40 Matching Annotations
  1. Dec 2019
    1. Yes

      No*

    2. There is no statute that authorizes the president to take property as he did here.

      There are certain statutes that the president can do this, however the way he did is not one

  2. Nov 2019
    1. may always prohibit the expression

      not true

    2. there is no evidence of an expressive element in his actions.

      There is evidence

    3. 491 U.S. 397

      Needs the year

    4. favor

      Against

    5. One of the protesters, Arthur Smith, painted an American flag on his bare chest, but painted it upside down. Johnson was arrested and charged with violating the Texas flag desecration law.

      Burnt a flag

    6. Dissent

      Concurring

    1. favor

      against

    2. 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.

      should include history of the case including what lower courts decided

    3. and more than two-thirds of students dropped out before graduation

      either failed or dropped out

    4. 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.

      Section too long

    5. 14th

      Wrong Amendment

    6. Does the voucher program offend the 14th Amendment to the Constitution?

      Not a well worded question

    7. N

      Doesn't say who wrote opinion

    8. Epstein and Walker, p194

      Wrong Citation

    9. dissenting

      Concurring

    10. 7–2

      5-4

    11. 1982

      Wrong year

  3. Oct 2019
    1. That the power to tax involves the power to destroy; that the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create;

      I am, as it seems many other classmates are as well, on the wording used here. I am not quite sure what he is trying to get at.

    2. The result is a conviction that the States have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by Congress to carry into execution the powers vested in the General Government.

      This choice and wording used here makes it seem like the federal government is too powerful in regards to these situations. Does this seem to be too much power?

    3. prostrating

      I am just wondering exactly what this words means in the terms it was used.

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

      This question can be more specific to this case and include more detail

    2. but Congress has clearly chosen to rid itself of that power and give it to the president.

      Congress did not rid itself of this power

    3. The order cannot be upheld on the basis of the several provisions of the Constitution that grant executive power to the president.

      There are no specific provision in the constitution that allows him this power.

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

      This is not justification for him being allowed to do this, this is simply his personal justification

    5. against

      in favor*

    6. Vietnam War,

      Korean War

    7. sugar manufacturing industry

      Steel industry, not sugar

    8. Jackson: dissenting

      Jackson was a concurring opinion, not a dissenting one

  4. Sep 2019
    1. I am confused about the wording used here. Can someone possibly explain this in better terms?

    2. Could it be the intention of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises?

      Is this part saying that the framers possibly intended for the provisions put forth in the constitution to never be put under the microscope and examined themselves?

    3. So I am a tiny bit confused here. Is this part saying if a legislative power goes against the constitution then that legislative power is not law, and if the legislative power is on the same level of the constitution, then its pointless to have a constitution when the legislative power is unlimited?

    1. amicus briefs

      What type of brief is an amicus brief?

    2. So do you think, Mr. Cortman, suppose there was an application and a -- from a -- a church that used its playground for religious activities. Had prayer services there, for example.

      My question in this case would be could this point that I highlighted be beaten on the grounds of looking at what the playground was originally made for? If a prayer happens there, that is just based on where people decided it to happen and it could have anywhere. The play ground was not created for the prayers to happen there.

    3. And so it's not only the church, it's other religious organizations. And Missouri Supreme Court case law says the way we decide those questions is -- is -- is how much religious influence is there in a church? In other words, are they serious about their faith? Do they -- is it voluntary for the students there? And so there's a question about how religious you may be in order to receive the benefit or not.

      I believe I have the same question here as someone else and I promise I am not just stealing it but how do you measure how religious someone or a group or institution is. That does not have a physical measure so this point or view should be moot.

    4. They want the paving of their playground. Could -- could this -- could they demand as a matter of Federal constitutional right that that playground be funded, even though they have an -- an admissions policy that favors members of their church?

      I think this is a time where Ginsburg is attempting to relate a situation where funding would be more obviously denied by the state in an attempt to link that to this case. I believe that Ginsburg is the other dissenting in this case.

    5. Okay. Last one. This is a New York City program that provides security -- money for security enhancements at schools where there's fear of shooting or other school violence.

      I think here Alito is attempting to show how this law is unjust in some ways. On a moral view, if children are at risk of getting hurt and the state does nothing to help, the state is in the wrong morally, but not wrong legally. I believe this possibly shows Alito leaning towards the majority.

    6. It's an issue on which I -- I guess I'm going to say nobody is completely sure that they have it right. And -- and so I guess there's something attractive about having some play in the joints where States can go their own way and make their own choices. And why shouldn't this be one of those cases?

      I think this section highlights where Elena Kagan is trying to clarify the churches point a little. It almost seems like a set up questions so that Mr. Cortman can explain himself a little more. I think this shows that Kagan is leaning towards the majority.

    7. We seem to be confusing money with religious practice.

      I think this is a great point in which it seems Sotomayor is one of the dissenting votes in this case. She seems to be taking the side of the state very heavily here and pointing out things that would disprove Mr. Cortman's points