42 Matching Annotations
  1. Nov 2021
    1. always

      should be sometimes, but definitely not always as just because something may be controversial does not mean it should be censored.

    2. As a result, the Texas law is a permissible regulation of speech.

      This contradicts everything that was previously stated about the case being in favor of Johnson.

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

      His actions expressed his deep disapproval for the nation's policies.

    4. Dissent

      concurrence

    5. Does an act of Congress prohibiting the burning of the American flag violate the Second Amendment freedom of expression?

      A) Wrong amendment B) I would have written it as is the act of burning the American flag protected under the first amendment?

    6. painted an American flag on his bare chest, but painted it upside down

      Burned an American flag

    7. Arthur Smith,

      Gregory Lee Johnson

    8. 491 U.S. 397

      decision year must be included

    9. Texas v. Johnson

      should be written in italics

    1. Only certain religious groups are free to participate.

      There was nothing about it being limited to certain religious groups, the offer was extended to all low income students not based on religion.

    2. is not one of true private choice.

      No? The supreme court decided that it was the parents' choice of where to enroll their children and since the government did not decide for them and they did have the choice between religious and secular that it did not violate

    3. most likely violates the

      This just contradicts their whole argument

    4. Th

      There is nothing wrong but this is for me to come back to and remember that their reasoning was through the "lemon test" which is a series of 3 questions... was the whole reasoning behind the funding secular? Is the primary effect to advance or inhibit religion? Was the decision made through individual or forced through the government?

    5. dissenting

      concurring

    6. 10 percent of the private schools available were religious,

      A it was actually 82% of the schools were religious and the reason for Harris' claim was that it appeared like the government was influencing religion on the students since that was most of what was available and B) what is currently stated in this brief does not make sense and contradicts the claim of there being a first amendment problem which was how I was able to point out that the numbers must have been opposite of the true data before doing research. The problem was that only 14% were non religious rather than religious as stated

    7. only 5 percent

      Is actually 96% at religious private

    8. Baltimore

      Cleveland

    9. 7–2

      It was 5-4

    10. 1982

      After further research, I found that this is a case decided in 2002

    11. 14th Amendment

      In the case facts they say first amendment is in question not the 14th

    12. Epstein and Walker,

      Needs to be volume, abbrev. for court reporter, starting page number, and then the year

    13. Epstein and Walker, p194

      In the legal citation, the year is not optional like it is in the case name

  2. Oct 2021
    1. If the States may tax one instrument, employed by the Government in the execution of its powers, they may tax any and every other instrument. They may tax the mail; they may tax the mint; they may tax patent rights; they may tax the papers of the custom house;

      Does this imply that powers cannot be partial? Like the state governments cannot have the power to tax only certain things it is either they have the power to tax or not?

    2. he 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.

      Is this essentially just summarizing that both the states and the central government are sovereign, so Maryland cannot impose a tax on the Bank because that would be considered as impeding on the congress using their implied powers of the constitution to carry out their responsibilities and because it renders the central government's creation of that bank useless?

    3. we proceed to inquire...whether the State of Maryland may, without violating the Constitution, tax that branch?...

      Is this an issue because one of the concurrent powers is the power to tax? If not, is there ever a time where the concurrent powers make things somewhat complex?

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

      I feel like this is not true. It is super confusing and congress did not rid itself of lawmaking power?

    2. dissenting

      should be concurring

    3. against

      should be for

    4. Congress

      thought we were talking about the president

    5. Yes.

      should be no. There would be no statute to authorize the possession of property

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

      I believe the legal issue is supposed to specifically mention a law or element of the constitution which this does not

    7. Because the nation was involved in the Vietnam War,

      This says 1951, but the Vietnam war started in 1955

  3. Sep 2021
    1. That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis, on which the whole American fabric has been erected

      What exactly is this discussing? Is it talking about representation and how when people choose their president they are thinking of what values will exert the most happiness for them? Is this talking about utility? Also, what is meant by "original" as in original right or original will

    2. so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law

      This confuses me as wheenever I think of judicial review I just think of if a law is unconstitutional the supreme court can throw it out, but what would it mean to disregard the law or conformably to the law? If a law is declared unconstitutional is it not just immediately out or no?

    3. he

      who is he in this phrase? Here, the president's power to make appointments is being discussed and then it continues on to talk about the powers being "non resumeable". Essentially, who cannot remove the officer and who can and who is "he" in the sentence?

    1. any problem there with giving the money to a church and spending extra money for the cross in the window? It's all -- it's for public safety.

      I think this argument shows clear in favor of the church as he is saying all in all, if it is a necessity and about public safety, religion should not matter. He might be implying that a playground meant to keep kids healthy should be on the matter of public health not religion

    2. I don't think it does. Everson also said that we have to be careful in not establishing a church not to deprive religious people or organizations of general government benefits.

      This is an argument that most definitely argues in favor of the church as he clearly states they should not be deprived

    3. And -- and still get the public money.

      I think she might be the second dissenting justice as she goes against David Cortman strongly here. She says they are able to deny members thus they are private thus they don't get immediate right to public money

    4. But why is that coercion with respect to your beliefs?

      Here, it is pretty evident to me that Sonia is one of the dissenting judges as she argues against David that there is no coercion to beliefs to deprive of the benefit. She also repetitively states that no one is taking away the playground.

    5. you're being penalized by not receiving the public benefit --

      this is what I was discussing earlier... Isn't it against the free exercise idea to not help fund the school? Just because they're religious now they are being discriminated against in terms of aid? Favoring one religion is not allowed, but is favoring no religion allowed?

    6. for example, we're providing you with these textbooks, so you have to stop all religion in your school.

      How would they decide where the line can be drawn? With what grants can the states say you must not use these for religious activity? If David here references textbooks as "too far" what else is and what isn't? Is there any part of the constitution that states what the conditions of grants can look like?

    7. is just a surface.

      If the whole goal is to ensure religion is able to be freely practiced (1st amendment) why would there be discussion about whether or not the government should provide basic assets to support the school on the account of worrying they are then supporting that religion? Wouldn't it be not allowing the school to freely practice religion/ not supporting choice of practice of religion if they didn't help provide some essentials they need?