Here, the program is not one of true private choice.
This statement is incorrect. From the brief in the book the opinion states that the program is a program of true private choice.
28 Matching Annotations
- Dec 2017
-
mmcr.education mmcr.education
-
-
The Baltimore school district
This is the wrong school district. It should be in Ohio
-
- Nov 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.
I think this is an error. I am not exactly sure how to correct it but I think it is an error because the book says that the flag is just another symbol about which not only must opinions pro and con be tolerated.
-
The state also says that it has an interest in preserving the flag as a symbol of national unity.
the book states that it remains to consider whether the states interest in preserving the flag as a symbol of nationhood and national unity justifies Johnson's conviction.
-
Texas has argued that Johnson's actions are a form of "fighting words" and that the Court has let governments regulate such actions.
According to the book Johnson's expressive conduct does not fall within that small class of "fighting words" that are likely to provoke the average person to retaliation.
-
Dissent by Justince Kennedy
the book states that justice Kennedy was the concurring opinion.
-
Arthur Smith, painted an American flag on his bare chest, but painted it upside down.
this part is incorrect. There was not a flag painted on a mans shirt but rather Johnson was handed a flag while he was marching and set it on fire not painted upside down.
-
-
mmcr.education mmcr.education
-
The Baltimore school district faced a crisis, as studies found it to be one of the worst-performing districts in the country. It failed to meet eighteen state standards, only 10 percent of ninth graders passed proficiency exams, and more than two-thirds of students dropped out before graduation. To improve performance, the district set up a program whereby students could choose from among five options: (a) stay in the Cleveland public schools as before, (b) receive a scholarship to go to a nonreligious private school, (c) receive a scholarship to go to a religious private school, (d) stay in the district and receive $500 in tutorial assistance, or (e) attend a public school outside the district. Simmons-Harris sued, charging that the voucher program violated the First Amendment's free exercise clause because only 10 percent of the private schools available were religious, and only 5 percent of students used their vouchers at private schools.
I believe the problem here is that in the case facts section they should have the information about the results from the lower courts that happened before this one as it says in the specifications.
-
Does the voucher program offend the 14th Amendment to the Constitution?
It was not the 14th amendment that the program offended.
-
Stevens: dissenting
It must show who they are with in parentheses like the ones above it.
-
dissenting
our text says that O'Connor was concurring opinion
-
7–2
The correct vote was 5-4
-
Epstein and Walker, p194
According to the specifications from our class, there must be the year that the case was decided.
-
(1982)
The date is incorrect. It should be 2002.
-
- Oct 2017
-
mmcr.education mmcr.education
-
whether the State of Maryland may, without violating the Constitution, tax that branch?...
I guess my question here would be that since it says above that it is constitutional for the bank to be established, why wouldn't they be able to tax the branch in Maryland?
-
Among the enumerated powers, we do not find that of establishing a bank or creating a corporation. But there is no phrase in the instrument which, like the Articles of Confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers and which requires that everything granted shall be expressly and minutely described
this seems confusing to me, the enumerated powers says that congress may exercise the powers that the constitution grants it but then it goes on to say that there are other powers even though there are individual rights listed in the Bill of Rights that exclude some powers...
-
Though any one State may be willing to control its operations, no State is willing to allow others to control them.
I think my question here would be did congress have the power to establish the bank? it says here that no state is willing to allow others to control them which makes me think that no states would want to follow the rules of the bank.
-
- Sep 2017
-
mmcr.education mmcr.education
-
verity of the signature, and of the completion of the appointment; and that the appointment conferred on him a legal right to the office for the space of five years.
My question is what happens in a situation such as this one to his five year space? Does he get extended time or allowed to hold his position for an extra term if something like this is interfering with his term?
-
That question has been discussed, and the opinion is, that the latest point of time which can be taken as that at which the appointment was complete, and evidenced, was when, after the signature of the president, the seal of the United States was affixed to the commission.
I think I am confused by this section simply because it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Is it saying that when it is signed by the President and sealed it is legit or is there still a chance to have the commission overturned?
-
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.
I am a little confused as to the specific details about this part. It says the President can and cannot have the power/right to remove or not remove someone and I guess I am wondering when the President has the power and when he does not.
-
-
mmcr.education mmcr.education
-
But if we think -- suppose Missouri had a policy that it has today, very recently, and we were asked to grant cert in this case.
It seems as if Ruth may be the other dissenter due to her lack of involvement in the arguments. She seemed to sit back and hear what the others had to say rather than truly ask questions and find answers that would sway her decision about the case. She also says that the case is not moot which I believe means that she does not believe this is up for debate and has her mind made up already. It also shows how little she is in the transcript that she may have had her mind made up already.
-
And, in fact, I look at its bylaws, I look at its advertisements, and it includes play and conducted in a religiously valuable way.
It seems like Sotomayor is putting up a little fight here so early on in the discussion of this case. Cortman says before her quote that "theres a difference between funding a religious activities and funding secular religious activities of religious organizations". Sotomayor seems to argue this the first chance she gets which possible shows her reasoning for dissenting by the end of it all.
-
So if you have a -- a synagogue that is at high risk for an attack by an anti-Semitic group or a mosque that is considered to be at high risk for attack by an anti-Muslim group, would the Missouri constitution permit the erection of bollards like we have around the court here?
It seems as if Alito is siding towards the church because he stresses that the state must provide some kind of treatment towards the churches in order to keep them safe form other religious groups or hate groups as he states in this quote about anti-Muslim groups.
-
So anyone knows that the program is purely religion blind, not looking at who's applying, they'll know that it's not favoring any religious organization or secular.
It may seem like a dumb question but when they say religion blind what exactly does that mean and how would that change things in this situation?
-
And why shouldn't this be one of those cases?
I am getting the feeling that Kagan has sided with the church because she believes that the policy should continue the way that it is. It seems as if she is questioning their reason for discussing something like this in this instance.
-
t comes where the State wants to give money and somebody is objecting. And this case comes in the converse way, where a State says we just don't want to fund --
I guess my question would be why are most cases situations where the State wants to give money and somebody is objecting? I would assume this is what makes this case unique.
-
Isn't it the consequence of your argument that the church can use the playground for more religious activities if the public school can use the playground for other non-playground activities
It seems to me that this could be a point where they could vote in favor of the church. The reason I say this is because it is their playground and there a numerous activities that could happen on the grounds and it should be viewed for its main purpose
-
And the reason I say that is, the question is, is why would someone's religious status matter in the first place to receiving a government benefit? And that's another --
I am a little confused I guess because I am not sure if there is a matter of religion playing a role in receiving a government benefit. I wouldn't assume there would be but this just raised some eyebrows.
-