35 Matching Annotations
  1. Nov 2019
    1. Epstein and Walker, p194

      This is the textbook location. The legal citation is 536 U.S. 639

    2. (1982)

      The case took place in 2002.

    3. attempt to channel funds to wealthy citizens

      The program was designed to help parents who were in need of help to afford these schools and the tuition amount was not enough to cover the full cost of tuition.

    4. program is not one

      The program is one of choice since the money is provided to help parents afford the tuition of these private schools if they so choose to send their children there.

    5. Only certain religious groups are free to participate.

      All neighboring school districts around the Cleveland district were eligible choices.

    6. is not neutral

      It is neutral.

    7. free exercise

      A violation of the establishment clause was the one in question.

    8. vote of 7–2

      The vote was 5-4.

    9. Stevens: dissenting

      Justice Stevens did not write a separate dissenting opinion, but joined with the opinions written by Justice Breyer and justice Souter.

    10. O'Connor: dissenting

      O'Connor: Concurring

    11. The Baltimore school district

      The school district was Cleveland, not Baltimore.

  2. Oct 2019
    1. 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.

      I'm a little confused by this part. It never seems as though Maryland questioning Congress's ability to tax state banks isn't relevant since it was the one doing the taxing.This is because since, unless my reading of the case background is wrong, the issue was Congress creating a bank themselves, not taxing state-made banks.

    2. But all inconsistencies are to be reconciled by the magic of the word CONFIDENCE

      I need a bit of clarification here, is Marshall saying that all the issues with the bank could be solved if Maryland, has confidence in their federal government and vice versa?

    3. Among the enumerated powers, we do not find that of establishing a bank or creating a corporation.

      Marshall's wording is confusing me here since the case is about a bank, not a corporation. While banks operate like a business, I fail to see the interchangeability of the two terms.The only thing I can think of is that Marshall was considering future prospects that the federal government might try to take part in, but that does not make sense either.

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

      Despite Truman's justification, the Court ruled that his authority as commander-in-chief could not be applied to a private industry.

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

      The Court ruled in favor of Youngstown Sheet & Tube.

    3. Relevant Case Facts

      The facts portion of this brief is too long. It contains a lot more background information to the case instead of pure legal information. These include things such as the actions President Truman took, what grounds he had for taking them, and why his actions legally came into conflict.

    4. the Vietnam War,

      The Korean War, not Vietnam.

    5. 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.

      Congress never set such policies, in fact, they passed The Taft-Hartley Act over his veto.

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

      Congress's ability was not in question here. Instead, it was whether the President could take over an industry to prevent a labor stoppage?

    7. Truman argued that the inherent powers of the office justified such an action despite a law to the contrary.

      Truman argued that the necessity of the Korean War made such a move necessary to keep troops supplied.

    8. Separate Opinions

      Justices Jackson, Frankfurter, Douglas, Burton, and Roberts did not submit separate opinions, only Justice Clark and Justice Vinson, with the dissenting opinion did.

    9. Separate Opinions

      There is no mention of Justice Black who delivered the Opinion of the Court.

    10. Jackson: dissenting

      Jackson actually was among the concurring Justices.

    11. Roberts: dissenting

      Roberts was another concurring Justice.

  3. Sep 2019
    1. Those then who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law.

      This seems counter-intuitive to the reasoning so far, but it seems like he is arguing that even those that see the Constitution as paramount law must close their eyes to it and see only the law. Am I mistaken?

    2. The authority, therefore, given to the supreme court, by the act establishing the judicial courts of the United States, to issue writs of mandamus to public officers, appears not to be warranted by the constitution;

      To clarify, is Justice Marshall saying that the writ of madamus, which allowed this case to be brought to the Supreme Court in the first place, is not permitted by the Constitution? Or is there another definition of warranted that should be used here?

    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, and the tribunals in which it should be vested.

      The wording in this section is somewhat confusing. From my understanding, Justice Marshall is lamenting that the Supreme Court is somewhat at a disadvantage because the legislature can appropriate power between the Supreme Court and the inferior courts and it makes some powers useless. Perhaps I'm wrong,but that seems like what Justice Marshall is saying.

    1. I see that. What case would you cite?

      Throughout this section Justice Breyer doesn't seem convinced that this case needs the Court's input since the states have already ruled on the matter. He's looking for more than just a fear of change in political opinions to justify taking action.

    2. One would be eligible, one would not be eligible?

      Justice Alito is trying to force the State to answer the question about why it's so different to give to churches for this particular reason when religiously affiliated schools can receive public funds which supports the Lutheran Church's argument.

    3. But you can have a playground here.

      As Justice Sotomayer points out a few times there is still a playground at the church, it just can't be financed by this grant due to the ruling in the lower courts. That said, nothing is stopping the playground from existing, and nothing is stopping the church from putting money into the playground either. This makes it different than the clerk McDaniel example because he was stopped from doing both.

    4. there is no Federal Establishment Clause

      The way Cortman says this is rather confusing. Does he mean that the State doesn't believe there is a Federal Establishment Clause, or that the ruling wasn't in conflict with it?

    5. -- not under -- not under Locke, right? Locke drew a distinction between assistance for devotional, theological education and scholarship and others.

      Chief Justice Roberts, as well as other Justices who are leaning toward the majority, have pointed out several times that the playground and the church building itself are different entities, Therefore, there is no violation because so long as the money is used for repairing the playground and not repairing the church itself, the state is not using religion with state funds. By pointing out the distinction Locke drew, Chief Justice Roberts further supports his view.

    6. You can't be both, run this -- operate this daycare as a religious organization and receive the public benefit.

      Cortman's insistence of it being wrong that you're denied public funds when you run a business, in this case a school, as a part of a larger religious organization is wrong is confusing when it's clearly a potential violation of the separation of church and state.It seems like a weak point to center your whole argument around.

    7. World Vision brief

      Is this brief another type of amicus brief, or just what the brief is about?