Executive order, not policy set by congress. He argued it was his inherent power as the president

Don't think that is one of the criteria

Is expressive, political in nature and therefore protected.

Stevens

Is flag desecration protected under first amendment

First amendment

Burned an American flag

Gregory Johnson

I didn't read anything about this, just that the voucher system was given out and the argument was made that it was religiously biased

only defined by residence and financial need.

2002

Ohio

It was ruled true private choice

the question was if it violates the establishment clause within the first amendment.

Rehnquist wrote that it is entirely neutral with respect to religion

O'Connor was a concurring opinion

Incorrect citation, have to cite volume, year etc.

by a vote of 5-4

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?

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

"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?

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

More to do with seizing private property

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

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

Minton was a justice on this case

Jackson was a concurring opinion

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

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.