1. I was a little confused as to which heading I was suppose to click on..none of them made sense to me. I don't have an opinion on them, because I didn't fully understand them. I interpreted them the best I could and wrote something.
My court cases dealt with the Freedom of Belief. The first court case, dealt with freedom of belief, West Virgina State. Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette. In the first amendment it does not speak of liberty in terms of choosing ones own beliefs, but later in the religion and the expression clause it says liberty of belief is the foundation of liberty to practice what religion one chooses. This brought along this case, which dealt with public schools saluting to the flag and saying the pledge of allegiance. By doing those two acts, it violates the first and fourteenth amendments. The federal Constitution did not feel these acts were a means of achieving "national unity." But evens still, children were permitted by schools to comply, and those who refused were subject to punishment. Therefore, the West Virgina Board of Education required children in public schools to salute the American flag.
The second court case, went right along with the first, Cantwell v. Connecticut. Speaking in context of religious freedom, the Court at one point said that while the freedom to act one's beliefs could be limited, the freedom to believe what one will is absolute. Basically, this court case was saying that believing what you want is fine, until you act upon it and solicit your belief.
2. The information is all very contradicting, but going along with what Dakota said, I thought in our school for example, if you didn't want to say the pledge of allegiance, you have the right not to. Those who choose not to pledge just have to show respect to those who still do. Although, like in my first court case, it states that schools do have the power to punish those students who don't pledge to the flag, as long as the can prove it is presenting a clear danger. So, I guess maybe it's saying that if a student doesn't say the pledge, but makes fun of the people who pledge, they will be punished. The student is allowed to practice his/her own beliefs, only if they don't discriminate against the majority belief, saying the pledge of allegiance.
3. I think it was saying that you have the right of freedom of speech, but only under certain circumstances. You can't say things that present a clear danger and you can't use slander or libel. If a person does, there freedoms are allowed to be controlled. With what I understand from the cases, I feel like the courts rulings were correct.

Maddie

1. The impact of the ruling will be that it will have a direct effect on the campaigning of individual candidates. Most American voters base who they vote for off of advertising. The candidate who has enough funding from a large business will have a more likely chance of winning the election. I think its bad, because right from the start it gives a disadvantage to some of the candidates. The candidate with a more money backing, may win, but that doesn't mean they are the best suited for the position. It has just created more corruption!

2. With the SC, some for it and others against it. Although, some do think it may good to allow an unaloted amount of money on the campaigning. Either way it will cause controversy with the elections.

3.Like Courtney, Amanda, and Kaity all said the SC shouldn't be the only ones ruling over a case like this. It gives them to much power and a poll amgonst the other branches may have made a more fair final decison.