https://padlet.com/328457/1mhn70l1vtx1 Made with a taste for adventure en-us 2017-04-11 20:19:31 UTC 2026-01-03 07:19:46 UTC hello@padlet.com https://padlet-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/icons/Folder.png 328457 https://padlet.com/328457/1mhn70l1vtx1/wish/165978935   As I was reading I learned that The federal courts posses the power. Especially in the judicial review. However we have to be careful because that power that they contain or have are properly given to them.]]> 2017-04-11 20:26:26 UTC https://padlet.com/328457/1mhn70l1vtx1/wish/165978935 328457 https://padlet.com/328457/1mhn70l1vtx1/wish/165980934 Flast-one group of the seven taxpayers who had objected to use the federal funds to take action and help support all of the religious schools in elementary that also includes the secondary education act of 1965. What the issue was that it violated this special amendment in 2 ways. They had accused them in this way because of "establishment religion". As in for the second reason was forcing the group to pay taxes to free exersise.]]> 2017-04-11 20:39:37 UTC https://padlet.com/328457/1mhn70l1vtx1/wish/165980934 328457 https://padlet.com/328457/1mhn70l1vtx1/wish/166012907 This flast group did not have the standing process with this suit.  As many of us may know "standing" to proceed with the suit. This is legal required under which a person can file if only that person has the outcome of that case . The supreme court was also involved because the individual could not challenge at the act of congress.]]> 2017-04-12 04:04:33 UTC https://padlet.com/328457/1mhn70l1vtx1/wish/166012907 328457 https://padlet.com/328457/1mhn70l1vtx1/wish/166014178 The frothing ham derision had not meant that the taxpayer may never challenge the act of congress.This meant that this persons taxpayers dose not give him/her such a challenge. the plaintiffs have the personal steak in the outcome of the case and should be allowed]]> 2017-04-12 04:25:17 UTC https://padlet.com/328457/1mhn70l1vtx1/wish/166014178 328457 https://padlet.com/328457/1mhn70l1vtx1/wish/166014658 There was no connection between this plaintiffs in the case. The first amendment established these limits to collect taxes and support religion. The role was to give direct concrete interest in the outcome of the case.]]> 2017-04-12 04:32:40 UTC https://padlet.com/328457/1mhn70l1vtx1/wish/166014658 328457 https://padlet.com/328457/1mhn70l1vtx1/wish/166014958 the courts had already had a high case hold. This requirement that plantiffs have sufficient standing that helps prevent unnecessary lawsuits by ensuring the serious stake in the cases.]]> 2017-04-12 04:37:06 UTC https://padlet.com/328457/1mhn70l1vtx1/wish/166014958 328457 https://padlet.com/328457/1mhn70l1vtx1/wish/166015145 all of the people who had no special interest in the controversy besides the tiny amount of taxes that might had been involved  should not be involved or allowed in federal court.]]> 2017-04-12 04:40:30 UTC https://padlet.com/328457/1mhn70l1vtx1/wish/166015145