Constitutional Law - Moment of Silence Statutes May Threaten the Wall of Separation Between Church and State - Wallace V
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Campbell Law Review Volume 8 Article 5 Issue 1 Winter 1985 1985 Constitutional Law - Moment of Silence Statutes May Threaten the Wall of Separation between Church and State - Wallace v. Jaffree Valerie B. Spalding Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.campbell.edu/clr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Valerie B. Spalding, Constitutional Law - Moment of Silence Statutes May Threaten the Wall of Separation between Church and State - Wallace v. Jaffree, 8 Campbell L. Rev. 125 (1985). This Note is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Repository @ Campbell University School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Campbell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Repository @ Campbell University School of Law. Spalding: Constitutional Law - Moment of Silence Statutes May Threaten the NOTES CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-MOMENT OF SILENCE STAT- UTES MAY THREATEN THE WALL OF SEPARATION BE- TWEEN CHURCH AND STATE-Wallace v. Jafree. INMODUCTION The wall separating church and state is built from the bricks and mortar of the first amendment's establishment clause, which provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establish- ment of religion. ."I For twenty-three years, the United States Supreme Court has rigidly maintained the wall's impregnability in- sofar as it applies to prayer and the public schools. In Engel v. Vitale2 and Abington School District v. Schempp, the Court held oral Bible reading and mandatory prayer in public schools to be unconstitutional. In Stone v. Graham,4 printed copies of the Ten Commandments posted on public school classroom walls fell under the same edict. In Treen v. Karen B.,5 the Court struck down a statute permitting voluntary vocal prayer in public schools. Many states responded by enacting legislation permitting or requiring public school teachers to have students observe a moment of si- lence for meditation or prayer. Do these statutes threaten the wall of separation? Some may. One such statute from Alabama came before the United States Supreme Court in Wallace v. Jaffree.7 The decision rested on testi- 1. U.S. CoNsT. amend. I, cl 1. The first amendment is applicable to the states by virtue of the fourteenth amendment. See, e.g., Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 (1940). "The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact [laws respecting an establish- ment of religion]." 2. 370 U.S. 421 (1962). 3. 374 U.S. 203 (1963). 4. 449 U.S. 39 (1980), reh'g denied, 449 U.S. 1104 (1981). 5. 455 U.S. 913 (1982), aff'g mem., 653 F.2d 897 (5th Cir. 1981). 6. See, e.g., GA. CODE ANN. § 20-2-1050 (1982); IND. CODE § 20-10.1-7-11 (Supp. 1985); M. REV. STAT. ANN., Tit. 20-A, § 4805 (1983); TENN. CODE ANN. § 49-6-1004 (1983). 7. 105 S. Ct. 2497 (1985). Published by Scholarly Repository @ Campbell University School of Law, 1985 1 Campbell Law Review, Vol. 8, Iss. 1 [1985], Art. 5 126 CAMPBELL LAW REvIEw [Vol. 8:125 mony of the statute's sponsor and a statement of intent in the leg- islative record, both of which indicated that the legislation was an effort to return voluntary prayer to the public schools. 8 Based upon this evidence, the plurality found that the statute's enact- ment was not motivated by any clearly secular purpose; rather, its enactment was motivated by a purpose to endorse religion.' As such, the statute was a law respecting the establishment of religion and violated the first amendment."0 In dicta, however, the Court suggested that not all statutes with similar wording would necessa- rily be unconstitutional, even if they were "motivated in part by a religious purpose."" The three dissenting Justices each wrote separately. 2 Chief Justice Burger disagreed with the Court's reliance on postenact- ment testimony.1" Justice White did not interpret the establish- ment clause to proscribe a statute from providing for a moment of silence for meditation or prayer.1 Justice Rehnquist attacked the Court's constitutional doctrine, which he considered to be built upon a mistaken understanding of Jefferson's "misleading 5 metaphor."1 This Note will trace the Supreme Court's treatment of prayer in the public schools. It will then explore the parameters laid out in Jaffree and demonstrate that the Supreme Court has relaxed its rigid attitude towards prayer in the public schools. Finally, the Note will apply the Jafiree parameters to North Carolina's new "Moment of Silence" statute.18 8. Id. at 2490. Senator Holmes inserted the following statement into the leg- islative record: "Gentlemen, by passage of this bill by the Alabama Legislature our children in this state will have the opportunity of sharing in the spiritual heritage of this state and this country. The United States as well as the State of Alabama was founded by people who believe in God. I believe this effort to return voluntary prayer to our public schools for its return to us to the original position [sic] of the writers of the Constitution, this local philosophies and beliefs hun- dreds of Alabamians [sic] have urged my continuous support for permitting school prayer. Since coming to the Alabama Senate I have worked hard on this legislation to accomplish the return of voluntary prayer in our public schools and return to the basic moral fiber.[sic]" Id. n.43. 9. Id. at 2492. 10. Id. at 2493. 11. Id. at 2490. 12. Burger, C.J., White and Rehnquist, JJ. 13. 105 S. Ct. at 2506. 14. Id. at 2508. 15. Id. at 2509. 16. 1985 N.C. Sess. Laws 637. To be codified as N.C. GEN. STAT. § 115C- http://scholarship.law.campbell.edu/clr/vol8/iss1/5 2 Spalding: Constitutional Law - Moment of Silence Statutes May Threaten the 1985] MOMENT OF SILENCE STATUTES THE CASE In 1978, Alabama enacted a statute authorizing a one minute period of silence "for meditation" in all public schools. 17 This stat- ute was followed by a second in 1981, which authorized a period of silence "for meditation or voluntary prayer, ' and by a third in 1982, which authorized teachers to lead "willing students" in a pre- scribed prayer."" In 1978, Ishmael Jaffree, a resident of Mobile County, Ala- bama, had three children attending public school, two in the sec- ond grade and one in kindergarten.20 In that year he filed a com- plaint in District Court on behalf of his children, seeking a declaratory judgment and an injunction restraining the Mobile County School Board, various school officials and the children's teachers from maintaining regular prayer services or other religious observances in the Mobile County Public Schools in violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment.21 Mr. Jaffree al- leged that two of the children had been subjected to religious in- doctrination, that their teachers led the classes in saying prayers in unison each day and that his children suffered peer ostracism if 47(28) (1985). 17. ALA. CODE § 16-1-20 (Supp. 1985). "At the commencement of the first class each day in the first through the sixth grades in all public schools, the teacher in charge of the room in which each such class is held shall announce that a period of silence, not to exceed one minute in duration, shall be observed for meditation, and during any such period silence shall be maintained and no activi- ties engaged in." 18. ALA. CODE § 16-1-20.1 (Supp. 1985) (emphasis supplied). "At the com- mencement of the first class of each day in all grades in all public schools, the teacher in charge of the room in which each such class is held may announce that a period of silence, not to exceed one minute in duration, shall be observed for meditation or voluntary prayer, and during any such period no other activities shall be engaged in." 19. ALA. CODE § 16-1-20.2 (Supp. 1985). "From henceforth, any teacher or professor in any public educational institution within the State of Alabama, rec- ognizing that the Lord God is one, at the beginning of any homeroom or any class, may pray, may lead willing students in prayer, or may lead the willing students in the following prayer to God: "Almighty God, You alone are our God. We acknowledge You as the Creator and Supreme Judge of the World. May Your justice, Your truth, and Your peace abound this day in the hearts of our countrymen, in the counsels of our government, in the sanctity of our homes and in the classrooms of our schools in the name of our Lord. Amen." 20. Jaffree, 105 S. Ct. 2479, 2482. Mr. Jaffree is an attorney. 21. Id. Published by Scholarly Repository @ Campbell University School of Law, 1985 3 Campbell Law Review, Vol. 8, Iss. 1 [1985], Art. 5 CAMPBELL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 8:125 they did not participate.22 In a second amended complaint in 1982, he challenged the constitutionality of all three statutes.23 At an evidentiary hearing, the prime sponsor of the statute au- thorizing "meditation or voluntary prayer" testified that the stat- 4 ute was an effort to return voluntary prayer to the public schools.2 He further stated that he had "no other purpose in mind."25 The district court found that Jaffree was likely to prevail on the merits because the enactment of both the "meditation or voluntary prayer" statute and the prescribed "prayer" statute did not reflect a clearly secular purpose. The court entered a preliminary injunc- tion. At the trial, the district court held the "meditation" statute to be constitutional.