No Jehovah witness mentioned, inaccurate?
Missing Citation of case (249 U.S. 47 (1919)) in between the CASE NAME AND CASE FACTS.
Yes, by a vote of 6–3 the Court ruled in favor of Schenck.
Holding was that that there was a clear and present danger, so they did not vote in favor of Schenck. Vote was 9-0, with U.S winning. Criticism of the draft did present danger during war times.
It is a question of proximity and degree. In this case, because the country was NOT at war, the words in the pamphlets do not create a limited and eventual danger.
"the First Amendment did not protect speech encouraging men to resist induction, because, "when a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right." In other words, the court held, the circumstances of wartime allow greater restrictions on free speech than would be allowed during peacetime, if only because new and greater dangers are present."
The Court determined that including a homosexual scout master would have no impact whatsoever upon the moral message the BSA expresses.
"Dales presence in th eBoy Scouts would, at the very least, force the organization to send a message, bit to the youth memebrs and the world that the Boy Scouts accepts homosexual conduct as a legitamate form of behavior..."
The First Amendment does not provide protection for those trying to associate with other fellow citizens. The government has the legal authority to ban groups or to force a group to accept certain members when doing so would promote a valid government policy.
Huh? Ambiguous twist, making it seem inaccurate in the reasoning to support the decision of the court.
Does the 14th Amendment due process clause forbid the Boy Scouts of America from denying membership to homosexuals?
Not sure if this is really the legal issue? Didnt see the 14th Amendment mentioned. Would probably be more accurate with: Does the application of New Jersey's public accommodations law violate the Boy Scouts' First Amendment right of expressive association to bar homosexuals from serving as troop leaders?
Missing actual Dissent Justices:Stevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer.
Also missing any synopsis of the reason for Dissent.
Ambiguous...not an important fact Should be more about destruction of flag versus expressive words with relating misconduct to the flag and therefore breaking the law.
We must first determine if Johnson's conduct is to be considered expressive conduct, allowing him to invoke the First Amendment. If it was expressive, then we need to decide if the state's regulation is related to the suppression of free expression. If the state's regulation is unrelated to expression, then the less stringent standard of U.S. v. O'Brien (for regulations of noncommunicative conduct) controls. If it is related to expression, then we are outside of O'Brien's test. It could also be that there is no state interest in flag desecration.
Almost more of word for word copy than paraphrasing in reasoning number 1.
Justice Kennedy was for the majority, not Dissent in opinion.
Missing what the main legal questions were by the and clear statement of what the justices decided.
painted an American flag on his bare chest, but painted it upside down.
The issue in this case was the burning of the American flag, not a separate protester (other than Johnson) painting the flag upside down. Johnson lit the flag on fire.
Not sure if this is accurate? It does not name another protester, other than saying a protester handed Johnson a flag before he chose to set it on fire.
The pamphlets were urging the resistance of the draft, but the book did not state that the attempt was to overthrow the government. Only to express his political ideals.
But all inconsistencies are to be reconciled by the magic of the word CONFIDENCE.
"That the power to tax involves the power to destroy", is used to give argument to the stability of controlling "constitutional measures," but then to use the argument of confidence? This doesn't seem like a very deeply rooted constitutional concept that gives the governments the power to tax and to keep those officials from abusing this power? Maybe I misinterpret it, but in such a legal and specific interpretation of the laws for this case, the word confidence doesn't seem like a very strong argument in this section?
and those of a Government which, when in opposition to those laws, is not supreme.
I wonder if this is referring to Maryland itself as a state government; the states governments as a whole being less supreme as the Government of the U.S., or the Government in general when it is not acting according to the constitutional laws as is is suppose to?
If we apply the principle for which the State of Maryland contends, to the Constitution generally, we shall find it capable of changing totally the character of that instrument. We shall find it capable of arresting all the measures of the Government, and of prostrating it at the foot of the States.
This statement is slightly confusing to me. The meaning is difficult to understand. Does the statement "we shall find it capable of changing totally the character of that instrument," with regard to the application to the constitution mean that it aligns with the constitution? Or then is it then in fact trying to change the interpretation of the Constitution to then be supporting their desired outcome?
And the last statement is confusing as well. What does "arresting measures of Government and prostrating it at the foot of the states mean?" Is it a way to say they are making the government accountable to the states in a way?
The oath of office, too, imposed by the legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on the subject. It is in these words, "I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution, and laws of the United States."
Is this equally true though? It is an oath that all things are equal and fair, but is it not true that by having different particular legal backgrounds, preferences, ideas and bias that they may or may not come to play at some point within their duties in court? Or is every Justice only serving the ideas of the original framers one hundred percent in knowing all intentions and without any prior background, or bias/political preferences? It is a goal to uphold these truths and to serve as fair and faithful to all. But I have to wonder if after all of these statements of upholding the constitution within its own parameters as closely as possible. I have to wonder if he thinks of these things and speaks the opposite at times within his own, then in turn not being as impartial and demonstrative as he profuseness Justices to be while determining cases based on the "law of the land."
This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act, which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void; is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare, that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual.
I have a hard time following the circles I feel are being expressed within explaining the importance of the Constitution within the Judicial court and the government. So many ways to say the same thing, and this is an example of saying this, but within the circles, I am confused slightly. Why re-iterate it in many different ways unless what you already know your outcome may align with needing this as supporting the decision?
The phrase "The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men," is a bit confusing. I would be interested to have more insight as to interpretation on meaning here.