government may always prohibit the expression of an idea whenever society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.
This is simply not true. Can you imagine this law today? It would be 1984 on steroids. Government can regulate offensive speech and similar incidents, whether verbal or not.
Justince
He's clearly Justice Kennedy, not Justince. I don't know how I missed this the first time.
Holding
Since multiple Justices concurred there was a plurality opinion, which should be under the "holding" title, and it isn't.
Dissent by Justince Kennedy
Justice Kennedy concurred with the plurality majority opinion, he did not dissent.
Second Amendment freedom of expression?
This should say the First Amendment, not the second.
491 U.S. 397
The year the case was should be present in the citation, but it is not.
Texas v. Johnson (1989)
The year the case was decided goes into the citation, not the case name.
Holding
The Holding section should include the justice who delivered the majority opinion (Rehnquist), and it does not.
only 5 percent of students used their vouchers at private schools.
This number was actually over 96%.
10 percent of the private schools available were religious
Actually, 80 percent of the private schools were religious.
dissenting
O'Connor was actually a concurring opinion.
14th Amendment to the Constitution?
The debate was actually if the voucher program violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, not the 14th Amendment.
Case Facts
Ideally, the facts of the case include a brief history of it in court. This voucher program was initially struck down in federal district court and the court of appeals, but no mention of that exists here.
7–2
The vote was actually 5-4.
more than two-thirds of students dropped out before graduation.
The case says "failed or dropped out." This distinction is lacking in the brief, as a failing student doesn't have to drop out.
Epstein and Walker, p194
This is not the U.S. Reports citation for this case. Also, it lacks the year the case was decided.
(1982)
The case took place in 2002, not 1982. Additionally, the year the case was decided should be in the citation, not the case name.
This was not intended by the American people. They did not design to make their Government dependent on the States....
Didn't they? Initially, that was exactly what the Articles of Confederation did. It gave power to the states and made the federal government a symbolic figurehead at best. While he may be referencing the current Constitution, there is some debate on his statement without its historical context. Marshall knows the history, so why would he say this?
Taxation, it is said, does not necessarily and unavoidably destroy. To carry it to the excess of destruction would be an abuse, to presume which would banish that confidence which is essential to all Government.
So is he implying that while taxes are evil, they could be so much worse? That to take them to certain extents would make them so overwhelming as to be destructive to society? I get that if that's the statement, just looking for clarification.
Its means are adequate to its ends, and on those means alone was it expected to rely for the accomplishment of its ends.
Is he implying that the states should have used all the means at their disposal to fight the national bank? I know the states were angry, especially Maryland, but what are they supposed to do except be upset about the situation?
Here the language of the constitution is addressed especially to the courts. It prescribes, directly for them, a rule of evidence not to be departed from. If the legislature should change that rule, and declare one witness, or a confession out of court, sufficient for conviction, must the constitutional principle yield to the legislative act?
I wonder about this. Justice Marshall is saying that if Congress changes a law against what the Supreme Court has ruled, then should the Supreme Court yield to Congress? One thing that was going over in my head reading the chapter is that a united Congress, or one of massive majority power from one party, is completely unchecked by the other two branches. They can resubmit vetoed proposals, and override Court legislation. This seems like to much power doesn't it? Marshall seems to be asking something similar-should we yield or hold fast?
The subsequent part of the section is mere surplusage, is entirely without meaning, if such is to be the construction. If congress remains at liberty to give this court appellate jurisdiction, where the constitution has declared their jurisdiction shall be original; and original jurisdiction where the constitution has declared it shall be appellate; the distribution of jurisdiction, made in the constitution, is form without substance.
This appears to be Marshall completely insulting the capabilities of the lower courts and Congress. He's saying how original is appellate and appellate is original and what exactly is he assigned and supposed to do? He basically fires a shot across Congress' bow as to what jurisdiction his court is supposed to handle. Why would he do this though? Spite?
The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men.
While this was the opinion of the time, isn't it far more true that the government is one of men since those same men were making the laws? I understand the expression, but that's like saying a train is all steel and no motor. Laws may be the foundation, but the men at the time were writing them.
but not churches?
I believe this is definitely an instance where Justice Breyer is siding with the church. He is clearly setting up a situation where the church, of course, will be included in the fire, public health, and police protection to force Layton to basically admit to it or avoid it altogether.
draw the definition of churches and religious institutions
So is he saying that there is no difference, or at least a minimal difference in Missouri between churches and a religious institution such as a Christian school? What about school that may take place inside of a church? Or worship inside a Christian school? Are all those basically being lumped into the same category or is Missouri trying to separate them?
States can go their own way and make their own choices.
I believe here that Justice Kagan is siding with the church. She's acknowledging there is a divide, while also basically saying "you're already getting what you want, so what are we all doing here?" I commented earlier about the bureaucracy with this mess and how this is why the states handle this, and she just supported that.
but I think they all balance out each other.
While I get the argument he is making he is being unnecessarily brief. How exactly do the Establishment clause and Free Exercise clause balance each other out? If you're going to make such a statement, you should explain yourself. What point is he really trying to make?
depending on how religious it is.
How religious it is? So far, it seems like Cortman is lucky that this case made it to the Supreme Court in the first place, and he's dancing around the topic of levels of religion? Would a Lutheran church and a Catholic church ever say one was more "religious" than the other? I'm shocked Alito didn't laugh this guy out of the chamber. Where is the relevance?