can only punish speech that would incite "imminent lawless action," therefore the flag burning does not always pose an imminent threat of lawless action.

Johnson's actions fell into the category of expressive conduct

Concurrence

Gregory Lee Johnson

is burning a flag a form of speech that is protected under the First Amendment?

Burned a flag.

491 US 397 (1989)

incorrect

percentage off

Did not see this in the facts

missing Opinion - Rehnquist

concurring

No. In a 5-4

real question -- Does Ohio's school voucher program go against the Establishment Clause?

was not focused on performance - more on religious part

incorrect school district - Cleveland

2002 - incorrect date

536 US 639 (2002) - improper citation

Can someone explain this sentence in depth? where are they going with this? like is talking about when consequences are needed that are given by the state itself? I just do not understand how this ties with the paragraph prior.

What exactly is this explaining? does it mean funding to federal banks? like would it harm the protection of NCUA or FDIC?

Is this basically saying that states can not come up with their own tax percentage? I feel like that would be a good idea because, why would one state be higher than other? what would be a reason for that?

What sets the limits to label something as abuse? how would the general public know that powers are being misused. I feel like regular people daily never really know what is going on with our government, we find out last anyways.

Although the statement makes sense, each state has limits that want to follow however, they are controlled by federal anyways? Why is it such a offense when states?

not involved

reed

Concurring

6-3 is correct however, they ruled against Charles Sawyer. With the idea that, president did not have the authority to issue the order.

The main idea was if the President had constitutional authority to seize and operate the mills?

The act says that It allows the president to appoint a board of inquiry to investigate union disputes

United Steelworkers of America.**

Would put Charles Sawyer - give the individuals name

Korean

What labor issue? why is the strike starting?

I am confused on why this is even a question when it is just contradicting it's self. It says it is not law, but does is need a rule like it is a law. If it is not a law, why would it need a rule? The would just push it into being a law.

This is part is confusing to me because it says that all of our judicial power is vested in supreme court. However, the court can push back cases to lower courts. If we make a comment that our judicial powers are more important in the supreme court... will this not belittle the other courts and law? I also want to know what is the comment about time to time? When is a time that the other courts have ordain and establish?

Has bias opinions ever caused an issue? If only the president has this power, how will abusing the power be regulated and since the position is filled right away ... how can we be sure the transitiion is smooth?

Where did the idea of the five term come from? The property that he owns because of his position, is it for keeps or is it like the president in the white house? The president owns it for his term but then moves on, wondering if thats what happens in this case?

This point helps the outcome. Why does the public need to draw a line to who gets funding. This makes the idea that the church should get assistance feel like it is the right decision. Why should they get discriminant for being a church when it comes to safety? They shouldn't!

I think this statement benefited the outcome because the clause that no man has to oblige to helping a place of religious practice. Worship building is the key word - the playground is not a worship building. It's main purpose is for children to get the exercise needed and since children are around, public safety needs to be looked into.

This a question I want to ask too... what does happen? what happens to all the tuition and exemptions they get? It seems kind of unfair that they get all this help and then now public funding too.

I believe Sotomayor was the second dissenter. This part where Cortman and her are going back and forth - seems like she is getting defensive over the fact that regardless of the funding or not... the private organization is not losing anything. There is nothing being taken from them, they have all freedom that is promised. The only difference is that they choose to be a private & religious organization therefore, they can not have the benefits of those who do not.

I think Ginsburger is the dissenter. As she speaks, I see that she has a more public point of view. She seems to like the idea that schools are more public and not have the policy that only some may attend. I feel like she worries that if the schools are given money, they could close out the access to the public, the very same public that helped them.

I believe this example helps support the church's behalf. The way I read this, was if we government helps a church does this mean they can just say "you can not practice religion". This example well express the unfairness in that claim. It shows that just because help was given does not mean that, the government can control all aspects now. It reminds me of when someone does you a favor and then throws it in your face later - was it help or did it have motivate.

If this question is used, would this not create an environment of deceit or discrimination? By this I mean, if a school is denied help - they could fight back by saying, they are being punished by being too religious or maybe a school may limit their religious practice when it comes time that they need assistance.

This argument that the school could just wake up and say, we only accepted this type of student and still get public money baffles me. Why would the church assume that they can pick and choose who they allow in, and not the public have a choice on HOW to spend the money? It seems biased and hypocritical to me - you can not have a private mindset to that degree and expect the public to assist when some of the public can not even be included? Where would the public draw the line to who gets assistance and who does not?

This is something I do not understand, why exactly is this being bought up? is this supporting anyone's side? This seems as hypothetical idea that really does not get anyone anywhere. She stated that they do not have a policy that have a nondiscriminatory policy therefore this point should be brought up in cases that do (maybe in the future). Why exactly would she bring this idea up? Is it because she wants to find boundaries on what the court can or cannot do, maybe for future issues? Anyone can elaborate?

I was confused when this section began with the example of the cross on the window until now. First, I would like to gather more information on how Kennedy compared the extra money for the cross to the play ground. The play ground is asking for money because it is a children's environment which needs to be up to par, unlike the cross in the window. I do not see any correlation with the example given and this case - I want to see the underlying reason why he thought it could be related. Second, I do not agree with this statement. It could be because I am not reading in depth on it, how exactly are they making people choose between religious faith and public safety? It is not like they are abolishing religious schools or churches. Anyone want to explain?

This confuses me because I think their main point is related that the money government is giving can be used for religious schools, but not religious activities. A couple minutes prior, the question was asked "what if a prayer was conducted before play?" - what is the difference if the money goes to school or events? The schools will revolve religious activities anyways.