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.

Freedom of Speech is not under the Second Amendment, it is under the First Amendment.

It was not Arthur Smith, it was Gregory Lee Johnson.

The problem was not that someone painted an American flag upside down on their chest, it was that someone burned the American flag.

This is incorrect. Justince Kennedy had a concurring opinion.

This citation is almost correct. It is missing the date in parentheses. It should look like: 491 U.S. 397 (1989)

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.

96.7%

80%

Establishment clause

The Cleveland School District.

This is incorrect. The legal issue is "Does the voucher program offend the First Amendment's establishment clause"

This is incorrect. O'Connor was a concurring opinion.

This is incorrect. By a vote of 5-4 the Court ruled in favor of Zelman.

This is not the correct way to right a legal citation, it should be written as 536 US. 639 (2002)

(2002) This case was decided in 2002, not 1982.

Is this this final decision because if the states did have the power then they would ultimately have more power then the federal government?

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?

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?

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 was not a justice

Concurring

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".

This is incorrect. The legal issue is, "Can the President take over an industry in order to prevent a union from striking?"

This is incorrect. It was the war with Korea.

This is incorrect. The labor dispute began in the steel industry.

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?

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???

Is it saying here that some parts of the constitution are unable to read? Or that it cannot be changed or revised at all?

Is it saying here that some parts of the constitution are unable to read? Or that it cannot be changed or revised at all?

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???

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?".

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?

Why doesn't the country want to fund houses of worship?

Here is it saying that churches are not eligible for the state to give them money to make improvements that they need?