Only certain religious groups are free to participate
This opportunity was given to all students in the school system
42 Matching Annotations
- Nov 2021
-
mmcr.education mmcr.education
-
-
the program is not one of true private choice
They saw the program as being of true private choice
-
the program most likely violates the establishment clause
"the program is not readily subject to challenge under the Establishment Clause"
-
no reasonable observer would think a neutral program
they recognize that to a reasonable observer it looks like the state is endorsing religious practices and beliefs
-
5 percent of students used their vouchers at private schools
97% of the students who used tuition vouchers to attend religious schools
-
10 percent of the private schools available were religious
80% of the 56 private schools in the area were religious
-
dropped out
or failed out
-
attend a public school outside the district
they would also receive $2,250 from the district added on to the normal state funding for each student enrolled
-
Baltimore
Cleveland
-
7–2
5-4
-
dissenting
Concurring
-
(1982)
2002
-
Epstein and Walker, p194
536 U.S. 639 (2002)
-
-
mmcr.education mmcr.education
-
U.S. v. O'Brien
This was the opposite outcome. The men that burned their draft cards were charged, while Johnson burning the flag did not lead to him being charged in the end.
-
protesters assembled outside the convention hall
due to Ronald Reagans reelection bid
-
no evidence
"we have not automatically concluded" meaning they still thought there was some form of expressive elements
-
Texas has argued that Johnson's actions are a form of
they said that "Johnson's expressive conduct does not fall within the small class of fighting words"
-
argues that the most important principle behind the First Amendment is that government may always prohibit the expression of an idea
The court said that they can not rule the act of burning the flag unconstitutional. Citizens have the right to freedom of expression.
-
agrees
disagrees
-
painted an American flag on his bare chest, but painted it upside down.
Burned the American Flag
-
Arthur Smith
Gregory Lee Johnson
-
Second
First
-
Dissent by Justince Kennedy
Concurring opinion
-
- Oct 2021
-
mmcr.education mmcr.education
-
the General and State Governments is acknowledged to be concurrent
by general governments are they referring to the national government?
-
one instrument
what are they meaning by instrument in this case?
-
It is the Government of all; its powers are delegated by all; it represents all, and acts for all.
Is he discussing the overall constitutions purpose?
-
-
mmcr.education mmcr.education
-
of the president's inherent military power as commander-in-chief
this case limited the power of the president when it comes to seizing land and other actions along those lines.
-
Congress has clearly chosen to rid itself of that power and give it to the president.
congress said the president was not allowed to do this
-
Vietnam War,
korean war
-
sugar manufacturing industry,
steel industry
-
against Youngstown Sheet & Tub
Holding was against the government on all points
-
Roberts: dissenting
Roberts was not a part of this case.
-
Jackson: dissenting
Jackson had a concurring opinion.
-
-
mmcr.education mmcr.education
-
that the individual who considers himself injured
I am also confused what they mean by injured in this conclusion
-
"shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the fame overt act, or on confession in open court."
When I think of the case of Marbury v Madison treason is not something that comes to mind. When I think of treason I think of this as involving another nation-state and betraying your own country. Would this example fit for this case?
-
"I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons,
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.
-
- Sep 2021
-
mmcr.education mmcr.education
-
lastly, as we talk about entanglement, this is not an entanglement issue
Question: I would like to know more about what exactly they are meaning by entanglement
-
I -- I think that that's legitimate. But here's the thing.
Majority: After reading these statements between Kagan and Layton I believe that Kagan is in the majority
-
this Court said in no uncertain terms what the Framers didn't want was tax money imposed to pay for building or maintaining churches or church property.
Dissent: I think this statement shows that Ginsburg was not in favor of the churches argument.
-
I think the best two cases are Friends of the Earth and the Knox case.
Question: To go along with Zane I am also curious to know more about this case as well. Especially, how it pertains to this case to make it a better argument.
-
separate out its secular function from its religious function?
Dissent: I think that Sotomayor is going to be one of the two to oppose the majority.
-
on the basis of belief and viewpoint? How could they control against that involvement?
Majority: I think that this set of questions between Cortman and Sotomayor was the nail in the coffin for Sotomayor to oppose the majority rule in this case. Earlier when she asks how you can separate religious from secular also brought up a good constitutional argument.
-