, but what do they mean by taxing that branch?
Truman's action can be upheld as an exercise of the president's inherent military power as commander-in-chief.
This job is not necessarily for the President. The power to seize private property to help a war effort is a job for the lawmakers. The President's implied constitutional powers or his role as Commander in Chief give him any authority.
Roberts: dissenting
Roberts was not a justice
Jackson: dissenting
Concurring
against Youngstown Sheet & Tube
This is incorrect. By a vote 6-3 the Court ruled against the President. The court argues that "the President's power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refuses the idea that he is to be a lawmaker".
Congress
This is incorrect. The legal issue is, "Can the President take over an industry in order to prevent a union from striking?"
Vietnam War
This is incorrect. It was the war with Korea.
sugar manufacturing industry
This is incorrect. The labor dispute began in the steel industry.
The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men.
I am not sure what this is saying...from what I understand is that when it comes to law, the government is easily persuaded by them but when it comes to people it is hard for the government to budge and be on their side?
It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank.
This confuses me. I understand that the constitution is the supreme law of the land and "governs" our country more than the U.S. in general. But what does it mean that "only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank". Is it saying that only laws built off of the constitution will be granted or???
In some cases then, the constitution must be looked into by the judges. And if they can open it at all, what part of it are they forbidden to read, or to obey?
Is it saying here that some parts of the constitution are unable to read? Or that it cannot be changed or revised at all?
In some cases then, the constitution must be looked into by the judges. And if they can open it at all, what part of it are they forbidden to read, or to obey?
Is it saying here that some parts of the constitution are unable to read? Or that it cannot be changed or revised at all?
It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank.
This confuses me. I understand that the constitution is the supreme law of the land and "governs" our country more than the U.S in general. But what does it mean that "only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank". Is it saying that only laws built off of the constitution will be granted or???
The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men.
I am not sure what this is saying...from what I understand is that when it comes to laws, the government is easily persuaded by them but when it comes to people it is hard for the government to budge and be on their side?
Everson case back in 1947, this Court said in no uncertain terms what the Framers didn't want was tax money imposed to pay for building or maintaining churches or church property.
I think this for sure makes it obvious that Justice Ginsburg is not for the church. She states right from the beginning that the framers said that money cannot go toward church property and she includes a previous case where that was decided.
So how is the building separate from the religious exercise therein? I believe that this playground is part of the ministry of this church. And, in fact, I look at its bylaws, I look at its advertisements, and it includes play and conducted in a religiously valuable way. I think that's the materials that you're -- that the church is advertising. How do you separate out its secular function from its religious function?
I think by this statement you can tell that Sonia Sotomayor is not for the church. She actually states "I believe" which means to actually thinks this. She thinks that because the playground is apart of the church it cannot be funded by the state. She even goes into looking at the rules of the playground and how it is connected to the church.
So if you have a -- a synagogue that is at high risk for an attack by an anti-Semitic group or a mosque that is considered to be at high risk for attack by an anti-Muslim group, would the Missouri constitution permit the erection of bollards like we have around the court here?
I believe Samuel A. Alto, Jr. makes a good point here and almost seems like he is seeing the side of the church. He is talking about all of the terrorist attacks pointed towards religious buildings and asking how it is fait that government buildings are protected by religious buildings are not.
The problem is this church has come in with a very competitive application. We want to give money to this church. Let's say, you know, a Protestant church. There's a Catholic church across the street. Catholic church applies, doesn't get money, this happens five years running. And people start thinking, well, why is the Protestant church keeping on getting the money and the Catholic church never gets the money? And the State says, we just won't -- don't want to sow that kind of division, that kind of mistrust, that kind of
I think here Elena Kagan might be looking at the side of the church. I think this because she is talking about the church is competitive and how there could be problems in the way. One of these problems is that the Catholic church get no funding. What if a Protestant church ends up getting funding then the Catholic church is going to be upset. So she is looking at it more in a way of "how would this work?".
so this program says that you can't use this money for any religious activities and it has to go toward the playground resurfacing.
I am trying to figure out exactly what is being argued. So is David saying that the state is giving the church funding but it cannot be used for religious activities and only for the new playground surface? But Cortman thinks it should be able to be used for religious activities?
we don't want to, as a country -- well, the vast majority of States, to fund houses of worship.
Why doesn't the country want to fund houses of worship?
churches are not eligible for the benefit here.
Here is it saying that churches are not eligible for the state to give them money to make improvements that they need?