First Amendment is that government may always prohibit the expression of an idea whenever society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.
This is not true part of the First Amendment is that speech may be disagreeable or offensive, but may still be used. Also this is not an ALWAYS thing regardless.
Texas v. Johnson (1989)
The case name does not include the year that goes in the citation.
Dissent by Justince Kennedy
Kennedy did not have a dissenting opinion. His was in favor of the majority.
Second Amendment freedom of expression
This is not under the Second Amendment. This is under the first amendment.
Arthur Smith
This is not who this was about. This is about Gregory Lee Johnson.
painted an American flag on his bare chest, but painted it upside down.
he did not paint it upside down. The flag was burned.
491 U.S. 397
This is wrong because it does not include the year (1989)
Yes. By a vote of 6-3 the Court ruled against Youngstown Sheet & Tube.
By a vote of 6-3 the Court ruled in favor of Youngstown Sheet & Tube NOT against.
The order cannot be upheld on the basis of the several provisions of the Constitution that grant executive power to the president
This order CAN be upheld based off the constitution and the aggregate of his powers under the Constitution according to the opinion of the court.
can be upheld
This is incorrect because it states it can be upheld, but the opinion of the court states "the order cannot properly be sustained as an exercise of the President's military power as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces."
Roberts: dissenting
There was no Roberts in the Supreme Court
Jackson: dissenting
Jackson voted with the majority or had a concurring opinion.
Congress
This issue is not with Congress, but with the President.
Vietnam War
The Vietnam war had not started yet, this was the Korean war
sugar manufacturing industry
The labor dispute began in a steel industry not sugar industry.
When they tax the chartered institutions of the States, they tax their constituents, and these taxes must be uniform.
Here I feel confused about what they mean by chartered institutions of the States. I realize they are talking about taxing states similarly, but I am not sure what the chartered institutions references. Does this mean the federal government has a limit to what they can tax in states? Also, I want to make sure I am interpreting this right, they are stating taxes must be uniform to all of the similar chartered institutions in the states, right?
that there is a plain repugnance in conferring on one Government a power to control the constitutional measures of another, which other, with respect to those very measures, is declared to be supreme over that which exerts the control,
To me, this sounds like they are saying the state government cannot control the federal government and vice versa, but the last sentence states one government exerts control of another government. What is this piece saying when discussing power and control and who are they talking about exerting control?
the instrument was submitted to the people. They acted upon it in the only manner in which they can act safely, effectively and wisely, on such a subject—by assembling in convention.
So I feel some confusion here. I get the process they are talking about, but when they say "the instrument was submitted to the people" I am unsure who the people are. Are the people the general public or are the people Congress? Or are the people someone completely different? It then goes on to sound as if everyone is included in this, but I still do not feel sure.
That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions -- a written constitution -- would of itself be sufficient, in America, where written constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the construction. But the peculiar expressions of the constitution of the United States furnish additional arguments in favor of its rejection.
What does it mean when he says "but the peculiar expressions of the constitution of the United States furnish additional arguments in favor of its rejection"? Is this stating that the Constitution talks about invalid pieces of the document? I am confused if he is discussing the importance of the constitution or if he is saying the constitution has issues that needs to be fixed or something completely different.
the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.
The word choice in this is very confusing to me. Is he discussing judicial review here? Is this discussing constitutionality and the accountability laws and people have to the constitution?
If congress remains at liberty to give this court appellate jurisdiction, where the constitution has declared their jurisdiction shall be original; and original jurisdiction where the constitution has declared it shall be appellate; the distribution of jurisdiction, made in the constitution, is form without substance.
I am still confused about the relationship between Congress and appellate jurisdiction. I guess what I have gotten so far from appellate jurisdiction is that this is a decision that has been made in the past or it is a case that has been decided in the past. I also know Congress has the right to create laws in this. I am confused on when a court is using appellate jurisdiction and the relationship with congress and appellate jurisdiction.
We don't want -- we don't -- we don't want to because they're a church. That's why not. Same with fire protection. Same with vaccination programs. Same with public health. Same with helping children
I think Stephen Breyer voted in the majority because he feels as though he is attacking the idea of not funding the church in any sense. Because he is talking about protection and helping people and it feels as though the service of providing a pavement could go along with these other fundings. He has clearly showed this pavement will protect children and we should help children.
But the State is entitled to say you can't use this money for religious activity, and maybe I'll bring you a little bit further, we're entitled to take certain prophylactic measures to make sure that you don't use the money for religious activity.
Here I think Elena may be moving towards agreement with the church because she is talking about how regulation could be used so she could possibly be in the majority.
We don't want to fund religious exercise. And I understand that you might think that's out of bounds, too. But what I'm trying to figure out is, is there a distinction between these two things.
I am wondering if he as lost track of his argument or if this was originally part of his argument and he has a plan? It does not feel like this was all on the written piece of the case briefing and is only coming up in the oral piece.
I'm sorry -- Ruth Bader Ginsburg We -- we did --
How does it work with the interraction of judges when they seem to interrupt each other. I have noticed a few times a judge has spoken over another judge. Is this based on who has seniority who gets to speak, or who continues speaking?
So how is the building separate from the religious exercise therein? I believe that this playground is part of the ministry of this church.
I think here Sonia Sotomayor is expressing that the building being part of the church should not include it in state funding. I think based off of her stating that she does not see a difference, she is one of the two that voted against the church.
e did say in this case -- well, I think you stipulated that this school has a nondiscriminatory admissions policy. But suppose it didn't. Suppose its policy was we prefer Lutheran children, and then if we have any space left over after that, we'll take other Christians. And then after that, maybe Jews, and then everyone else. Everything else is the same.
I think Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the other judge that had a dissenting vote based off her questions she is looking at how a church has the right pick and choose where public schools do not and she has an issue funding the private idea of this.
So if it's controlled.
I think Samuel A. voted in the majority because his questions are very much searching for an answer and feel as though he is not asking difficult questions that will stick him in an awkward place, but to help him move his point along.
religious activities and funding secular activities of religious organization.
I am wondering what everyone thinks about how these are different. Where do we draw the line on separation of church and state and freedom of religion, but still make sure we are protecting people?
Or are you saying that it's -- that absent in Establishment Clause problem
I am a little confused here. He is asking Cortman whether states can take an action against or for a place based on religion, but what is the Establishment Clause and how is this related to the state and religion?