50 Matching Annotations
  1. Nov 2019
    1. Looking at Johnson's actions, there is no evidence of an expressive element in his actions.

      The book states that "Johnson's burning of the flag was conduct 'sufficiently imbued with elements of communication'"

    2. Texas has argued that Johnson's actions are a form of "fighting words"

      They said that Johnson's actions were not fighting words

    3. always

      The text states that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.

    4. Second

      wrong amendment

    5. Arthur Smith, painted an American flag on his bare chest, but painted it upside down.

      Nowhere in the book does it mention Arthur Smith or a flag painted upside down. The protester in question was Gregory Lee Johnson who droused a flag in kerosene and then set it on fire.

    6. assembled outside the convention hall.

      The protesters actually marched the city

    7. Justince

      Justice is spelled wrong?

    8. Dissent

      Justice Kennedy gave a concurring opinion

    9. 491 U.S. 397

      The year is missing

  2. Oct 2019
    1. Here, the program is not one of true private choice. It is not neutral in all respects toward religion and is part of an attempt to channel funds to wealthy citizens who send their children to religious schools. Only certain religious groups are free to participate.

      None of this was used as the reasoning for saying it was constitutional

    2. not

      this should be removed

    3. most likely violates the establishment clause.

      the program is not readily subject to challenge under the Establishment clause is what the text actually states

    4. schools

      This should say religious schools

    5. Simmons-Harris sued

      Other local citizens filed this suit as well against Susan Zelman

    6. only 5 percent

      Of the parents that used the tuition vouchers at private schools, 96.7% choose a religious school

    7. attend a public school outside the district.

      scholarships could also be available if they choose this option

    8. only 10 percent

      80% of the private schools that participated were religious

    9. students

      the parents were the ones who got to choose the alternatives

    10. more than two-thirds of students dropped out before graduation.

      It should say that more than two-thirds of the students failed or dropped out before graduation

    11. 14th Amendment to

      They were looking at whether the program offended the Establishment Clause of the constitution. To make their decision they then referenced the 14th Amendment along with the 1st Amendment.

    12. 7–2

      Vote was actually 5-4

    13. (with Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer)

      This is listed but Breyer is noted as dissenting above and Stevens is below, so I do not think it needs to be listed again in.

    14. (with Stevens and Souter)

      Ginsburg needs to be added if it was supposed to be there, but it does not need to be listed out like this

    15. dissenting


    16. Epstein and Walker, p194

      Incorrect way of citing. Should be 536 U.S. 639 (2002).

    17. (1982)

      Wrong year

    1. is a part of the supreme law of the land....

      So is this saying that being able to have a Bank of the United States stems from the Supremacy clause and is protected by it in a way?

    2. To impose on it the necessity of resorting to means which it cannot control, which another Government may furnish or withhold, would render its course precarious, the result of its measures uncertain, and create a dependence on other Governments which might disappoint its most important designs, and is incompatible with the language of the Constitution.

      This is very wordy and confusing to me. Is it saying that the two governments are supposed to stand independent of eachother if possible when talking about the powers of the banks? Or am I completely misinterpretating this passage?

    3. Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves.

      Is this section saying that only the most important powers were delegated to each piece of the government and that the other powers that are "deduced" are the implied or inherent powers?

    1. but Congress has clearly chosen to rid itself of that power and give it to the president.

      The law making power is entrusted in Cogress alone, in both good and bad times.

    2. can

      His actions cannot be upheld

    3. Holding

      There was no mention of the Justice who wrote the majority or pluarlity opinion in this case

    4. Congress

      The issue was whether the president could take over an industry to prevent them from striking without prior authorization from Congress

    5. against

      They ruled in favor of Youngstown Sheet & Tube

    6. Yes

      They ruled that they do not hold that power

    7. Roberts:

      not on case

    8. Clark: concurring in the judgment of the Court

      Black delivered the opinion of the court

    9. dissenting


    10. Vietnam War,

      wrong war

    11. sugar


  3. Sep 2019
    1. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.

      Do all courts do this or just the Supreme Court? Can it be challenged if they want the operation of each to change?

    2. It has been stated at the bar that the appellate jurisdiction may be exercised in a variety of forms, and that if it be the will of the legislature that a mandamus should be used for that purpose, that will must be obeyed. This is true, yet the jurisdiction must be appellate, not original.

      Is this saying that a mandamus can only be used in cases with appellate jurisdiction and not in cases that has originial jurisdiction?

    3. But where a specific duty is assigned by law, and individual rights depend upon the performance of that duty, it seems equally clear that the individual who considers himself injured,

      What exactly is he meaning here, specifically with the part about with "injured"? Not a physical injury but an issue?

    1. On that -- on that question, I guess rather long ago now in the 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. And doesn't that fit this case? And if so, is Everson passé?

      I think Justice Ginsburg was one of the two dissenters. Right from the beginning I thought it was clear that she was never going to agree with the church in this case. She strongly believes that this is violating the seperation of church and state and was not going to change her mind about that, no matter what Cortman said.

    2. 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. We give everybody public health protection, but not a church. That's -- that's the law in my imaginary State. And I'm saying, does the Constitution, which guarantees free exercise of religion, permit such laws?

      I think that Breyer is another Justice that sides with the church in this case. He keeps referring to points that circle around the fact that a playground is a public benefit and the fact that children who go to a religious school use it, but not for a religious activity. These kids use it just to run around as kids and get some energy out and that it should not be a religious funding issue because religious activites are not happening on it.

    3. Oh. So suppose you -- we have the -- a school that's run by the Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia. And then next to it we have a -- a Jesuit elementary and secondary school. One would be eligible, one would not be eligible?

      I believe that Alito is a majority in this case ruling. He is drilling Mr. Layton about the differences in religious groups and buildings and the question about different fundings given. I believe he thinks there is no overlapping issue with the seperation of church and state with the money given to a playground that is not being used for a religious purpose.

    4. So what's interesting here is there's already talk that the new policy is immediately going to be go challenged, and likely struck down by the Missouri Supreme Court.

      This entire section is a bit confusing in my opinion. If the Supreme Court makes a ruling on this issue though, Missouri Supreme Court cannot change the policy, correct?

    5. We seem to be confusing money with religious practice. I don't think the two are tied. This church is not going to close its religious practices or its doors because its playground doesn't have these tires. So I'm not sure how this is a free-exercise question, because there is no effect on the religious beliefs.

      I believe that Sotomayor is a dissenter in this case. By reading this and hearing her tone of voice, I do not think that she believes this case should even be here based on the precedents set before this and does not vote in favor of the church in the end. I think she believes that religion and state funding should stay completely seperate.

    6. Would they consider that to be part of -- would they consider that to fall within the prohibition?

      When talking about "prohibition" are we talking about violating the seperation of church and state or something else?

    7. I think both the public schools should be able to use it for other activities, and I think that the religious schools should be able to also.

      This is a little confusing to me, is he saying that it can be used for other things, including prayer, if it was not an established activity?