43 Matching Annotations
  1. Nov 2019
    1. Holding

      There is missing information in this section. The name of the Justice who wrote the opinion of the court should be included. In this case, Brennan wrote the opinion of the court.

    2. Dissent

      This is incorrect information. Justice Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion.

    3. Justince

      This is misspelled. It should be Justice Kennedy.

    4. Second Amendment

      This is incorrect information. What was being violated was the First Amendment.

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

      This is incorrect information. The problem was that Johnson set the American flag on fire by using kerosene.

    6. Arthur Smith

      This is incorrect information. The protester was Gregory Lee Johnson.

    7. Citation

      There is missing information in this section. The citation section should also have the year the case was brought to the court, in this case 1989.

  2. Oct 2019
    1. Relevant Case Facts

      There is missing information from this section. In a relevant case facts section, there should be what lower court heard the case first and what the holding was in that court.

    2. Only certain religious groups are free to participate.

      This is false information. All religious groups were welcomed to participate.

    3. Here, the program is not one of true private choice

      This is incorrect information. The Court found that it is one of true private choice.

    4. the program most likely violates the establishment clause.

      This is incorrect information. This fact is saying that each time that a neutral governmental program was challenged, it was found that it did not violate the establishment clause.

    5. Holding

      There is missing information in this section. The name of the Justice who wrote the majority opinion should be included in this section.

    6. 14th Amendment

      This is incorrect information. The legal issue was whether the voucher program offended the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution.

    7. 10 percent

      This is incorrect information. 80 percent of the private schools were religious.

    8. 5 percent

      This is incorrect information. 96.7 percent of students used tuition vouchers to attend private schools.

    9. 7–2

      This is incorrect information. The vote was 5-4.

    10. Stevens: dissenting

      This is incorrect information. Stevens did not write a dissenting opinion.

    11. dissenting

      This information is incorrect. O'Connor was a concurring opinion.

    12. Baltimore

      This is an incorrect fact. It was the Cleveland School District.

    13. Epstein and Walker, p194

      This is not a legal citation. A legal citation should be the volume number of which book you can find the case. The legal citation should be 536 U.S. 639 (2002).

    14. (1982)

      The date of this court case is incorrect. The date should be 2002.

    1. State of Maryland is not that the States may directly resist a law of Congress, but that they may exercise their acknowledged powers upon it,

      I'm confused on why the State of Maryland thought they had the power to tax Congress? The Constitution never gave the states that power, so why would they try to tax Congress? Was it because they thought since the bank was in their state, they could tax it like they did with the other banks?

    2. The Government of the United States, then, though limited in its powers, is supreme, and its laws, when made in pursuance of the Constitution, form the supreme law of the land, "anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

      I'm confused by what Marshall is saying about the "State to the contrary notwithstanding". Throughout the this sentence, Marshall is saying that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Does that mean that if a state makes a law that contradicts the Constitution, that it can't be a law and the law is void?

    3. The powers of the General Government

      By General Government, Marshall is saying the federal government or just government in general?

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

      This is incorrect information. Congress does have the authority to give its powers to the executive branch, but Congress did not give its power to the President in this case.

    2. Truman's action can be upheld as an exercise of the president's inherent military power as commander-in-chief.

      This is incorrect information. While the President may have this power in the theater of war, the President did not have such authority in this situation. That power would be decided by Congress.

    3. Yes. By a vote of 6-3 the Court ruled against Youngstown Sheet & Tube.

      This information is incorrect. The Court ruled in favor of Youngstown Sheet & Tube.

    4. Roberts: dissenting

      This is incorrect information. Roberts was not a justice on the case.

    5. Jackson: dissenting

      This is incorrect information. Jackson wrote a concurring opinion.

    6. Can Congress take over an industry in order to prevent a union from striking?

      In this case, the question wasn't whether Congress can take over an industry. The question was whether the President was within his constitutional power to issue a seizure of steel mills.

    7. Vietnam War

      This fact is also wrong because it was not during the Vietnam War, but it was during the Korean War. The Vietnam War did not take place until the 1970s.

    8. sugar manufacturing industry

      This fact is wrong because it was not a sugar manufacturing industry. It was a steel industry

  3. Sep 2019
    1. If any other construction would render the clause inoperative, that is an additional reason for rejecting such other construction, and for adhering to their obvious meaning.

      So with this statement, does Marshall think that having the original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction is counterproductive?

    2. If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply

      Here, is Marshall saying that the constitution is absolute and that the acts and laws that the legislative branch pass are not valid, if they contradict the constitution?

    3. If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power, in its own nature illimitable.

      With this statement, Marshall is saying that either the constitution is absolute or it can be altered. I just don't understand how he is comparing the constitution being able to be altered to "absurd attempts" of limiting power?

    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.

      I think that Justice Ginsburg is dissenting on this case because she brings up an earlier case that states that no tax money should be imposed to improve a church property.

    2. And, in fact, I look at its bylaws, I look at its advertisements, and it includes play and conducted in a religiously valuable way.

      Justice Sotomayor is asking how its secular functions differ from its religious functions. I think by asking this question Sotomayor is dissenting against the church because she knows that the playground can be used in a religious way.

    3. Establishment Clause problem

      What is the Establishment Clause and why does it apply to this case? Does it have to do with separation of church and state?

    4. 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?

      Here, Justice Alto Jr. is supporting the Lutheran Church because he is trying to point out the hypocrisy of providing for some religiously affiliated schools but not others.

    5. There's two -- there's two questions, isn't there? One is we're talking about is the case moot, and I think, technically, it's not moot.

      What does moot mean? Does it mean that the case is not relevant? Or does it mean that the case is debatable, hence bringing it to court?

    6. Has the -- has the -- the State courts, have they ever said the amendment prevents the State from giving grants or from spending money on police protection for churches

      Is the church receiving money from the state for police protection or any of the other examples the justice provides?

    7. But there's -- there's government coercion when you say there's a public benefit, and the only way you could receive that public benefit is if you do not exercise your religion.

      So what Cortman is saying is that they aren't getting reimbursed because they are a Luthern church? Or now that they got reimbursed, the state is saying that they can't exercise their religion?

    8. Here, the justice strengthens the argument for the church by giving an example where the computers would be used for more than just religious instruction.