his actions were intentional and apparent.

it had a tendency to incite a breach of the peace.

first amendment

Johnson, who was marching, doused the flag with kerosene and set it on fire. As it was burning, individuals chanted the words: "America, the red, white and blue, we spit on you".

The ruling of this case ultimately expanded federal power, giving power to congress over the constitution because of the Elastic Clause, correct?

I wonder how it is determine that a power is "implied", when it is not specifically stated in the Constitution?

If I am correct, the Supreme Court basically says that Congress has implied powers and the “Necessary and Proper” Clause grants the power to congress to establish a national bank?

In regards to judicial principles, the U.S. courts still uphold the duty to overturn any law that contradicts the constitution. This is just reiterating that, right?

This is pretty much expressing that a U.S. law cannot be enforced if it conflicts with the constitution, correct?

Is a mandamus issuing issued by a judge? for example, is this meaning an authority of higher court is giving a lower court a duty to complete?

By Justice Breyer explaining that everyone if entitled to funding, whether or not the affiliation is with a religious institution or religious activities, makes me believe that he is in favor of the church. He further backs this up by saying that you're not disentitled from that program because you are involved with religious activity, thus being a strong principle within constitutional law.

I believe Justice Roberts is ultimately in favor of the church. After listening to his questioning of the other justices, this leads me to believe this. Justice Roberts seems to side with the idea that by government exclusion of churches and religious organizations from benefits, freedom ultimately becomes threatened.

This is an interesting point Justice Breyer brings up in regards to giving grants/spending money on police protection for the churches. Is this brought up due to the discussion over the general Establishment Clause? I feel that the discussion before the mentioning of the clause and after the talk over police protection was slightly confusing for me.

Is there truly a penalty for not receiving the public benefit? If I am correct, the public benefit is in regards to the tax exemption, right? Would this conclude that all religious properties would be exempt, as well?

I still do not understand what the determinants are for an activity to be labeled as "religious"? what exactly constitutes a religious activity per say?

Based on Ginsburg's hypothetical questioning and dissection of Cortman's viewpoint of the matter, I believe that she is one of the dissenters. Justice Ginsberg's seemingly has a more liberal take on the matter, which also leads me to believe she will dissent.