46 Matching Annotations
  1. Mar 2020
    1. Texas law is a permissible regulation of speech.

      is NOT a permissible regulation of speech

    2. always

      government may NOT prohibit

    3. Dissent by Justince Kennedy

      Justice Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion, not dissenting

    4. Holding

      Should also state that Justice Brennan wrote the majority opinion

    5. there is no evidence

      there WAS evidence

    6. Does an act of Congress

      Does an act of State, not Congress

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

      The case was about burning a flag, not painting it upside down on a chest

    8. Arthur Smith

      The case involved Gregory Johnson, not Arthur Smith

    9. 491 U.S. 397

      This should also include the year: 491 U.S. 397 (1989)

    1. is not one

      The program IS one of true private choice

    2. 14th Amendment to the Constitution?

      The legal issue is about the 1st Amendment, not the 14th Amendment

    3. 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

      It was neutral / an attempt to provide educational opportunities for low-income families of struggling school district

    4. Only certain religious groups are free to participate.

      All religious groups were free to participate, not just certain ones

    5. the program most likely violates the establishment clause.

      The program does not violate the establishment clause

    6. because only 10 percent of the private schools available were religious, and only 5 percent of students used their vouchers at private schools.

      This is wrong; Simons-Harris (along with a group of others) sued because the government should not pay tuition for students to attend religious schools

    7. $500

      This amount is wrong; depended on the parents financial situation

    8. Baltimore

      This case was in Cleveland, not Baltimore

    9. ruled in favor of Zelman

      The court did not rule in favor of Zelman, they held the lower courts ruling which was in favor of Simmons-Harris

    10. dissenting

      O'Connor wrote a concurring opinion, not dissenting

    11. Holding

      This should also state that Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion

    12. vote of 7–2

      This is not the correct vote, it was 5-4

    13. Epstein and Walker, p194

      This is not a legal citation. Correct citation is 536 U.S. 639 (2002)

    14. (1982)

      The year is wrong, it should be 2002

  2. Feb 2020
    1. Would the people of any one State trust those of another with a power to control the most insignificant operations of their State Government?

      I don't entirely understand why this is being asked. States obviously have their own governments and can create their own rules and laws. State representatives are elected to represent that specific state. They are not on the same level as the federal government, so why can comparing states to each other be the same as comparing a state to the federal government, when they have different powers?

    2. 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.

      Yes the big and important points are obviously what matters most, but can't the minor parts help with interpretation and give full meaning? Why deduce these and leave areas for confusion to occur?

    3. But if the full application of this argument could be admitted, it might bring into question the right of Congress to tax the State banks, and could not prove the rights of the States to tax the Bank of the United States.

      But Congress is representing that states and their institutions, so why does the question of reversed roles need to be asked? Congress represents the states and makes up the government, that's why they are elected. I guess I'm just confused about the wording of this point and if it serves an actual purpose?

    1. In the president's favor is the fact that his order commands the steel industry to follow policy set by Congress, not the president himself. The lawmaking power in the United States is within Congress's domain, but Congress has clearly chosen to rid itself of that power and give it to the president.

      The order was not authorized by any law or policy set by Congress. Congress is responsible for making the laws, the President is responsible for enforcing

    2. Holding

      This should also state that Justice Hugo Black wrote the majority opinion

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

      This is not true; Trumans actions cannot be upheld, rather than can be upheld

    4. The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 forbade this type of action by the president.

      The Taft-Hartley Act restricts powers of labor unions, not the president

    5. In 1951 a labor dispute began in the sugar manufacturing industry, and the union called for a strike

      The union called for a strike in 1952, not 1951

    6. Congress

      This case is dealing with the President, not Congress

    7. Roberts:

      Roberts was not on the court, though Minton and Reed were and also dissented

    8. Jackson: dissenting

      Jackson had a concurring opinion, not dissenting

    9. ruled against Youngstown Sheet & Tube

      Should not be "ruled against Youngstown Sheet & Tube", instead that they held the decision of the lower court that the president lacks constitutional authority to seize and operate the steel mills

    10. Vietnam War,

      Korean War, not Vietnam

    1. "I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich;

      The Constitution leaves a lot of room for interpretation, so can't a justice interpret it in a way to not truly be equal to minorities/ groups they don't favor? After all, we've looked at justices who vote "conservative" or "liberal", so if they view the wording one way or the other isn't there still room for inequality?

    2. Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

      I understand it's hard to have a middle ground without discrediting the other way, but can't either of these ways be problematic? As times change, the Constitution may become out dated. However, if we don't hold the Constitution to a higher standard than legislative laws, then it seems pointless. Can we find a middle ground that works?

    3. If it had been intended to leave it to the discretion of the legislature to apportion the judicial power between the supreme and inferior courts according to the will of that body, it would certainly have been useless to have proceeded further than to have defined the judicial powers

      It seems like there is a lot of room for interpretation though. As the opinion goes on, it seems like it points out places that the judicial branch has interpreted something since the Constitution does not clearly state it. I'm wondering if here he is referring to the Constitution mentioning a supreme court that is higher than all lower courts?

  3. Jan 2020
    1. 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?

      Isn't this a different circumstance though? In this situation the funding would be going towards the police, a public protection. In the case however, this question is if the church should directly get the funding. Is public safety a relevant argument?

    2. Well, discrimination on the basis of status of religion, there's no -- no line-drawing problem there. We know that's happened in this case, right?

      I believe this is pointing to Neil Gorsuch voting yes with the majority. He is making the case a point of discrimination and the fact the church could not receive funding for a playground simply because of their religious beliefs. He's recognizing that the playground is not promoting religion, it's merely an addition for the school, the same as many public schools have.

    3. It's a burden on constitutional right, in other words, because people of a certain religious status are being prevented from competing in the same way everybody else is for a neutral benefit.

      I wouldn't consider people of a certain religion being unable to compete in the same way as everybody else. Isn't the point to keep the church and state separate? Nobody is saying you can't practice your religion or be free to believe what you want to, so how is a valid argument?

    4. What if you had a program at the -- the State capital? You had tours for school groups, and you had someone who, you know, coordinated, tied it into the social studies program; school groups can come in, but no religious schools. Is that okay?

      I understand that John G. Roberts Jr. is trying to make a comparison here, but I'm wondering if it's completely relevant? I feel like the questions he's bring up are a different circumstance and have nothing to do with the funding aspect of this case.

    5. 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 believe that this quote shows that Ruth Bader Ginsburg was one of the justices who dissented. Right from the beginning of the oral argument she brings up a previous case that set a precedent that church and state should remain separate, no matter what the funding is going towards.

    6. They're just saying we don't want to be involved with the church

      I think this discussion and questions that Sonia Sotomayor is having/asking shows that she is one of the justices who dissented. She is making the point that nobody is trying to take away their religious beliefs or practices, just that the state should not be involved with the funding and to keep the church and state separate. They are free to have their school and practice their religion, but should do so without public funding.

    7. It's as strong as any constitutional principle that there is, that when we have a program of funding -- and here we're funding playground surfaces -- that everybody is entitled to that funding, to -- to that particular funding, whether or not they exercise a constitutional right; in other words, here, whether or not they are a religious institution doing religious things.

      This points to the fact that Elena Kagen is in favor of the church and will vote with the majority. She is recognizing that the funding is going towards a playground, which funding should be available for whether religious or not. The church is not trying to take money to promote their religion or for their beliefs, it is just for the playground for the children.