As a result, the Texas law is a permissible regulation of speech.
incorrect, they ruled that Johnson's actions did not threaten to disturb the peace or that the state's interests in preserving the flag as a symbol.... justify his criminal conviction for engaging in political expression
that government may always prohibit the expression of an idea whenever society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.
incorrect, the government may not always prohibit the expression of an idea when...
Looking at Johnson's actions, there is no evidence of an expressive element in his actions
incorrect- there IS an expressive element in Johnson's actions, however, the we're looking at whether the expression actions are likely to 'disturb the peace' or whether it falls in the conduct of 'fighting words'
Dissent by Justince Kennedy
Incorrect- Kennedy was a concurring opinion
U.S. v. O'Brien
no where is U.S. v. O'Brien mentioned in this - cases mentioned are Spence v. Washington & Street v. N.Y.
freedom
Incorrect?? but not sure.. to me the question they're asking in the book is whether 'the texas law that has been asserted is
Second Amendment
incorrect- we are looking at the first amendment here
act of Congress
Incorrect- it is a Texas law in question / violation
painted an American flag on his bare chest, but painted it upside down.
incorrect- the act being charged is "Unfurled the glad, doused it with kerosene and set it on fire"
Arthur Smith
incorrect- protestor in question is Lee Johnson
protesters assembled outside the convention hall
Incorrect- protestors marched through the city
is part of an attempt to channel funds to wealthy citizens
incorrect- the program was to channel funds to lower class / (poor) citizens
the program is not one of true private choice. It is not neutral i
incorrect- the program IS one of private choice, and it IS neutral in respects toward religion
the program most likely violates the establishment clause.
Incorrect - the textbooks states reasoning as "the program is not readily subject to challenge under the establishment clause"
O'Connor: dissenting
Incorrect - O'Connor was a concurring opinion
vote of 7–2
Incorrect - the vote was 5-4
offend the 14th Amendment to the Constitution
Incorrect - "Does the voucher program offend the establishment clause..." is the correct legal issue here
5 percent of students used their vouchers at private schools.
Incorrect - 97% of students used their vouchers at private schools
10 percent of the private schools available were religious
incorrect- 80% of the private schools were religious
sued, charging that the voucher program violated the First Amendment's free exercise clause because
Simmons- Harris sued because they thought the voucher program violated the first amendment establishment clause- NOT because of "only 10% of private schools...."
district
incorrect - it was the state that set up the program (according to text book), not the district
Baltimore school district
incorrect school district - school district should be Cleveland
194
citation incorrect - pg 394
1982)
Incorrect - 2002
They did not design to make their Government dependent on the States....
Would the dependence on the states be referring to the states making money for the national government by creating the taxes?
The argument on the part of the State of Maryland is not that the States may directly resist a law of Congress, but that they may exercise their acknowledged powers upon it,
Wouldn't that be unconstitutional? To not abide to the laws enacting by congress? Isn't it up to the Judiciary to interpret the acknowledged powers?
which another Government may furnish or withhold
Is 'another government' directly referring to the state vs. the national government?
Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves.
At the end of this where it states 'deduced from the nature of the objects themselves' - the objects themselves are the individual states and people in those states, correct? So if there was no mention of the laws regarding bank taxes of states in the constitution, but the grand power of the law is saved for the people, which influence the government, makes me wonder- was this creation of Maryland's bank and bank tax, at all ever voted on by the people? Or was it 'secretly' created and decided by the government of the state alone?
Though any one State may be willing to control its operations, no State is willing to allow others to control them
So here it sounds to me like it is certain that the states have sovereign power to create their laws, but wouldn't that directly conflict with the constitution being the supreme law of the land? Or is "no state is willing to allow others to control them" specifically speaking to something I'm missing?
against
incorrect - the court ruled in favor of Youngstown Sheet & Tube.
is no statute that authorizes the president to take property as he did here.
so maybe incorrect? There is a statute that allows the president to take property- but only personal and real property under certain conditions - those conditions were not met here
Clark:
incorrect - Jackson held the concurring in the judgement of the court
dissenting
incorrect jackson had a concurring opinion
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 lawmaking power in the United States is within Congress's domain, but Congress has clearly chosen to rid itself of that power and give it to the president.
wrong wrong wrong - the policy he tried to put in place was one he made, not congress. congress did not choose to rid itself of the power and give it to the president
can
incorrect - his actions can NOT be upheld
Congress
this seems incorrect to me - it's not congress in discussion here, it's the president / executive branch
Vietnam War
incorrect - * Korean war
sugar manufacturing industry,
incorrect - steel *
without respect to persons
What exactly does this mean? I guess I'm confused because it started off heavily implying that all men deserve fair trials/ access to law. Does this just reinstate that the law is above people and must be applied evenly? The 'without respect' is throwing me off.
and it becomes necessary to enquire whether a jurisdiction, so conferred, can be exercised.
When they mention 'can be exercised' are they talking about finding a conclusion at all with the issue? Stating that no one was given the jurisdiction to make the conclusion from the constitution?
it must be because the law is unconstitutional, and therefore absolutely incapable of conferring the authority,
Is this part of the reasoning why said action taking place was unconstitutional? Are they using this as reason, or is it still being debated?
this legal title to the office, he has a consequent right to the commission; a refusal to deliver which, is a plain violation of that right, for which the laws of his country afford him a remedy.
So is this saying that his high office position allows him to make the judgement on delivery (or not delivery) of the papers, and have no consequences for his choice? Because he should be, with his position, thinking about the laws above person opinions?
we don't want to, as a country -- well, the vast majority of States, to fund houses of worship.
Dissent #2 - I think is the second dissenting opinion from Justice Sonia Sotomayor. She's pointing out the history of how the constitution has been applied to matters that are similar to the case being argued. She also re establishes that they do not and do not want to give funding to religious exercise of any sort.
And that's the way you briefed the case. I hear you making a different argument, or a broader argument now, that extends into a State's decision to deny some uses -- to deny funding to some uses at the same time as it gives funding to other uses, and a State's decision to say, look, we really just don't want to fund religious exercise.
(#1) I think this shows Justice Kagan is dissenting. She's stating that the state can and does deny funding to religious uses and stating that they do not want to fund religious exercise.
they have a free exercise right to religious autonomy to decide who their members are. In fact, most private organizations and religious organizations do so.
Does anyone else think that when he says "they have a free right to exercise... most private organizations and religious organizations do so." leads to him invalidating his point, that what he's asking for, is money for a private religious space? To me it seems like he has directly stated the church can do what it wants because it's private, but wouldn't that exactly take away from his want of federal money?
there is no Establishment Clause problem, which is what we have here,
Did I miss them getting to the point of there being no establishment clause here? If yes, can anyone point me to where that was? Or is the establishment clause just something I should know / will learn?
private party
Question - Here he says it's done by the private party, and I'm assuming that he means the individual who's hypothetically praying on the playground, however if that individual is from the church/ going to the church after or before playing- doesn't that make the individual apart of the church?
I think the way the Court always has.
Question - What is he referring to when he says 'the way the Court always has? What ways has the SCOTUS always separated secular function from its religious function?
How do you separate out its secular function from its religious function?
MAJORITY!! I think Justice Sotomayor is using textualization of the constitution here, this would make sense to me that she'll continue to build on / use this thought for her conclusion
Framers didn't want was tax money imposed to pay for building or maintaining churches or church property.
MAJORITY !! I think this shows Justice RBG's opinion / leads towards conclusion even though it is early on, she's bringing up precedent