- Mar 2019
-
mmcr.education mmcr.education
-
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.
can only punish speech that would incite "imminent lawless action," therefore the flag burning does not always pose an imminent threat of lawless action.
-
The Court first looked to see if Johnson's conduct could be considered "expressive conduct,"
Johnson's actions fell into the category of expressive conduct
-
Dissent b
Concurrence
-
Arthur Smith
Gregory Lee Johnson
-
Does an act of Congress prohibiting the burning of the American flag violate the Second Amendment freedom of expression?
is burning a flag a form of speech that is protected under the First Amendment?
-
painted an American flag on his bare chest, but painted it upside down.
Burned a flag.
-
491 U.S. 397
491 US 397 (1989)
-
-
mmcr.education mmcr.education
-
Only certain religious groups are free to participate.
incorrect
-
10 percent of the private schools available were religious, and only 5 percent of students used their vouchers at private schools.
percentage off
-
stay in the district and receive $500 in tutorial assistance,
Did not see this in the facts
-
Separate Opinions
missing Opinion - Rehnquist
-
dissenting
concurring
-
By a vote of 7–2
No. In a 5-4
-
Does the voucher program offend the 14th Amendment to the Constitution?
real question -- Does Ohio's school voucher program go against the Establishment Clause?
-
as studies found it to be one of the worst-performing districts in the country. It failed to meet eighteen state standards, only 10 percent of ninth graders passed proficiency exams, and more than two-thirds of students dropped out before graduation.
was not focused on performance - more on religious part
-
Baltimore school district
incorrect school district - Cleveland
-
(1982)
2002 - incorrect date
-
Epstein and Walker, p194
536 US 639 (2002) - improper citation
-
-
mmcr.education mmcr.education
-
Of consequence, when they act, they act in their States. But the measures they adopt do not, on that account, cease to be the measures of the people themselves, or become the measures of the State governments....
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.
-
could not prove the rights of the States to tax the Bank of the United States
What exactly is this explaining? does it mean funding to federal banks? like would it harm the protection of NCUA or FDIC?
-
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 Governmen
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?
-
can be trusted by the people with the power of controlling measures which concern all, in the confidence that it will not be abused. This, then, is not a case of confidence, and we must consider it is as it really is
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.
-
It is the Government of all; its powers are delegated by all; it represents all, and acts for all. Though any one State may be willing to control its operations, no State is willing to allow others to control them
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?
-
- Feb 2019
-
mmcr.education mmcr.education
-
Clark:
not involved
-
Roberts
reed
-
dissenting
Concurring
-
Yes. By a vote of 6-3 the Court ruled against Youngstown Sheet & Tube.
6-3 is correct however, they ruled against Charles Sawyer. With the idea that, president did not have the authority to issue the order.
-
Can Congress take over an industry in order to prevent a union from striking?
The main idea was if the President had constitutional authority to seize and operate the mills?
-
forbade this type of action by the president.
The act says that It allows the president to appoint a board of inquiry to investigate union disputes
-
sugar manufacturing industry
United Steelworkers of America.**
-
secretary of commerce
Would put Charles Sawyer - give the individuals name
-
Vietnam
Korean
-
In 1951 a labor dispute began in the sugar manufacturing industry, and the union called for a strike.
What labor issue? why is the strike starting?
-
-
mmcr.education mmcr.education
-
If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts, and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? T
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.
-
The constitution vests the whole judicial power of the United States in one supreme court, and such inferior courts as congress shall, from time to time, ordain and establish.
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?
-
If, by law, the officer be removable at the will of the President, then a new appointment may be immediately made, and the rights of the officer are terminated.
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?
-
For if he has been appointed, the law continues him in office for five years, and he is entitled to the possession of those evidences of office, which, being completed, became his property....
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?
-
- Jan 2019
-
mmcr.education mmcr.education
-
I'm asking, does the Constitution of the United States permit a State or a city to say, we give everybody in this city police protection, but not churches? We give everybody fire protection, but let the church burn down
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!
-
Under the traditional view of -- in the State of Missouri, it would not be permitted, provided that those were actually church buildings. Worship buildings
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.
-
What are we going to do with all the exemptions that churches receive
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.
-
Sonia Sotomayor
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.
-
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
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.
-
So, for example, if there was a program from a State that said we have a lot of old buildings in town, and we're going to -- we're going to reimburse for fire extinguishers for all of the old buildings, including the religious schools and all the schools. And they said, but if -- if you have a religious school and you use this fire extinguisher reimbursement, could they then be able to say now that you received that -- that public benefit, that safety benefit, you can no longer include any religion in those classrooms or in the schools?
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.
-
And so there's a question about how religious you may be in order to receive the benefit or not.
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.
-
I believe so, because we're still at the premise of -- of why are we making the church choose between exercising its religion, the same facts in McDaniel v. Paty, and saying he can't both be a minister and also be a constitutional delegate.
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?
-
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?
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?
-
is that you're forcing them to choose between exercising their religious faith and receiving the -- a public benefit
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?
-
religious schools, just not for religious activities.
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.
-