No Jehovah witness mentioned, inaccurate?

Missing Citation of case (249 U.S. 47 (1919)) in between the CASE NAME AND CASE FACTS.

tflory 9 minutes ago

Holding was that that there was a clear and present danger, so they did not vote in favor of Schenck. Vote was 9-0, with U.S winning. Criticism of the draft did present danger during war times.

Not correct.

"the First Amendment did not protect speech encouraging men to resist induction, because, "when a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right."[6] In other words, the court held, the circumstances of wartime allow greater restrictions on free speech than would be allowed during peacetime, if only because new and greater dangers are present."

Inaccurate?...

"Dales presence in th eBoy Scouts would, at the very least, force the organization to send a message, bit to the youth memebrs and the world that the Boy Scouts accepts homosexual conduct as a legitamate form of behavior..."

Huh? Ambiguous twist, making it seem inaccurate in the reasoning to support the decision of the court.

Not sure if this is really the legal issue? Didnt see the 14th Amendment mentioned. Would probably be more accurate with: Does the application of New Jersey's public accommodations law violate the Boy Scouts' First Amendment right of expressive association to bar homosexuals from serving as troop leaders?

Incorrect name for Justice of Dissent

Missing actual Dissent Justices:Stevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer.

Also missing any synopsis of the reason for Dissent.

Missing the Holding before the case reasoning

Should include Supreme court citation- 530 U.S. 640

Ambiguous...not an important fact Should be more about destruction of flag versus expressive words with relating misconduct to the flag and therefore breaking the law.

may NOT prohibit

Both First and Fourteenth Amendments

Almost more of word for word copy than paraphrasing in reasoning number 1.

Did not give a brief statement on the actual opinion held by Justices. Missing White and O'Connor

Justice Kennedy was for the majority, not Dissent in opinion.

Missing case citation before the legal issue

Missing what the main legal questions were by the and clear statement of what the justices decided.

The issue in this case was the burning of the American flag, not a separate protester (other than Johnson) painting the flag upside down. Johnson lit the flag on fire.

Not sure if this is accurate? It does not name another protester, other than saying a protester handed Johnson a flag before he chose to set it on fire.

Missing Case citation before citing the legal issue

The pamphlets were urging the resistance of the draft, but the book did not state that the attempt was to overthrow the government. Only to express his political ideals.

I think that this is not the legal issue that is targeted in the book on this case? I concluded that it is more about whether this pamphlet and political expression is protected under the First Amendments rights of the Constitution for the defendant. Or whether obstruction of war time ideals and peace is a crime in a state of unrest?

Switched- Should be Schenck v. United States

"That the power to tax involves the power to destroy", is used to give argument to the stability of controlling "constitutional measures," but then to use the argument of confidence? This doesn't seem like a very deeply rooted constitutional concept that gives the governments the power to tax and to keep those officials from abusing this power? Maybe I misinterpret it, but in such a legal and specific interpretation of the laws for this case, the word confidence doesn't seem like a very strong argument in this section?

I wonder if this is referring to Maryland itself as a state government; the states governments as a whole being less supreme as the Government of the U.S., or the Government in general when it is not acting according to the constitutional laws as is is suppose to?

This statement is slightly confusing to me. The meaning is difficult to understand. Does the statement "we shall find it capable of changing totally the character of that instrument," with regard to the application to the constitution mean that it aligns with the constitution? Or then is it then in fact trying to change the interpretation of the Constitution to then be supporting their desired outcome?

And the last statement is confusing as well. What does "arresting measures of Government and prostrating it at the foot of the states mean?" Is it a way to say they are making the government accountable to the states in a way?

Is this equally true though? It is an oath that all things are equal and fair, but is it not true that by having different particular legal backgrounds, preferences, ideas and bias that they may or may not come to play at some point within their duties in court? Or is every Justice only serving the ideas of the original framers one hundred percent in knowing all intentions and without any prior background, or bias/political preferences? It is a goal to uphold these truths and to serve as fair and faithful to all. But I have to wonder if after all of these statements of upholding the constitution within its own parameters as closely as possible. I have to wonder if he thinks of these things and speaks the opposite at times within his own, then in turn not being as impartial and demonstrative as he profuseness Justices to be while determining cases based on the "law of the land."

I have a hard time following the circles I feel are being expressed within explaining the importance of the Constitution within the Judicial court and the government. So many ways to say the same thing, and this is an example of saying this, but within the circles, I am confused slightly. Why re-iterate it in many different ways unless what you already know your outcome may align with needing this as supporting the decision?

The phrase "The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men," is a bit confusing. I would be interested to have more insight as to interpretation on meaning here.