DOCSLIB.ORG

Lee V. Weisman

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lee V. Weisman University of Baltimore Law Forum Volume 23 Article 10 Number 2 Fall, 1992 1992 Recent Developments: Lee v. Weisman: Court Holds Non-Sectarian Prayer at Secondary School Graduation Ceremony Violates Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution David E. Canter Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/lf Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Canter, David E. (1992) "Recent Developments: Lee v. Weisman: Court Holds Non-Sectarian Prayer at Secondary School Graduation Ceremony Violates Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution," University of Baltimore Law Forum: Vol. 23 : No. 2 , Article 10. Available at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/lf/vol23/iss2/10 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Baltimore Law Forum by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. land General Assembly used this same sider the three-part Establishment Committee from continuing to employ principle in establishing the statutory Clause test set forth in Lemon lI. this practice. Id. Specifically, the right to a jury trial under section 4- Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). school district violated the second prong 302( e)(2)(i). In lune 1989, Deborah Weisman ofthe Lemon test by creating an atmo­ In addition, because one of the graduated from Nathan Bishop Middle sphere in which the state identified criminal violations was dismissed by School, a public school in Providence, with a religion. Id. the district court after a jury trial was Rhode Island The school principal The school officials appealed to demanded by the corporate defendants, invited a rabbi to deliver prayers in the United States Court ofAppeals for the court ofappeals clarified the effect conjunction with the graduation exer­ the First Circuit which agreed with the of the dismissal on the right to a jury cises for the class. The principal pro­ holding and rationale of the district trial. Id. at 467 n. 6, 610 A.2d at 768 n. vided the speaker with a pamphlet en­ court. Id. The United States Supreme 6. The court noted that it considered titled ''Guidelines for Civic Occasions," Court granted certiorari to address the the offenses charged at the time ofthe prepared by the National Conference issue ofwhether the use ofinvocations demand for a jury trial. Id. As long as ofChristians andlews. This pamphlet and benedictions at a public school the defendant was entitled to a jury trial advised members of the clergy per­ graduation violated the Establishment at the time ofthe demand, a subsequent forming the prayers that the invocation Clause of the First Amendment to the dismissal or nol pros of one of the and benediction should be non-sectar­ Constitution. charged offenses has no effect on the ian. In this case, the invocation and The Court began its analysis by right to a jury trial. Id. (citing State v. benediction were non-sectarian, how­ emphasizing that even though atten­ Huebner, 305 Md. 601, 606-07, 505 ever, they did contained references to dance at public school graduation is A.2d 1331, 1334 (1986)). God. voluntary, "attendance and participa­ In 3011 Corp. v. District Court, Prior to Deborah's graduation cer­ tion [which may include] state-spon­ the court of appeals established that a emony, Deborah's father, Daniel sored religious activity are in a 1hlr and corporation has the same statutory right Weisman, in his individual capacity as real sense obligatory ..." Id. at 2655. to a jury trial as an individual charged a taxpayer and as next friend of The Court explicitly refused the invita­ with the same criminal offense if the Deborah, sought a temporary restrain­ tion to reconsider its decision inLemon, offense carries a prison sentence in ing order in the United District Court because the government involvement excess of90 days. In placing its focus for the District of Rhode Island. with the invocation and benediction at on the statutory penalty, and not the Weisman sought to prohibit the school the public school graduation was ''per­ penalty applicable to the particular officials from including the prayers in vasive, to the point ofcreating a state­ defendant in a case, the court of ap­ the graduation ceremony. The court sponsored and state directed religious peals reaffirmed the fundamental na­ denied the motion and her family even­ exercise in a public schooL" Id. The ture of the right to jury trial and the tually attended the graduation where Court noted that the school principal's principle that, although not subject to the prayers were recited involvement with the composition of imprisonment, corporations are treated Thereafter, the case was submitted the prayers and the choice ofa rabbi to like individuals under the law. to the District Court on stipulated facts. perform the prayers was akin to the - Kenneth A. Brown The court held that the practice of State deciding by statute that an invo­ utilizing prayers in the context ofpub­ cation and benediction should be given. Lee v. Weisman: COURT HOLDS lic school graduations violated the Id. at 2655. Along similar lines, the NON-SECT ARIAN PRAYER AT three-part Establishment Clause test court reasoned that by providing the SECONDARY SCHOOL GRADU­ enunciated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 rabbi with a copy ofthe Guidelines for ATION CEREMONY VIOLATES U.S. 602 (1971). Under the Lemon Civic Occasions, the principal ostensi­ ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE OF test, in order ''to satisfy the Establish­ bly "directed and controlled the con­ THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO ment Clause, a governmental practice tent of the prayer." Id. at 2656. The THE CONSTITUTION. must (1) reflect a clearly secular pur­ Court asserted that it was inappropri­ InLeev. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649 pose; (2) have a primary effect that ate for government to compose or pro­ (1992), the United States Supreme neither advances nor inhibits religion; vide official prayers for recitation at an Court held that offering invocation and and (3) avoid excessive government event in part sponsored by the govern­ benediction prayers as part ofthe for­ entanglement with religion." Weisman, ment. Id. at 2656 (citing Engel v. mal graduation ceremonies for sec­ 112 S. Ct. at 2654 (citing Committee Vitale, 370 U.S. 421,425 (1962)). ondary schools violated the Establish­ for Public Education & Religious Lib­ The Court next turned its analysis ment Clause of the First Amendment erty lI. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756, 773 to the issue ofcoercive pressure among to the United States Constitution. Inso (1973)). Applying this test, the district students in elementary and secondary holding, the Court declined to recon- court enjoined the Providence School public schools and the n~ to protect 23.2 I The Law For u m 27 ''their freedom of conscience." Id at The Court's opinion reinforced its com­ institution, or person" for judicial re­ 2658 (citing Abington School District mitment to protect public school chil­ view ofany "order, rule or regulation" v. Schempp. 374 U.S. 203, 307 (1963) dren from the possibility of religious issued by the Secretary ofthe Depart­ (Goldberg, J., concurring». Appar­ coercion by the State. Moreover, the ment of the Environment. Medical ently, the Court feared that non-believ­ decision sends the message that the WasteAssoc., 327 Md. at 599 n.l, 612 ers could construe the graduation Court will not tolerate even the slight­ A.2d at 243 n.l (citing Md Envir. prayers to signify the school's, and est government endorsement of any Code Ann § 9-263 (1991 Cum.Supp.». consequently the State's, endorsement religion where young adults or children Medical Waste Associates and the De­ of "a religious orthodoxy." Id. The are involved. partment ofthe Environment both filed Court noted that prayer exercised in - David E. Canter motions to dismiss. They contended public schools carried the risk of indi­ that the Coalition lacked subject mat­ rect coercion. Id Medical WIlSIe Assoc. v. Maryland ter jurisdiction because there was no Finally, the Court distinguished WIlSIe Coalition: MARYLAND EN- "order" for section 9-263 review, and its decision in Marsh v. Chambers. 463 VIRONMENT AL STANDING ACT lacked standing because the Coalition U.S. 783 (1983), where it upheld the DOES NOT APPLY TO AN ORGA- had no interest separate and distinct constitutionality of the Nebraska NIZATION THAT SEEKS JUDI- from its members. TheCoaiitionfiled legislature's practice of opening each CIAL REVIEW OF AN ADMINIS- another complaint against the Depart­ ofits legislative sessions with a prayer TRA TIVE PROCEDURE. ment of the Environment, under the offered by a chaplain who was paid In Medical Waste Assoc. v. Mary- . Administrative Procedure Act in the with public funds. The Court noted land Waste Coalition, 327 Md. 596, State Government Article, section 10- that inherent differences exist between 612 A.2d 241 (1992), the Court of 215, Maryland Code Annotated. the public schools and state legisla­ Appeals of Maryland had its first op- ("APA"). Under the APA, a "party tures. Id. Namely, the legislative portunity to interpret the Maryland who is aggrieved by a final decision in session pertained to adults who were Environmental Standing Act a contested case is entitled to judicial free to enter and leave, whereas a high ("MESA"). The court held that MESA review ofthe decision." Medical Waste school graduation involves young stu­ does not grant environmental groups Assoc., 327 Md. at 608,612 A.2d at dents who may feel pressure to con­ standing to participate in judicial re- 247. Medical Waste Associates filed form. Id. at 2660-61. view of administrative decisions. The a motion to intervene and, along with In dissent, Justice Scalia empha­ court, however, did hold that the deci- the Department of the Environment, sized that ''the Establishment Clause sion to issue a permit for a medical filed a motion to dismiss.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mitchell V. Helms: Does Government Aid to Religious Schools Violate the First Amendment? an Extensive Analysis of the Decision and Its Repercussions
    The Catholic Lawyer Volume 41 Number 2 Volume 41, Fall 2001, Number 2 Article 5 Mitchell v. Helms: Does Government Aid to Religious Schools Violate the First Amendment? An Extensive Analysis of the Decision and Its Repercussions Peter Swift Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/tcl Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the First Amendment Commons This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Catholic Lawyer by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MITCHELL v. HELMS: DOES GOVERNMENT AID TO RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS VIOLATE THE FIRST AMENDMENT? AN EXTENSIVE ANALYSIS OF THE DECISION AND ITS REPERCUSSIONS PETER A. SWIFT* INTRODUCTION The United States Constitution prohibits Congress from enacting legislation regarding the establishment of religion.' The Establishment Clause grows out of the First Amendment and not only prohibits the institution of an official church, but also bars the use of public funds for religious institutions. 2 The religion *J.D. Candidate, June 2002, St. John's University School of Law. B.A./B.S. University of Scranton, summa cum laude (1998). 1 See U.S. CONST. amend. I. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. ..." Id.; see also Everson v. Bd. of Educ., 330 U.S. 1, 15 (1947) (setting a standard by which religion clauses were to be interpreted by holding that neither the state or federal government can set up a religion).
    [Show full text]
  • Lee V. Weisman: a New Age for Establishment Clause Jurisprudence? Elizabeth Brandt University of Idaho College of Law, [email protected]
    UIdaho Law Digital Commons @ UIdaho Law Articles Faculty Works 1993 Lee v. Weisman: A New Age for Establishment Clause Jurisprudence? Elizabeth Brandt University of Idaho College of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the First Amendment Commons Recommended Citation 23 Golden Gate U. L. Rev. 535 (1993) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Works at Digital Commons @ UIdaho Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ UIdaho Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LEE v. WEISMAN: A NEW AGE FOR ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE JURISPRUDENCE?* ELIZABETH BARKER BRANDT** I. INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court's most recent opinion in the area of the Establishment Clause, while purporting not to question existing precedent, injects a new standard - coercion - into the re- quirements for proving an Establishment Clause violation. In the majority opinion in Lee v. Weisman,' Justice Kennedy, joined by Justices Blackmun, Souter, O'Connor and Stevens, os- tensibly declined to overrule Lemon v. Kurtzman,2 the touch- stone of the Court's modern Establishment Clause jurispru- dence. Surprisingly, however, other than declining to reconsider Lemon and mentioning the case in the context of reviewing the holdings of the lower courts, Justice Kennedy never again cited Lemon in his opinion. He did not undertake an identifiable anal- ysis or application of the three elements of the Lemon test. In a concurring opinion, Justice Blackmun engaged in a traditional application of Lemon.
    [Show full text]
  • Resolving the Free Exercise and Establishment Conflict in Caldor V
    Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume 35 Issue 1 Article 8 1984 Resolving the Free Exercise and Establishment Conflict in Caldor v. Thornton: Anlysis of Legislation Designed to Protect Religious Freedom or Prevent Religious Discrimination Gale Westhafer Kathryn M. Hartrick Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Gale Westhafer and Kathryn M. Hartrick, Resolving the Free Exercise and Establishment Conflict in Caldor v. Thornton: Anlysis of Legislation Designed to Protect Religious Freedom or Prevent Religious Discrimination, 35 Case W. Rsrv. L. Rev. 132 (1984) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol35/iss1/8 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Law Review by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. Case Note RESOLVING THE FREE EXERCISE AND ESTABLISHMENT CONFLICT IN CALDOR V. THORNTON: ANALYSIS OF LEGISLATION DESIGNED TO PROTECT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OR PREVENT RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION In Caldor v. Thornton, the Connecticut Supreme Court found that a statute permit- ting employees to refuse to work on their sabbath violated the first amendment as an impermissible establishment of religion. This Case Note argues that the Connecticut Supreme Court incorrectly applied the current establishment clause test and should
    [Show full text]
  • The First Amendment's Implied Political Establishment Clause Robert D
    The First Amendment's Implied Political Establishment Clause Robert D. Kamenshinet INTRODUCTION The freedom-of-speech clause of the first amendment contains no express prohibition against political establishment-the advocacy of political viewpoints by or with the assistance of government.' That clause prohibits only government interference with the freedom of ex- pression. In contrast, the first amendment's religious freedom provi- sion explicitly forbids the government from restricting the free exercise of religion and from establishing religion.2 This Article proposes that the courts should read the first amend- ment to contain an implied prohibition against political establishment. It further argues that traditional analysis under the religious establish- ment clause is instructive of how courts should implement the political establishment prohibition. The premise of this new reading is that par- ticipation by the government in the dissemination of political ideas poses a threat to open public debate that is distinct from government impairment of individual expression. Programs of direct government dissemination and private dissemination that is government subsidized not only inform but also persuade. The government has the potential to use its unmatched arsenal of media resources and legislative prerog- atives to obtain political ends, to nullify the effectiveness of criticism, and, thus, to undermine the principle of self-government. The free ex- ercise of political rights, therefore, depends as much on a guarantee against political establishment as it does on the guarantee against inter- ference with free speech. Part I of this Article develops the theoretical basis for the political establishment prohibition. It demonstrates that the implication of such a prohibition is necessary and, as the similar implication of the freedom t Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University.
    [Show full text]
  • Spiritual-Treatment Exemptions to Child Neglect Statutes—State V
    Spiritual-Treatment Exemptions to Child Neglect Statutes—State v. Crank: Vagueness and Establishment Clause Challenges to Selective Prosecution of Faith-Healing Parents PABLO J. DAVIS* I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................761 II. BACKGROUND AND ISSUES ......................................................764 A. Vagueness .........................................................................764 B. Establishment Clause .......................................................766 C. Elision...............................................................................769 D. Spiritual Treatment Exemptions .......................................772 1. Early Cases ..................................................................772 2. ST Exemptions ............................................................774 3. Oklahoma ....................................................................776 4. Ohio.............................................................................777 5. California ....................................................................778 6. Minnesota ....................................................................779 7. Tennessee ....................................................................780 III. STATE V. CRANK ......................................................................781 A. Background and History...................................................781 B. The Tennessee Supreme Court’s Decision .......................783 IV. ANALYSIS OF DECISION
    [Show full text]
  • FIRST AMENDMENT FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE LESSON PLAN Interactive Constitution: the First Amendment Project FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE 2
    LESSON PLAN FIRST AMENDMENT FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE LESSON PLAN Interactive Constitution: The First Amendment Project FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE 2 First Amendment: Free Exercise Clause Lesson Plan GRADE LEVELS: 11th and 12th NUMBER OF CLASS PERIODS: 1 (approximately 55 minutes) AUTHOR: Nick Hegge, National Constitution Center Teacher Advisory Board Member Nick Hegge has taught American History and U.S. Government at Logan View Public Schools in Nebraska since 2010. He graduated from Briar Cliff University, in Sioux City, in 2010, with a bachelor’s degree in History and Secondary Edu- cation. He works with students as a National History Day advisor, We the People coach, and sponsor of the Junior Class trip to Washington D.C. every school year. When teaching about the Constitution, Nick enjoys seeing students wrestle with difficult issues and develop their own conclusions about Constitutional interpretation. INTRODUCTION/LESSON OVERVIEW: The First Amendment has two clauses related to religion, specifically preventing the establishment of religion and the ability to freely exercise religious beliefs. The goal of this lesson is for students to gain a deeper understanding of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. They will do this by understanding the history of the clause, as well as the relevant Supreme Court cases that will help students interpret how this clause has been applied. Students will also use scholarly essays and the text of the U.S. Constitution to evaluate current issues and cases that involve the Free Exercise Clause. Essential Questions: • How has the Supreme Court’s application of the Free Exercise Clause changed over time? • How can we balance the right of religious liberty with laws passed by the elected branches? Objectives: • Students will understand the Supreme Court standards that have been set in cases dealing with the Free Exercise Clause.
    [Show full text]
  • World Vision, Inc. As Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner ______
    No. 15-577 In the Supreme Court of the United States ___________________ T RINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH OF COLUMBIA, INC., Petitioner, v. SARA PARKER PAULEY, DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Respondent. ___________________ On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ___________________ BRIEF OF WORLD VISION, INC. AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER ___________________ EUGENE VOLOKH Counsel of Record SCOTT & CYAN BANISTER AMICUS BRIEF CLINIC UCLA SCHOOL OF LAW 405 Hilgard Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90095 (310) 206-3926 [email protected] Counsel for Amicus Curiae i QUESTION PRESENTED Whether it is consistent with the Establishment Clause to let a day care center operated by a church get state funds for resurfacing its playground under an evenhanded and neutral aid program. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTION PRESENTED ........................................... i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................iii INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE .................... 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................................... 1 ARGUMENT ................................................................ 4 I. This Court Should Adopt the Conclusion of the Mitchell v. Helms Plurality: Evenhanded Aid Does Not Violate the Establishment Clause ....................................... 4 II. Even Under the Mitchell v. Helms Concurrence, Trinity Church Is Not Barred from Receiving Grant Aid ................................. 9 CONCLUSION .......................................................... 11 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997) ..................... 10 Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) ........................... 1, 4 Comm. for Pub. Educ. & Religious Liberty v. Regan, 444 U.S. 646 (1980) ............................. 10, 11 Everson v. Bd. of Educ., 330 U.S. 1 (1947) ......... 5, 7, 8 Hunt v. McNair, 413 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Establishment Clause and Lee V. Weisman Overview This Lesson Will Focus on the Landmark Supreme Court Case Lee V
    The Establishment Clause and Lee v. Weisman Overview This lesson will focus on the landmark Supreme Court case Lee v. Weisman, which addresses the presence of prayer at public school graduations in regard to the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. In this lesson, students will begin with a warm-up discussion about religion in public life, view a documentary on the case, and finally engage in an analysis of the cases that the Supreme Court relied upon in making their decision in Lee v. Weisman. Grades 9-12 North Carolina Standard Course of Study for Civics and Economics • Objective 1.07: Evaluate the extent to which the Bill of Rights extended the Constitution. • Objective 2.03: Explain how the United States Constitution grants and limits the authority of public officials and government agencies. • Objective 2.05: Analyze court cases that illustrate that the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land. • Objective 2.06: Analyze court cases that demonstrate how the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights protect the rights of individuals. North Carolina Standard Course of Study for US History • Objective 12.02: Evaluate the impact of recent constitutional amendments, court rulings, and federal legislation on United States' citizens. • Objective12.04: Identify and assess the impact of social, political, and cultural changes in the United States. Essential Questions • How does the Bill of Rights offer protection for citizens? (specifically, protection of religious freedom) • How are the rights granted in the Bill of Rights limited by interpretation of the judicial branch? • In what ways does the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Justice Brennan and the Religion Clauses Michael S
    Digital Commons at St. Mary's University Faculty Articles School of Law Faculty Scholarship 1991 On the Road of Good Intentions: Justice Brennan and the Religion Clauses Michael S. Ariens Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.stmarytx.edu/facarticles Part of the Legal History Commons Recommended Citation Michael S. Ariens, On the Road of Good Intentions: Justice Brennan and the Religion Clauses, 27 Cal. W. L. Rev. 311 (1991). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law Faculty Scholarship at Digital Commons at St. Mary's University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Articles by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons at St. Mary's University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ON THE ROAD OF GOOD INTENTIONS: JUSTICE BRENNAN AND THE RELIGION CLAUSES MICHAEL ARIENS* INTRODUCTION When Dwight D. Eisenhower nominated William J. Brennan, Jr., on September 30, 1956, to the position of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Will Herberg's book Protestant-Catholic-Jew'had been in print for a year. Herberg's book illustrated a search in religion for identification in a secularized, middle-class America. The success of Protestant-Cathoic-Jew2 reflected an increase in the United States in church membership, a belief in God, prayer, heaven, and the Bible. Herberg's quest was a search for identity, a search for a rooted self in a society which had publicly denigrated roots in favor of the American "melting pot." This severing of roots was exacerbated by the massive post-World War II changes in housing patterns, the economy, Communist hysteria and efforts to create social and cultural conformity.
    [Show full text]
  • Unit 3 CIVIL LIBERTIES and CIVIL RIGHTS 3.1 the Bill of Rights
    Unit 3 CIVIL LIBERTIES and CIVIL RIGHTS CITIZENU.ORG 3.1 The Bill of Rights ESSENTIALS 1. The U.S. Constitution includes a Bill of Rights specifically designed to protect individual liberties and rights. 2. Civil liberties are constitutionally established guarantees and freedoms that protect citizens, opinions, and property against arbitrary government interference. 3. The application of the Bill of Rights is continuously interpreted by the courts. 4. The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments, are enumerated liberties and rights of individuals. These amendments protect us against arbitrary government. 1. What is the underlying idea of this cartoon? 2. Nearly four in 10 Americans can’t name a single one of the five First Amendment freedoms, according to survey results. Speech enjoys the highest recall at a far-too-low 54 percent. Only 17 percent could name freedom of religion, 12 percent knew the amendment guarantees their right to assemble, 11 percent cited freedom of the press and 2 percent could name the right to petition government for a redress of grievances. Does this ignorance about our rights matter? How might we educate our citizens better about their fundamental rights? The U.S. Constitution includes a Bill of Rights specifically designed to protect individual liberties and rights. • Briefly tell the story why the Bill of Rights were added to the U.S. Constitution. • Explain the significance of the S.C. case Barren v. Baltimore (1833) • What is the difference between civil liberties and civil rights? • Explain how the Declaration of Independence has been cited as our promissory note for both liberty and equality 1 Civil liberties are constitutionally established guarantees and freedoms that protect citizens, opinions, and property against arbitrary government interference.
    [Show full text]
  • The Establishment Clause 1999-2000
    Scholarly Commons @ UNLV Boyd Law Scholarly Works Faculty Scholarship 2001 Their Own Preposessions: The Establishment Clause 1999-2000 Leslie C. Griffin University of Nevada, Las Vegas -- William S. Boyd School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/facpub Part of the Education Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, and the Religion Law Commons Recommended Citation Griffin, Leslie C., "Their Own eposessions:Pr The Establishment Clause 1999-2000" (2001). Scholarly Works. 709. https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/facpub/709 This Article is brought to you by the Scholarly Commons @ UNLV Boyd Law, an institutional repository administered by the Wiener-Rogers Law Library at the William S. Boyd School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Their Own Prepossessions' The Establishment Clause, 1999-2000 Leslie C. Griffin* I. INTRODUCTION In 1999, the Supreme Court held out the promise of settling the disarray in First Amendment Establishment Clause jurisprudence when it accepted two cases about the role of religion in public and private schools. From Everson2 to Agostini,3 the opinions in this area of the law have lacked a clear or consistent rationale. In the 1999-2000 term, in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, the Court ruled that a public school district's policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violates the Establishment Clause.4 The Court found no Establishment Clause violation, however, in Mitchell v. Helms, for a federal school aid program under which educational 5 materials and equipment were loaned to private religious schools. Mitchell suggested a new Establishment Clause jurisprudence when the Court overruled two earlier cases, Meek6 and Wolman.
    [Show full text]
  • RUSTY BOWERS, SPEAKER of the ARIZONA HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES, and OTHER STATE LEGISLATIVE LEADERS in SUPPORT of PETITIONERS Ɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔiɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔ John J
    No. 18-1195 In the Supreme Court of the United States ɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔiɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔ KENDRA ESPINOZA, ET AL., Petitioners, v. MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ET AL., Respondents. ɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔiɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔ On Writ of Certiorari to Montana Supreme Court ɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔiɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔ BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF RUSTY BOWERS, SPEAKER OF THE ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AND OTHER STATE LEGISLATIVE LEADERS IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS ɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔiɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔɔ John J. Park, Jr. Counsel for Amici Curiae 616-B Green Street Gainesville, GA 30501 (470) 892-6444 [email protected] i QUESTIONS PRESENTED Does it violate the Religion Clauses or Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution to invalidate a generally available and religiously neutral student-aid program simply because the program affords students the choice of attending religious schools ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Question Presented i Table of Contents ii Table of Authorities iv Statement of Amici Curiae 1 Summary of Argument 3 Argument 4 I. The application of Blaine Amendments, both generally and in this case, raise serious constitutional concerns. ………………..5 A. Blaine Amendments are rooted in anti-Catholic bigotry. ……………………………8 B. The application of Montana’s Blaine Amendment in this case is unconstitutional. …………………………….10 1. The Montana program does not violate the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. …………………………10 2. Montana cannot constitutionally exclude potential recipients of generally available benefits because of their religious beliefs. ………………………11 iii C. Montana’s school choice program is constitutional. ………………………………14 II. The Montana Supreme Court’s decision is constitutionally flawed. ………………………………16 III. School choice is cost- and performance-effective and popular. …………………18 Conclusion ………………………………………………23 iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Agostini v.
    [Show full text]