As a result, the Texas law is a permissible regulation of speech.
They ruled the opposite
29 Matching Annotations
- Dec 2017
-
mmcr.education mmcr.education
-
-
The Court agrees and argues that the most important principle behind the First Amendment is that government may always prohibit the expression of an idea whenever society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.
The court never claimed this in the opinion
-
Texas has argued that Johnson's actions are a form of "fighting words" and that the Court has let governments regulate such actions.
this is incorrect. they said it could breach peace, but did not claim it to be fighting words.
-
Texas flag desecration law
The law isn't about the flag directly, it's about respected objects in general.
-
protesters assembled outside the convention hall
They were outside of Dallas City Hall, not a convention center. They also marched though the streets
-
- Nov 2017
-
mmcr.education mmcr.education
-
10 percent of the private schools available were religious
Incorrect, 82% of the participating schools were religious.
-
The Baltimore school district faced a crisis
Incorrect, this case took place in Cleveland.
-
No. By a vote of 7–2 the Court ruled in favor of Zelman.
The holding is No, which was said here, but the numbers weren't correct. The vote was 5-4.
-
Does the voucher program offend the 14th Amendment to the Constitution?
This is incorrect because the issues was whether or not the program violated the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.
-
Epstein and Walker, p194
This citation is incorrect because it sites our textbook whereas it should cite the case from where it is filed and it should have the date it was decided. So, like if it's in the US Reporter, it should be like 264 US 887.
-
O'Connor: dissenting
Incorrect, O'Connor concurred with the deciding opinion.
-
-
mmcr.education mmcr.education
-
Does an act of Congress prohibiting the burning of the American flag violate the Second Amendment freedom of expression?
This is incorrect because the issue was whether or not the first amendment protected non-speech acts and if so whether Johnson's flag burning constituted expressive conduct
-
One of the protesters, Arthur Smith, painted an American flag on his bare chest, but painted it upside down.
This is an incorrect fact, he burned a stolen flag.
-
Dissent by Justince Kennedy
Kennedy concurred, not dissented
-
Texas v. Johnson (1989)
The year does not need to be noted here.
-
491 U.S. 397
The year should be here and not in the case name.
-
- Oct 2017
-
mmcr.education mmcr.education
-
which would defeat all the ends of Government
I guess I'm wondering how this would defeat all the end of government? Obviously taxing all of the governments doings wouldn't be very proactive, but why would it defeat the purpose?
-
thus leaving the question whether the particular power which may become the subject of contest has been delegated to the one Government, or prohibited to the other, to depend on a fair construction of the whole instrument
So is this basically saying that the states have all of the powers not delegated or prohibited from one or the other, unless it's like challenged by a court case or something of that nature? So that's where argument for who has the right to create a bank comes in? So if the States have all the power not delegated or prohibited, they can honestly do a lot unless they're challenged. Could the US government challenge something like that?
-
its powers are delegated by all
Is this implying that the people are the ones who delegate the powers? The Framers wrote the Constitution and not everyone really had a complete say in it. I mean yeah delegates came up with the two plans and then people had to vote and stuff but I wouldn't go as far as to say the people delegate the powers.
-
- Sep 2017
-
mmcr.education mmcr.education
-
If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.
Is he saying here and in surrounding paragraphs that the fact that people are trying to dismiss the power of the Supreme Court is disrespectful? That's what I think he's saying, but I'm wondering if anyone else is getting a different vibe from this? If so, what are your thoughts?
-
In the distribution of this power it is declared that "the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party. In all other cases, the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction."
So is this the part that made Jefferson have the sad face? Like is the expression of judicial power that he didn't want to accept but had to after the case?
-
The power of nominating to the senate, and the power of appointing the person nominated, are political powers, to be exercised by the President according to his own discretion. When he has made an appointment, he has exercised his whole power, and his discretion has been completely applied to the case. If, by law, the officer be removable at the will of the President, then a new appointment may be immediately made, and the rights of the officer are terminated. But as a fact which has existed cannot be made never to have existed, the appointment cannot be annihilated; and consequently if the officer is by law not removable at the will of the President; the rights he has acquired are protected by the law, and are not resumeable by the President. They cannot be extinguished by executive authority, and he has the privilege of asserting them in like manner as if they had been derived from any other source.
I don't have a question necessarily, I'm just a little confused about this paragraph whereas it's basically saying or suggesting that there are no checks and balances in the government. In the intro we read for this week it discusses the system of check and balances and separations of powers. I think it's something we've more or less grown into as a country rather than being up front right when we started out.
-
-
mmcr.education mmcr.education
-
There's -- there's nothing in the record that occurs except for children playing on the playground.
So, in essence, there's never any religious practices or activities that take place on the playground in question? Then in my opinion nothing involving that should've even been brought up. It's kind of irrelevant and not necessarily useful to his argument.
-
I'm not sure I understand your answer to the playground being used for a more religious activity.
I don't understand why, even if the playground has uses that are religious, that makes it considered a religious area. Children don't care whether or not their friend on the swings believes in Jesus or not, they're just outside playing. I don't think a few religious uses should make a place wholly religious. If someone is selling drugs at a playground, does that make the playground a trap house? (that example is pretty explicit but it fits my argument)
-
the Framers didn't want was tax money imposed to pay for building or maintaining churches or church property.
This statement makes me think that Ginsburg is one of the dissenters because of the tine of it and how early on she comes out and says it.
-
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 Sotomayor coming out and saying this foreshadows her dissenting in the end. She's fairly argumentative here and throughout the oral argument her stance doesn't seem to change.
-
what if we had a -- a religiously affiliated school that was not adjacent to a church and it had a playground.
I think this is where Alto shows that he is leaning towards voting in favor of the church. He really seems to be open minded on the end of the playground needing this aid and seems to question why it would be considered not eligible.
-
t's separate from the religious instruction that might be carried out over those computers.
I think this view/statement by Kagan makes it seem like she's more towards favoring the church. She is, on her own, making likely comparisons that seem to support the church.
-
Establishment Clause
I'm kind of wondering why Justice Kennedy is the only one to really bring up the establishment clause so far. It seems to be all his questions have been about since the beginning of the argument. I guess I don't understand why others haven't touched on it. Are they all supposed to bring up relevant, but separate points/questions?
-