43 Matching Annotations
  1. Nov 2019
    1. permissible regulation

      Factual Error: The above statement would then make this impermissible.

    2. 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

      Factual Error: Government can not suppress freedom of speech even if it is undesirable or offensive to society

    3. there is no evidence of an expressive element in his actions.

      Factual Error: this states there is no evidence but there was evidence of an expressive action

    4. Justince Kennedy

      Factual Error: Kennedy did not dissent he concurred

    5. Second Amendment

      Factual Error: it is the first amendment

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

      Factual Error: He burned the flag, he did not paint it upside down

    7. 491 U.S. 397

      Error: Missing the year to make it a correct legal citation

  2. Oct 2019
    1. Additionally, the constitutionality of this program turns on whether most schools in the program are religious.

      Error: I believe that they stated a percentage went to public schools but that this program did not hinder because of that since the religious schools did not get all of the money and the parents had the choice in where to send their students.

    2. not one

      Factual Error: It is of true private choice

    3. he program most likely violates th

      Factual Error, They stated that it does not violate the establishment clause considering it covers a broad group of individuals

    4. dissenting

      Factual Error: OConnor was Concurring

    5. 7–2

      Factual Error: Wrong Split between the justices, It was 5-4

    6. Constitution

      Factual Error: It's the Bill of Rights not the Constitution

    7. 14th Amendment

      Factual Error: Wrong Amendment (1st Amendment)

    8. 10 percent of the private schools

      Factual Error: Wrong Percentage of schools

    9. 5 percent

      Factual Error: Wrong percentage of students

    10. free exercise clause

      Factual Error: She argued that it went against the Establishment Clause

    11. students c

      Factual Error, the Parents chose these options for their students as stated in the book

    12. Epstein and Walker, p194

      Not a correct Legal Citation, 536 U.S. 639 (2002)

    13. p194

      Error, Wrong Page

    14. (1982)

      Factual Error, It is the wrong year and it is not supposed to be at the end of the name. Really was 2002.

    1. 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.

      Why would this be believed to be so radical? In my mind the states should be closer to the people so that they can represent them better against the federal government. Maybe this isn't exactly what they meant when stating this but that is my interpretation of it.

    2. hey may tax all the means employed by the Government to an excess which would defeat all the ends of Government. This was not intended by the American people.

      I understand that the people did not intend to have a government that can tax all aspects of their lives but could the federal government not put limitations on the amount of taxes that can be placed if they did allow them to "tax on instrument"? For example allow them to tax the mail but not allow all the other areas that are stated.

    3. But if the full application of this argument could be admitted,

      I'm a little confused on why this is stated. I thought the courts are supposed to talk about all parts of the situation at hand not just a part of the question. It makes it seem as if half of the problem is being addressed so they can get a specific result.

    1. Vinson: dissenting

      Error: Factual Error, The other two dissenter are left out, Minton and Reed

    2. (1952)

      Error: Formatting Error, The legal name of the case should not have the year placed in it because it is in the citation

    3. in the judgment of the Court

      Error: Factual Error, Clark did not give the opinion or judgement of the court, Black did

    4. can be

      Error: Factual Error, it cannot be upheld as an exercise of his power

    5. Yes.

      Error: Factual Error, They voted "no" it was unconstitutional

    6. Roberts: dissenting

      Error: Factual Error, Roberts was not a Justice in this case

    7. dissenting

      Error: Factual Error, He Concurred

    8. Vietnam War,

      Error: Factual Error, it was a war with Korea

    9. sugar manufacturing industry,

      Error: Factual Error, it was the Steel Industry

  3. Sep 2019
    1. "No person," says the constitution, "shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the fame overt act, or on confession in open court."

      I don't 100% understand the whole point of this example. I understand he is trying to make a point but what does convicting someone of treason have to do with the ruling if Marbury gets to be a judge?

    2. This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns, to different departments, their respective powers. It may either stop here; or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.

      I thought that the Judiciary branch did not have much power at this point to where they couldn't enact certain limits? Or is this basically referring to how it is still able to check the other powers?

    3. If any other construction would render the clause inoperative, that is an additional reason for rejecting such other construction, and for adhering to their obvious meaning.

      Is this trying to state that because Congress put in a different act over the original powers of the Court that the act put in place later should be thrown out? I know in one of the videos it talked about the Judiciary Act but I'm not sure if this is what they are referring to.

    1. They want the paving of their playground. Could -- could this -- could they demand as a matter of Federal constitutional right that that playground be funded, even though they have an -- an admissions policy that favors members of their church?

      DISSENT When reading Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg thinking with her hypothetical of acceptance policy it seems as if the way she is trying to push Cortmans argument towards being all about the religion and acceptance of only religious children is to stage the thinking that the church would go behind the governments back.

    2. Very well. If it does not permit a law that pays money out of the treasury for the health of the children in the church, school, or even going to church, how does it permit Missouri to deny money to the same place for helping children not fall in the playground, cut their knees, get tetanus, break a leg, et cetera? What's the difference?

      MAJORITY I feel like the way Justice Stephen G Breyer is phrasing his questions and leading this conversation in a way that he is definitely voting in the way of the church. I say this because he is trying to find the weak spot in Laytons argument and to make a point that he can't win the argument and be a good man in the eyes of the people.

    3. As long as you're using the money for playground services, you're not disentitled from that program because you're a religious institution doing religious things. And I would have thought that that's a pretty strong principle in our constitutional law.

      MAJORITY Justice Elena Kagan is stating that even if the playground is built on a churches ground that they should still be allowed to get the money because the main purpose of that playground is not based on religious attitudes or actions.

    4. If you know the history and context of the program, you would know that this is a competitive grant, and they actually should be religion blind. So if you're not looking at who is applying, you can grade this just like this application was graded highly, based on secular and neutral criteria.

      I agree with judging the applications blindly to keep the process neutral and fair for all but shouldn't religious schools be exempt from receiving grants from the government? Going back again to the separation of church and state.

    5. And -- and still get the public money.

      If the church recieves public money because it is labeled as a public school, don't they have to accept any students? Because the act of getting money from the government should mean that the school is open to anyone even if they are not the same religion or background. If the school chooses to become closed to certain groups of people wouldn't they legally have to be categorized as a private school?

    6. Or how about if it chooses on a sunny day to do its religious instruction outside. How does the State know or how can it control without then controlling on the -- on the basis of belief and viewpoint? How could they control against that involvement?

      DISSENT I believe Sonia is one of the Justices that will dissent because in her many questions you can understand that she is against any connection of the government to a religious organization considering they can't completely know or have controller how the church uses that space.

    7. even though the motivation behind operating this preschool is a religious motivation, doesn't mean that every single activity that occurs there happens to be religious.

      His argument is that not every activity is religious based or focuses on their beliefs but if it is being taught in the setting of the church wouldn't that be enough to be pushing their religion? If you are in a setting such as the church it doesn't matter what the activity is, it will be a representation of the church belief at least in my thinking.