20 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
    1. But the two cases are not on the same reason.

      Kind of seperate, but do federal buildings pay taxes to the state they are in? Or to the government? Or do they pay at all? If they dont does that mean that the state tax payer does?

    2. That the power to tax involves the power to destroy;

      Definitely seems like a major quote. Is he basically saying that this would give state governments the power to destroy the federal government?

    3. and that the Constitution leaves them this right, in the confidence that they will not abuse it....

      "In the confidence that they will not abuse it" I feel like that is a big leap of faith to make. It seems as though states could drag an issue like this on and on, especially if they are in an opposing party than the president or something like that. Is there a sort of double jeopardy type thing to ensure this doesn't happen? or are there examples of this happening frequently?

  2. Oct 2021
    1. Yes. By a vote of 6-3 the Court ruled against Youngstown Sheet & Tube.

      I saw that the verdict was in favor of Youngstown Sheet and Tube

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

      More to do with seizing private property

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

      This was Trumans reasoning, but the court ruled against it.

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

      The Taft Harley Act imposes restrictions on unions, not the president from what i understand.

    5. Roberts:

      Minton was a justice on this case

    6. Jackson: dissenting

      Jackson was a concurring opinion

    7. Because the nation was involved in the Vietnam War

      Don't know if this counts, but I do not believe the US was involved in Vietnam during this time?

  3. Sep 2021
    1. Neither is it necessary in such a case as this, to enable the court to exercise its appellate jurisdiction.

      I thought the whole point of this case was to review laws or precedents within the constitution and deem whether or not they were truly viable. Doesn't appellate jurisdiction become necessary then? A higher court overturning a lower courts decision?

    2. The principles, therefore, so established, are deemed fundamental. And as the authority, from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.

      I know that the peaceful transfer of power between one administration to another is a big deal in the United States and a coveted tradition. Does this case have anything to do with that precedent? Obviously this has to do with judgeship and not the presidency, but refusing to deliver the commissions in the last days of office certainly screams sore loser. So other than establishing judicial review within the courts maybe this case had other effects on the tradition of American politics?

    3. To withhold his commission, therefore, is an act deemed by the court not warranted by law, but violative of a vested legal right.

      From what I understand about this case. it vaguely reminds me of the case of a baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple due to his religious beliefs. I think it made it to the state supreme court and they ruled he was within his constitutional right to refuse service. Since they ruled here that they could not force him to deliver the commissions (even though he did violate the law) did this case have any affect on the ruling of the more current case? I know that it said in a previous module that they have to follow precedent set by previous cases.

    1. Neil Gorsuch

      I think justice Gorsuch is another one of the majority voters here. He seems very secure on the basis of religious discrimination as opposed to the questions of sotomayor and kagan who seemed to recognize it as a possible issue with the inclusion of other religions. He already seems convinced that it was a case of discrimination against the church.

    2. Elena Kagan

      I think this is a great point brought up by justice Kagan. It ties back to one of my questions I left earlier. She seems to think that there may be a risk of favoritism and a violation of that establishment clause that Cortman keeps talking about but going the other way. And again Cortman doesn't do a good job answering that question, in fact in this example he sidesteps it all together and simply says the system is set up to not discriminate and be "religion blind" Although that sounds great, the problem is discriminatory people wont be "religion blind" which is something she seems to realize.

    3. David A Cortman

      He doesn't really answer the justices question of how he doesn't see the other way of questioning as discrimination IN FAVOR of the church against other non religious people which I think is sort of telling and again why I think justice sotomayor is one of the dissenting judges. One question I have is whether or not there actually is anything in the constitution that protects discrimination in favor of religion? I always hear about it the other way around and I remember in one instance not long ago about a christian baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple based on the argument that it violates his ability to practice his religious beliefs. The court sided with him, which to me is discrimination in favor of "religious beliefs" that was ruled by the supreme courts as justified and constitutional.

    4. past

      Not sure if it's really a question necessarily, but I find it odd they are being so technical. I realize that they need to set a precedent and be able to justify their decisions and make sure it fits within the laws and everything, but they should be focusing on the merits of the case at hand, not coming up with every possible thing it could be compared to. Again it makes sense that they need to cross reference this type of information and those questions are worth answering but in this setting it somehow seems to me to be off topic.

    5. And so on one side you have the Establishment Clause.

      I looked up the establishment clause and it is essentially a clause put within the fifth amendment that prohibits congress from establishing religion. To me it seems like funding a religion is a very good way to establish it so I'm not sure exactly what his point is here. Unless he is suggesting that all religious schools recieve the same public benefits/funding. And unfortunately I have a hard time believing that certain states would ever fund anything other than christianity if it was left to a state level decision.

    6. We seem to be confusing money with religious practice. I don't think the two are tied.

      I believe justice sotomayor is one of the dissenting judges based on these comments. I think she makes a very good point and I don't think Cortman does a good job defending his point here. He tries to argue that it creates a conflict with the establishment clause but it seems to me that following the establishment clause would suggest they not fund the school.

    7. But -- see, but that's what makes the case a -- just a little bit -- in -- in -- in my last hypothetical about earthquake safety, any problem there with giving the money to a church and spending extra money for the cross in the window? It's all -- it's for public safety.

      I think this is one of the majority justices. It is still very early and his course may change but it seems like he is already convinced and suggesting that spending this money is not about advancing religion, as it would be similar for spending the earthquake proofing money on a church window.