three lines three different way to interpret. to be anything to be anything other than XXX to be anything other (is this the same as to be anything else? )

Accessing memory but failing just like trying to get a glimpse through a curtained window. Lying motionless here and now? Or when every one was afraid? Is the terrible effort the effort to access memory?

strange strange verb here; Lent to whom from the daughter?

First instance of using third person "Him"?

Liaison is not really a verb but still one can connect, one can make phonetic connection between words or social connection, often illicit, between peoples. What does this mean?

What are the current and prior larger trends ? Aren't they the same as wave degree ??

How do we determine this horizontal line for point 1 ?

???

Why ???

cf. p. 271 et Fig. 9.22

Why aren't there any waves in Fig. 9.8 ?

So when we look at peaks, the price indicates the trend when there is a disagreement between price and signal, however when it's troughs, the signal expresses the upcoming trend ???

??? https://www.dummies.com/personal-finance/investing/floor-trader-pivots-and-trend-trading/

What is the stochastic ?? Réponse : cf. page 259 ! (c'est le %K et %D)

What is the stochastic ?? Réponse : cf. page 259 ! (c'est le %K et %D)

Que dans le cas où il y a des gaps non ?

But in this case (Fig.8.7), the signals are correct ??

What is equivolume ?

???

???

If the top is marked by a blow-off in the volume chart, then the following volume candles will be of smaller size, indicating a trend reversal ?

What does this mean?

Is this the foundational argument for the Supremacy Clause? For this example, does this mean if the states had the power to influence federal programs or policies, that the powers delegated to the federal government would be redundantly delegated?

What is meant by "most important designs"? Is it meant that the state governments are supposed to depend on the federal government and not vice versa? If so, that seems to go against the core contractual aspect of federalism.

What is meant by "component parts" here? Are they the states? Are they the powers given to the federal government by the Constitution?

When do state laws take effect over federal laws? How do you know when which is supreme? or vice versa?

Based on the relationship between State, banks, and General Government, is this suggesting a contradiction or non mutual relationship between the 3 in this line of argument?

Is this relationship between State, banks, and General Government rooted in reciprocity or mutual responsiblity?

Why is where the assembly took place relevant to the case and why exactly are they defending it?

This whole phrase is really confusing me? I'm not able to even figure out what any of the parts mean, could anybody help me out?

Is this something that is actively being said? If so, is this something that was yelled a little but louder? Or was this only written and capitalized for effect.

I saw "we" being mentioned throughout this whole thing but I'm still a little bit confused as to where the introductions would be. Is this just assumed or am I missing something?

Is this suggesting that if States were allowed to tax the Federal Government, would States hold power and authority over citizens outside of their state? Would State laws apply universally?

How exactly is the necessity of resorting to mean which it cannot control not compatible with the language outlined in the Constitution?

Is this suggesting that there is isn't any sort of protocol for when certain issues arise that causes question on what government has authority over said issue?

When assembling in their states, did they form permanent locations to meet or was it a random?

Is this saying that the federal government can tax the states, but the states cannot tax the federal government?

A lot of this argument seems centered around the idea that the people, via its representatives, declared the Constitution has supreme power over states. In this, a State (and by extension, representatives of the people) is arguing the apparent supremacy of the federal gov't over the state, doesn't this contradict the argument of the Supreme Court a bit, that the will of the people was for a federal gov't to hold supreme over state?

A lot of what we've read up to this point make it seem like the Supreme Court acts as a kind of voice for the Constitution, that it would interpret and enforce the objectives of it. It's never felt like a branch that was representative of the people. Does the Supreme Court ever act or treat itself as representative of the people, or does it more view itself as a representation of the Constitution?

I'm assuming he means with this line, the congress as it existed under the Articles of Confederation. My question is why bring up this quick history recap? Is it to argue that the States, in ratifying the Constitution and the new Federal government, were granting that the Federal Government held a certain amount of power of them? Something else?

Does Marshall regularly define the scope of the case like this at the start of his decisions? I don't recall anything similar in Marbury v Madison.

Does Maryland grapple with the idea that the sovereignty and power of the states comes from the people in its argument that the Constitution receives its power from the states, as opposed to the people?

What's the deal with these ellipses? Is there actual text omitted? Or did Marshall literally include these marks in his writing?

I don't understand what this is saying? So on the basis of Marylands contends it changes the meaning of what the Bank means in the constitution?? I'm not sure if I even read it correctly the end of the sentence isn't making sense to me. Changes the character of what instrument? Constitution?

What does this mean? so the bank of the united states is inherently also the supreme law of the land?

Whats the term "instrument" referring to here? the constitution? or the creation of it?

Taxation seems to be a big pinpoint of this argument. In history we have seen many problems with "taxation without representation" or misuse of taxing in this case, but we also see problems today with people not agreeing with where the tax money goes, or especially problems with getting tax returns. Do you think taxation is going to continue being a problem?

I am lost here. Is this referring to the idea that if the constitution had every subdivision of rules stated that it would not be embraced by human kind and that it would never be understood by the public? Because wouldn't a constitution with accurate details be the most accepted to the public?

While the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land, obviously the Constitution does not outline every possibility of things that happen within society (like the establishing of a bank or creating a corporation). Is the creation of something or a situation where things happen due to the lack of guidelines in the constitution common? Do you think it is fair that new rules and regulations be made in addition to there being none directly stated about these given situations?

This question is more a thought for questions. Do you think that this idea of one government have power over another government issues still stand in to days modern world? or do you think that states and governments the the US are more lacs about this issues then they where in 1819?

Is here referring to the jealousies of the states to the federal government or the federal government to the states? Who in this scenario is the jealous party leading to the creation of the 10th amendment?

For clarification is Marshal saying that since the people told the states that they wanted a federal government, that the states have to abide by the federals governments laws and rules? He pointes out that the states may see them selves as sovereign states, but since the people agree to the federal government the states also have to follow it?

Would the dependence on the states be referring to the states making money for the national government by creating the taxes?

Wouldn't that be unconstitutional? To not abide to the laws enacting by congress? Isn't it up to the Judiciary to interpret the acknowledged powers?

Is 'another government' directly referring to the state vs. the national government?

At the end of this where it states 'deduced from the nature of the objects themselves' - the objects themselves are the individual states and people in those states, correct? So if there was no mention of the laws regarding bank taxes of states in the constitution, but the grand power of the law is saved for the people, which influence the government, makes me wonder- was this creation of Maryland's bank and bank tax, at all ever voted on by the people? Or was it 'secretly' created and decided by the government of the state alone?

So here it sounds to me like it is certain that the states have sovereign power to create their laws, but wouldn't that directly conflict with the constitution being the supreme law of the land? Or is "no state is willing to allow others to control them" specifically speaking to something I'm missing?

What constitutes a case of confidence? Is Marshall saying here that the national and state governments need to just have confidence in one another that there will be no abuse of power from either end? When does the Court decide a case is to be considered a case of confidence?

This section confuses me. Is Marshall saying here that not only can the government create a national bank, but they can delegate powers to this bank for it to exercise? Or is it saying that the State of Maryland, where the bank will be established, is to delegate powers to this national bank?

If Marshall is saying what I think he is saying here, could technically any "power-move" the national government makes be considered an implied power, if not prohibited by the Constitution? Would it just depend on how the justices perceive it, at the time of the conflict?

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?

In the Epstein text, it says that one of the seven Supreme Court Justices, Thomas Todd, did not participate in the decision. So it was unanimous, but only among 6 of the 7. I wonder why Todd didn't participate? Does anyone know from the text or other history?

This word choice seems dangerous in how vague it is. A lot of actions that a state might take could be defined as "burdening" a law enacted by Congress. Who decides what is a burden? I wonder if there have been cases that have happened since that argue over whether a state action is a "burden" to a national government function? Or if this part of Marshall's argument has ever been used as precedent for the federal government to stifle state power?

Is the "embarrassment" Marshall is referring to here the events of Shay's Rebellion? We know that the invention of Federalism was specifically an attempt to remedy the pitfalls of the Articles of Confederation, and that the Articles created a weak central government. I remember reading about Shay's Rebellion that the national government found themselves unable to fund troops to be sent to counter the Rebellion. Is that because the power to send national troops into states was not "expressly" delegated to the US government? Or are there other "embarrassments" that arose from this part of the Articles, especially seeing as Marshall made "embarrassments" plural?

I feel like this is a tad dramatic. How would allowing Maryland to tax a government institution arrest "all the measures of the Government"? I understand that taxing the bank would likely lead to the closing of that bank - but how would it interrupt the rest of our governence?

I feel like I've been lost in this paragraph. I'm not entirely sure what is trying to be said here?

Does anyone else feel that it is a stretch to say that Constitution = the government? I understand completely where they are coming from, and agree that it makes sense to have an overarching government, but this statement here feels like a stretch.

Why would hydrogen and oxygen need to be separated for?

QUESTION- this whole passage and this quote in particular took me by surprise because I was not aware of the fact that the very roads we travel on were built as a means of segregation- and it brings me to the question of what other everyday things we don't think twice about could have been originally intended as a means of separation?

QUESTION - This culture has been built in America on the basis of slavery, but has it also occurred elsewhere in the world? Most countries don't have everyone working an amount proportional to the wealth they possess, so what was the basis of this culture in other places in the world?

Employees were ‘free’ to negotiate a work contract to their liking within the context of accepting the ‘prerogatives’ of managers to organised and remunerate their efforts as they saw fit (Fox, 1974).

1( Merton et al., 1990) - used focus groups just to examine reaction to media propaganda - didn't publish.

What's the scope of PILOTs in Illinois municipalities How to explain the PILOTS in Illinois municipalities generate less revenue that what's typically seen?

Covid-19 Vaccine Resource Center. (n.d.). Https://Www.Nejm.Org. Retrieved July 19, 2021, from https://www.nejm.org/covid-vaccine

Vaccines for children: Your questions answered. (n.d.). Retrieved October 1, 2021, from https://www.unicef.org/parenting/health/parents-frequently-asked-questions-vaccines

I am also confused what they mean by injured in this conclusion

Similar to Taylor I am also confused on what they mean with the comment "without respect to other persons". How does this translate when it comes to the rest of the statement.

Now that Marshall observes the supreme law of the land to be the constitution, this makes me wonder how the Judiciary Act of 1789 was passed when it altered the original jurisdiction that was written in the constitution. Did the creators of the this act not consult or care about the constitution?

When deciding a case, how is being able to disregard the constitution part of judicial duty? Isn't that the backbone for making laws in this country? It the court's duty to determine if the laws are constitutional or not.

Is this saying that the court must put the Constitution first, over an act of congress? Are the principles, which are being referred to, those in the Constitution? If not, what are they?

This concludes Marshall's habit of asking questions that he proceeds to answer. Are many modern day decisions written similarly? Or is this style more suited to an early justice seeking to define the role of the court, including the types of questions a Justice should be asking and answering?

Okay help me clarify this. In this phrasing saying that if Congress gives appellate jurisdiction over the constitution witch already holds original jurisdiction than that new law or rule makes no sense?

Question: Is having a job a legal right? I understand that this case was also trying to figure out that same question.

I am a little lost in this area. Why is Madison the name on this case and not Jefferson? Is this sentence explaining that? I don't quite understand they way this is phrased.

So a mandamus can only be applied to Appellate jurisdiction and not Original? Or can it be applied to both if met with the "specificity" of the original jurisdiction requirements?

What does that mean appellate can be exercised in a variety of forms? Is this referring to the different types of lower courts that hears under this type of jurisdiction?

So where does appellate jurisdiction come in? I only see this statement mention original jurisdiction but in the video Prof explained the Constitutional Article III held the Supreme Court has power to do both. So in what circumstances does appellate court because the jurisdiction for a case/trial?

What exactly does this mean? I guess I'm confused because it started off heavily implying that all men deserve fair trials/ access to law. Does this just reinstate that the law is above people and must be applied evenly? The 'without respect' is throwing me off.

When they mention 'can be exercised' are they talking about finding a conclusion at all with the issue? Stating that no one was given the jurisdiction to make the conclusion from the constitution?

Is this part of the reasoning why said action taking place was unconstitutional? Are they using this as reason, or is it still being debated?

So is this saying that his high office position allows him to make the judgement on delivery (or not delivery) of the papers, and have no consequences for his choice? Because he should be, with his position, thinking about the laws above person opinions?

I realize this is just an example he's using to prove his point, that every word of the constitution is important and that the constitution should trump other laws. However, I've never heard of either of these - A "bill of attainder" or an "ex post facto" law. Does anyone know what these are?

As a Federalist, Marshall knows that many of the people reading this opinion will be Anti-Federalists. I'd love if my classmates would weigh in: Do you think he is using the exaggerated language of "omnipotence" to appeal to the Anti-Federalist fear of concentrated power? Do we think Marshall is speaking from a totally neutral judicial stance here, or do aggrandized depictions like these hint that he is letting his political bias shine through?

This assertion is fascinating to me. In my interpretation, Marshall is basically saying that every single clause in the constitution has a deliberate effect. I wonder, are there any clauses that the framers explicitly wrote as transitional sentences between two more important thoughts that have been interpreted to have a huge effect? In other words, was Marshall right to say that every single clause was supposed to have an effect?

I'm a little confused on how this analogy fits in. Is this meaning that the bill passed should be enforced by the courts? If this is true how exactly does this fit in the argument?

What would make the constitution not superior if put in the situation of conflict? From my understanding the Constitution is going to be more superior or hold more weight

In what circumstances is the officer not removable at the will of the President in this context? From my knowledge the house impeaches and the Senate holds the trial

Is this inciting that in order to be given civil liberty, you must obeyed by the laws set in place?

What exactly is this stating? I this suggesting that the courts don't have any jurisdiction over foreign powers, and only take cases that are related to their branch?

I do not understand how this statement relates to what was said before. If I'm correct, the previous statements was suggesting that the supreme and inferior courts have certain jurisdiction. Are they saying that how jurisdiction is determined may change over time?

This is mostly just a question of clarity- is the question being asked here that if a law that is created in which the constitution does not have an answer for, should it be considered legitimate?

This seems like a crucial sentence that is being asked even today. This case seemed to have established crucial legitimization on the reach and powers of the Supreme Court, but what did it do in regards to establishing the power of the Constitution?

Throughout class so far, a lot of discussions have been about interpretation of the constitution. There are various styles to achieving this, but the one we lack now is direct communication with the framers, obviously. So, in the case of this, Marshall is interpreting at a time when one of the founders is a sitting president, so why is the Supreme Court trying to interpret the words written of men who could offer their own intentions plainly?

Is this saying that once a Justice is appointed and confirmed, the President cannot revoke the office from the individual? Does that mean that power lies with Congress?

Doesn't the Constitution outline that the Justices serve for life? Why does this say five years?

I thought the Justices were appointed by the President but then had to be confirmed by the Senate. Was this second step an amendment added later?

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.

How can a court's opinion change? When there are different people on the court would that maybe produce a different outcome? How would you be able to be sure that things are standard?

This whole phrase is just completely in one ear and out the other for me. Would anybody be able to explain what this means? It is just a fancy way for getting into the opinion on the case?

This is confusing to me because I don't understand how this is an opinion answered question. If something has gone wrong shouldn't there be a remedy owed?

I am confused on how the legislature fits into the court's original jurisdiction. Did the legislature have to approve each of the cases that the supreme court took? Why only for original jurisdiction and not appellate jurisdiction as well? Does this still apply today?

When mentioning Mr. Marbury's commission, they state that he is given a five year term. Were judicial appointments not lifetime appointments within the early years of the court system? Was the term five years for each appointee?

When this is referring to a man considering himself "injured", does that mean that a remedy can only be given to cases in which someone was injured? Or is this a form of metaphorical speech?

Where does the issue writs of mandamus come from then if not the constitution? I thought that the way judicial courts act were all centered around the constitutional law. But the way this is worded, it appears that mandamus is not in reference to the constitution.

I am confused on what affirmative words are. What do they have to do with this case? If anything, shouldn't there need to be positive affirmation words towards the case? If it is only negative, then wouldn't that be the opposite of having no operation at all?

Does this simply suggest our government is laws and doesn't have much to do with the men that are supposed to uphold them? What legal right are they referring to?

At this point, Marshall has invoked the idea of and principle behind written constitutions generally about 5 times. I don't take issue with his argument, but is there a reason he acts as if the principle behind a constitution is so well understood but does not invoke specific examples from somewhere else? Did he think this was not helpful for a young United States in defining the scope of its own laws? Or did he not have a useful example of a written constitution from another nation to cite?

If the Court is only bound to issue a mandamus as an exercise or remedy provided the powers granted by its appellate jurisdiction, which it denied given the case was brought directly to the Court, then how did it take the case under original jurisdiction? Did Marshall have a different take on jurisdiction than Justice Chase a few decades later?

I'm curious as to how the writers of the Constitution had not considered that something similar could occur? Why did the writers not introduce some sort of specific method where one of the branches could declare an action of another unconstitutional?

Why would he not be if his position is upheld by the law as they mentioned previously? Why would he not be entitled to a remedy of the situation?

I think I'm lost at this point? I'm not entirely sure what point they are trying to make, and there are far too many large words in the previous paragraph for me to be able to make sense of what is happening in this section. I certainly feel lost.

What happened to the neighborhood after UPEN WPI interventions in Alex Penn School.

What is the longitudinal change in neighborhood characteristics as measures of effective revitalization and how do those demonstrate the effect of WPI investments from UPENN> and how does that differ from perceptions captured in previous qual studies?

Is this true i can get type 2 diabetes from lack of sleep?

Why do people in Delhi drink river water knowing that the end is polluted?

how many hours a week do you need to sleep? why

"We can die by it, if no live by love" is Donne professing to the reader that life without his lover is not worth it, similarly to Shakespeare's tragedy, "Romeo and Juliet." After this, Donne predicts the success of his poem saying he will be remembered for his "verse" or poems like this one. What does Donne's "prediction" say about him as a writer?

If John Donne knows that his love hasn't harmed anyone, why does he continue to question the reader about it? If he is being truthful, why ask?

Donne speaks directly to the reader, pleading them to let him love. Why is Donne so frustrated with the reader after only one line of the poem?

Intriguing.. I can see where the connection is possibly being made, that language and culture have an impact on our psyche? Language can focus our aspect on specific aspects of the world and influences perception and culture effects us developmentally.

It begs the questions.. How has the duality of German and Wundt's politics followed us in some guise ever since? Does it mean that traces of modern psychology are still white washed and catered towards one demographic?

Wasn't this topic of public health and safety already discussed? Is J. Breyer giving Layton the opportunity to explain the state's stance in further detail?

How many times have there been cases of violations to the Establishment Clause? Is there a precedent for what is and is not a violation?

What is the criteria specifically for deciding if a religiously-affiliated organization receives state funding? I think it's interesting and poignant that the justices have asked both attorneys for their definitions of church.

I looked up the Voluntary Cessation Doctrine, but I am still unsure what it means and how it pertains to this case? I wish they would have elaborated more on it. I could be mistaken, but I believe the Doctrine deals with exceptions to mootness, however, I thought Justice Breyer said this case was not moot.

I am a little confused with Cortman's argument. If the court favors religion, then theres an Establishment Clause problem, but if the court attacks religion, then theres a Free Exercise Clause problem. How can these things be balanced out? When is it appropriate to accommodate religion? What are other examples of the court accommodating religion?

Does Lockey vs Davey involve the qustion of scholarship (of religious schools) provided from government money? Thats what I'm gathering but I'm not sure. Not familiar with the case but before I look it up I'm guessing it has to do with government funded school scholarships secular vs non secular?

What is the World Vision Brief? Is this apart of the amicus brief? Im confused and already not familiar about what exactly an amicus brief is.

So how is this measured? How is the court able to tell how "religious" a school is and does how "religious; they are determine the funding amount they receive?

Are states not obligated to protect churches from potential disasters? I get there's a separation of church and state, and maybe I'm completely misunderstanding the question, but is that Kagan's implication here?

The Missouri State constitutional provision has been brought up a few times, does this mean that the Supreme Court can make decision on state constitutions?

What is an amici? Is this a group of people or a set of rules/laws that Layton is referring to that establish that there is no clause violation?

How often does social media play a part into political bias? How are judges or trial members able to keep their rulings separate from the bias they're hearing in the news or headlines?

I understand the idea that public benefit from the government and religious states should not mix. Are there other examples of government coercion to public benefit you could provide as examples?

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.

Having no prior knowledge of the Establishment Clause, I believe I've been able to glean a little of what it might say from the course of listening to this case. The application of it seems to be broken into two halves of conditionality, "endorsement" and "entanglement." Does anyone on the thread have a definition of what these two conditions mean?

Do any of my fellow students know what Justice Kagan is referring to here? Is Cortman's "white light" perhaps a five-minute warning light, since we are reaching the 25-minute mark, and each party gets 30 minutes? Or perhaps it just means "it's time to wrap it up?"

I'm curious, in their attempts to, as Professor Roberts characterized it, "probe the strength of their legal arguments, implications and hypothetical effects," how often do Justices describe hypothetical situations? If there was a statistic on how many times, on average per case, a hypothetical was posed, how high or low do we think it would be?

Does anyone else think that when he says "they have a free right to exercise... most private organizations and religious organizations do so." leads to him invalidating his point, that what he's asking for, is money for a private religious space? To me it seems like he has directly stated the church can do what it wants because it's private, but wouldn't that exactly take away from his want of federal money?

Did I miss them getting to the point of there being no establishment clause here? If yes, can anyone point me to where that was? Or is the establishment clause just something I should know / will learn?

Question - Here he says it's done by the private party, and I'm assuming that he means the individual who's hypothetically praying on the playground, however if that individual is from the church/ going to the church after or before playing- doesn't that make the individual apart of the church?

Question - What is he referring to when he says 'the way the Court always has? What ways has the SCOTUS always separated secular function from its religious function?

This mention of Locke has been used numerous times throughout this conversation, and I have yet to understand where the meaning of this is being drawn from. Are they referring to something John Locke wrote? Is this the name of something or someone I may have missed?

This is a very good point that I feel like is ignored. I have to wonder why this was not expanded on further - both by Layton himself or one of the justices.

I wish this had been elaborated on more. What do these two cases mean, and how does citing them help?

This question by Justice Alito made me realize that each state may have its own definition of "church". If this is to be one of the deciding factors of this particular case, and a case of the same material opens up in a different state, would the Supreme Court use Trinity Lutheran v. Comer to decide in a similar manner? Or would they have to judge with no stare decisis because of the different terms within the different state constitutions?

My first question is a bit more overarching of the argument that is happening so far. Is this argument, that the division of religious versus secular property on the church grounds, a violation of the first amendment? More specifically, if every individual has the freedom of religion, why does it matter that this church playground must be secular? Are they telling Cortman that they can judge what happens on the churches own private property? Why does this affect whether the church can join a fundraiser or not?

Hi, I have a question about which rendering engine is used for this simulaiton video. Is blender being used? Same question goes for the video in the begining of this post. https://medium.com/toyotaresearch/drake-model-based-design-in-the-age-of-robotics-and-machine-learning-59938c985515. It looks like that the video in the beginning of the above post is rendered with blender.

est-ce qu'il serait envisageable d'intégrer des images ou des dessins de certaines plantes, aussi pour les rerendre visibles aux yeux du lecteur ?

est ce qu'on peut y voir une conquête du bas-côté ? cet espace où il y a encore une place de liberté.

Ça me fait penser aux figures des couples mobiles ou en cavales (Thelma et Louise, Bonny and Clide), est que cet amour aurait été différent si vous aviez appris à conduire au sens où savoir conduire c'est aussi pouvoir à tout moment prendre sa voiture pour s'en aller vers une autre direction ?

est-ce qu'on en sait plus sur l'aide de Sally pour Nabokov ?

si le livre de Weinman "n'avance pas", est-ce qu'on peut envisager de voir ce mouvement comme le destin de Sally sur la route ?

Véra est-elle une femme de plus sur le bas-côté ?

How can research help the poor? central Focus. Author examines five participatory research projects (research from the underside) and applies a criteria as to whether or not it is research that helps the poor?

How to evaluate research that appreciates power imbalances? Research by and with the social deprived...., Criteria laid forth>

Could you please clarify what you mean by drinking tea from the tea? I'm curious as to what he does not understand in terms of tea etiquette.

I thought that the idea that AAVE is a continuation of African dialect in America was a really interesting idea. I wonder if there are any grammatical rules that exist in both AAVE and other African languages.

Ethnographies of vulnerable communities - and be objective and protect informants

Purpose of study is to understand the goals of feminist liberation.

I have often wondered both questions, I know I always felt shame if I made a grammatical mistake and a teacher would point it out to the class. Also, am I problematic if I use SAE? Or is it more problematic to force my students to use SAE?

What is their definition of lesser educated? Is it people who do not hold a college degree? Anyone without a doctorate? Not finishing high school? What is their definition of education and lesser educated?

I want to question where we see this in other cultures, such as our own. Do we have practices that embrace this ideology? Is it in the same way or a similar way?

One stance to have is to be aware of Dickinson's metacognitive journey in most poems. So...what is D's overarching point about poetry as a craft, as a vehicle, as a way of being and knowing?

One question I have here is how do we teach this kind of concept in the classroom? Since we will be in high schools, how do we embrace this ideology when students may not even know how to engage with this kind of thing because they were not taught to do so prior to our class?

pedagogy, is that you?!

So is medium design negative by nature?

如果我想设置其他的vblock呢？例如http下init_worker 和upstream之类的。

I wonder if I'll be able to use this knowledge in my field placement this semester?

what's the meaning of object-oriented language

Is this what the authors meant when they said to make US and European psychologies self-consciously aware that they are at the center?

This is helping me with understanding some of my conundrum with the problems of not being able to replicate lab results of psychology experiments in the real world. Perhaps if more studies consider Morawski's consideration of reflexivity it can better help us with interpreting the results of our experimental studies?