If the state's regulations had nothing to do with regulating expression, then the Court would rely upon the less stringent standard they set in U.S. v. O'Brien (dealing with regulations placed on actions that are noncommunicative).
I didn't find anything in the opinion of the court given by Brennan in the text the explicitly referenced this case
The Court agrees and argues that the most important principle behind the First Amendment is that government may always prohibit the expression of an idea whenever society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. As a result, the Texas law is a permissible regulation of speech.
The bedrock principle is that the government cannot prohibit expression of ideas that may be found to be offensive or disagreeable, so the law is not agreeable with a foundational principle with the first amendment.
Looking at Johnson's actions, there is no evidence of an expressive element in his actions.
They found Johnson had a clear and understandable expressive element to his actions.
Dissent by Justince Kennedy
Kennedy sided with majority opinion
Second Amendment
First amendment
Arthur Smith, painted an American flag on his bare chest, but painted it upside down.
Gregory Lee Johnson, who doused the American flag in kerosene and lit it on fire.
turns on whether most schools in the program are religious.
does not turn
Here, the program is not one of true private choice. It is not neutral in all respects toward religion and is part of an attempt to channel funds to wealthy citizens who send their children to religious schools. Only certain religious groups are free to participate.
It is a program of true private choice, neutral in all respects towards religion, all religious groups are free to apply and the only stipulated preference is for low-income families
the program most likely violates the establishment clause.
is not readily subject to challenge under the Establishment clause.
dissenting
concurring
7–2
5-4
10 percent of the private schools available were religious, and only 5 percent of students used their vouchers at private schools.
Unable to find this as a reason in the text or online
Baltimore school district
Cleveland school district
(1982)
Case was in 2002
This is, we think, the unavoidable consequence of that supremacy which the Constitution has declared.
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?
The people of all the States have created the General Government,
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?
It was reported to the then existing Congress of the United States
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?
Roberts: dissenting
Justice Roberts was not on this court. This should be Justice Minton or Justice Reed, both of whom seem to be missing from this list. Justice Black, who delivered opinion of court, also seems to be missing from this list.
Clark: concurring in the judgment of the Court
As annotated on Jackson, Clark did not write concurring judgement that I can see.
Jackson: dissenting
Jackson wrote a concurring opinion of the court, I do not see one written by Clark in the reading
In the president's favor is the fact that his order commands the steel industry to follow policy set by Congress, not the president himself
The President was directing a policy that was prescribed by himself, not of the Congress
Truman's action can be upheld as an exercise of the president's inherent military power as commander-in-chief.
There is no power, express or implied, that gives the President the ability to seize a manufacturer with the intent to end a strike
Yes. By a vote of 6-3 the Court ruled against Youngstown Sheet & Tube.
The court rule 6-3, but it was in favor of the mill, and stated the President does not have the power to seize an industry that is striking
Vietnam War
The war at the time was the Korean war
sugar manufacturing
The dispute was within the steel industry
Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law?
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?
Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.
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?
To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?
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?
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Justice Ginsburg is the only other Justice I can see that had any real concern on Cortman's presentation. With her questioning to Cortman and relative silence during Layton's presentation, I have to make her as my guess for 2nd dissent.
Now you say no, it does not permit those laws.
Breyer seems to almost be trying to direct Layton's line of argument, in order to identify and show why Layton's argument is at fault. With this line of statements and questions, Breyer is my guess for the 2nd majority.
Why can the State provide police protection or fire protection?
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?
So what is the definition of a church? So a religiously-affiliated school is not a church under the -- under the Missouri constitution?
Similar to Kagan and her questioning earlier, Alito seems to press hard against Layton's defense of Missouri in not granting funds. Alito seems to be firmly on the side of Trinity at this point. I'm confident in making him my first guess as a majority.
It clearly is, not only in this administration, but in the new lawsuit being brought to challenge the new policy, because it violates why we're here in the first place, is the Missouri State constitutional provision.
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?
Some of the amici on our site -- side say that there is
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?
May I take you back to the substance, Mr. Cortman, unless anybody -- it's -- let's talk a little bit about federalism, and here's what I would like to know.
Justice Kagan, to this point, seems to take a negative stance in regards to how Cortman is presenting this case. Her questioning seems to be unimpressed with Cortman's presentation. She is my first guess as a dissenter.