DOCSLIB.ORG

Basic Cases in U.S. Constitutional Law : Rights and Liberties

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

laidler-II.qxd:laidler-n7.qxd 6/2/09 12:03 PM Page 1 C M Y K Basic American Documents Series Editor Andrzej Mania Basic Paweł Laidler, PhD – associate professor at the Institute of American Studies and Polish Diaspora, Jagiellonian University, Kraków. He received a PhD. in political science (2003 – dissertation title: The Attorney General of the United States. Conflict of Competences), and M.A. in law (2000 – dissertation title: The Role of the Precedent in U.S. Legal System). His research mainly focuses on different issues of the U.S. Cases in U.S. Cons Basic Cases in U.S. legal and political system (i.e. common law, constitutional law, the role of the U.S. Supreme Court, legal process, separation of powers, federalism). He teaches courses on following subjects: U.S. Legal System, U.S. Constitutional Law, U.S. Criminal Process – Theory and Practice, Knowledge about the State and Law, and Diplomatic Protocol. He is the author and co-author of three books, four volumes of post-conference Constitutional Law proceedings and numerous articles concerning such topics as judicial review, John Marshall, politics and the U.S. Supreme Court, freedom of speech and of the press, the U.S.A. Patriot Act, institutions of U.S. legal Rights and Liberties system, and many more. Pawe∏ Laidler Prof. Andrzej Mania, PhD – Head of the Chair of American Studies at the Institute of American Studies and Polish Diaspora, Jagiellonian University, Kraków. Author of monographs on U.S.-Soviet Relations and titutional Law on U.S. policy toward Eastern Europe during Cold War (the last of the series: ”Détente i amerykaƒska polityka Stanów Zjednoczonych wobec Europy Wschodniej styczeƒ 1969 – styczeƒ 1981”, Eng. Detente and United States Policy toward Eastern Europe January 1969 – January 1981). Editor of four books on European inte- gration and two on American policy and U.S. democracy as well as author of numerous articles concerning U.S. foreign policy. www.wuj.pl Jagiellonian University Press laidler-II-str3.qxd:laidler-str3.qxd 6/2/09 12:05 PM Page 1 Basic American Documents Series Editor Andrzej Mania Basic Cases in U.S. Constitutional Law Rights and Liberties Pawe∏ Laidler Jagiellonian University Press laidler-II-str1.qxd:laidler-str1.qxd 6/2/09 12:05 PM Page 1 Basic Cases in U.S. Constitutional Law The publication of this volume was supported by the Jagiellonian University – Institute of American Studies and Polish Diaspora TECHNICAL EDITOR Dorota Węgierska COVER DESIGN Paweł Bigos PROOFREADER Jerzy Hrycyk TYPESETTING Wojciech Wojewoda © Copyright by Paweł Laidler & Jagiellonian University Press First edition, Kraków 2009 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. ISBN 978-83-233-2691-5 www.wuj.pl Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego Redakcja: ul. Michałowskiego 9/2, 31-126 Kraków tel. 012-631-18-81, tel./fax 012-631-18-83 Dystrybucja: ul. Wrocławska 53, 30-011 Kraków tel. 012-631-01-97, tel./fax 012-631-01-98 tel. kom. 0506-006-674, e-mail: [email protected] Konto: PEKAO SA nr 80 1240 4722 1111 0000 4856 3325 Contents Foreword by Professor Andrzej Mania ........................................................................................ 7 Chapter One Due Process of Law ...................................................................................................................... 9 Introduction to Volume Two ................................................................................................... 9 Due Process of Law – Basic Information ............................................................................... 13 Barron v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore 1833 (Bill of Rights jurisdiction) ............... 15 Lochner v. New York 1905 (unreasonable legislation) ............................................................ 18 Palko v. Connecticut 1937 (fundamental freedoms) ............................................................... 21 United States v. Carolene Products Co. 1938 (footnote four) ................................................ 25 Chapter Two Freedom of Speech and of the Press ............................................................................................. 27 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 27 Schenck v. United States 1919 (clear and present danger test) ............................................... 28 Gitlow v. New York 1925 (speech as fundamental freedom) .................................................. 31 Whitney v. California 1927 (bad tendency test) ...................................................................... 36 Near v. Minnesota 1931 (freedom of the press) ..................................................................... 40 Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire 1942 (fi ghting words) ............................................... 44 Roth v. United States 1957 (obscenity) ................................................................................... 47 New York Times v. Sullivan 1964 (defamation – libel) ........................................................... 52 Brandenburg v. Ohio 1969 (imminent lawless action test) .................................................... 56 Bigelow v. Virginia 1975 (commercial speech) ...................................................................... 59 Texas v. Johnson 1989 (symbolic speech) .............................................................................. 62 Chapter Three Freedom of Religion ..................................................................................................................... 67 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 67 Cantwell v. Connecticut 1940 (free exercise clause) .............................................................. 68 Everson v. Board of Education 1947 (free establishment clause) .......................................... 72 Engel v. Vitale 1962 (school prayer) ....................................................................................... 77 Lemon v. Kurtzman 1971 (governmental legislation over religion) ....................................... 81 Wallace v. Jaffree 1985 (moment of meditation in schools) ................................................... 85 Zelman v. Simmons-Harris 2002 (private choice test) ............................................................ 88 Chapter Four Right to Privacy ............................................................................................................................ 93 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 93 6 Griswold v. Connecticut 1965 (use of contraceptives) ........................................................... 94 Loving v. Virginia 1967 (race-based marriages) ..................................................................... 97 Roe v. Wade 1973 (right to abortion) ...................................................................................... 100 Planned Parenthood v. Casey 1992 (right to abortion) .......................................................... 106 Vacco v. Quill 1997 (right to die) ............................................................................................ 110 Lawrence and Garner v. Texas 2003 (sexual orientation) ...................................................... 113 Chapter Five Equal Protection of Law ............................................................................................................... 119 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 119 Dred Scott v. Sandford 1856 (slavery) .................................................................................... 121 Slaughterhouse Cases 1873 (privileges and immunities) ....................................................... 126 Plessy v. Ferguson 1896 (racial segregation) ......................................................................... 129 Korematsu v. United States 1944 (intern camps) .................................................................... 133 Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka 1954 (racial equality) .............................................. 137 Regents of the University of California v. Bakke 1978 (affi rmative action) ........................... 140 Romer v. Evans 1996 (sexual orientation) .............................................................................. 144 Chapter Six Criminal Procedure/Rights of the Accused ................................................................................... 149 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 149 Mapp v. Ohio 1961 (exclusionary rule) .................................................................................. 150 Gideon v. Wainwright 1963 (right to counsel) ........................................................................ 154 Miranda v. Arizona 1966 (Miranda warning) ......................................................................... 157 Duncan v. Louisiana 1968 (right to jury trial) .......................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Mccormick Foundation Civics Program Freedom of Speech: Clear & Present Danger

    Mccormick Foundation Civics Program Freedom of Speech: Clear & Present Danger

    McCormick Foundation Civics Program 2010 First Amendment Summer Institute Freedom of Speech: Clear & Present Danger Shawn Healy Director of Educational Programs Civics Program Freedom of Speech o First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law…abridging…the freedom of speech…” o An historic progression of free speech tests: • Bad tendency -Rooted in English Common Law and articulated in Gitlow v. New York (1925) • Clear and present danger -First articulated by Holmes in Schenck v. U.S. (1919), and adopted by a majority of the Court in Herndon v. Lowry (1937) • Imminent lawless action -Supplants clear and present danger test in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) -Exception: speech cases in military courts Bad Tendency Test o World War I: Used as test to determine whether speech critical of government during the war and its aftermath crossed the line o Sedition Act of 1917: • Congress intended to forestall threats to military operations • The Wilson Administration used to prohibit dissenting views • Shaffer v. U.S. (9th Circuit Court of Appeals): “It is true that disapproval of war and the advocacy of peace are not crimes under the Espionage Act; but the question here is…whether the natural and probable tendency and effect of the words…are such as are calculated to produce the result condemned by the statute.” Bad Tendency Test Continued o Abrams v. U.S. (1919): • Pamphlet critical of Wilson’s decision to send troops to Russia, urging U.S. workers to strike in protest • Charged under 1918 amendment to Sedition Act prohibiting expression of disloyalty and interference with the war effort • Downplayed clear and present danger distinction: “for the language of these circulars was obviously intended to provoke and to encourage resistance to the United States and the war.” Bad Tendency Test Continued o Gitlow v.
  • IRS on Behalf of Nonbelief Relief Preferential Treatment Treatment of Churches Vis-À-Vis Other Tax-Exempt Nonprofits

    IRS on Behalf of Nonbelief Relief Preferential Treatment Treatment of Churches Vis-À-Vis Other Tax-Exempt Nonprofits

    Graduate / ‘older’ Why do we The bible student essay portray atheists as taught me that contest winners broken believers? God is a jerk PAGE 12-17 PAGE 5 PAGE 6 Vol. 35 No. 9 Published by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. November 2018 FFRF sues IRS on behalf of Nonbelief Relief Preferential treatment treatment of churches vis-à-vis other tax-exempt nonprofits. Nonbelief given to churches over Relief’s tax exemption was revoked annual financial report on Aug. 20 for failure to file the Form 990 return for three consecutive years. FFRF is taking the Internal Revenue Nonbelief Relief “has and will suffer Associated Press Service to court over yet another reli- harm, detriment and disadvantage as President Trump shows off the “religious freedom” executive order he signed on gion-related tax privilege. a result of the revocation of its tax- May 4, 2017, in the Rose Garden, surrounded by members of the faith community The national state/church watch- exempt status, including tax liabilities and Vice President Pence. dog filed a federal lawsuit Oct. 10 in and loss of charitable donations D.C. district court to challenge the which are no longer tax-deductible by preferential exemption of churches donors.” New Treasury report vindicates and related organiza- Nonbelief Relief is tions from reporting asking the court to re- FFRF’s stance on politicking ban annual information instate its tax-exempt returns required of status, and to enjoin FFRF welcomes a new report high- openly flout the law and are not held all other tax-exempt the IRS from continu- lighting deficiencies in the IRS’ en- accountable.” groups.
  • SUMMER | 2021 Lawyering in the Age of Covid-19 Lawyering in Theageof American College of Trial Lawyers JOURNAL

    SUMMER | 2021 Lawyering in the Age of Covid-19 Lawyering in Theageof American College of Trial Lawyers JOURNAL

    ISSUE 96 | SUMMER | 2021 Lawyering in theageof Covid-19 American College of Trial Lawyers JOURNAL Chancellor-Founder Hon. Emil Gumpert contents (1895-1982) 02 04 05 OFFICERS Letter from the Editor Annual Meeting President’s The College RODNEY ACKER President Announcement Perspective Welcomes New MICHAEL L. O’DONNELL President-Elect Officers & Regents SUSAN J. HARRIMAN Treasurer WILLIAM J. MURPHY Secretary DOUGLAS R. YOUNG Immediate Past President MEETING RECAP BOARD OF REGENTS 09 15 19 25 RODNEY ACKER DAN S. FOLLUO CLE: The 25th Anniversary The Honorable Brian Brurud - Check 6 Scientific Collaboration in Dallas, Texas Tulsa, Oklahoma of the VMI Case: Mark E. Recktenwald – Access to The Fight Against Covid-19 PETER AKMAJIAN LARRY H. KRANTZ Remembering RBG Justice In the Age Of COVID Tucson, Arizona New York, New York SUSAN S. BREWER MARTIN F. MURPHY Morgantown, West Virginia Boston, Massachusetts JOE R. CALDWELL, JR. WILLIAM J. MURPHY Washington, D.C. Baltimore, Maryland 31 37 41 47 JOHN A. DAY MICHAEL L. O’DONNELL Brentwood, Tennessee Denver, Colorado The Importance of Dr. Patrick Connor — A Conversation With Never Out Of The Fight — Separate Opinions — Treating Panthers the Former President the Eddie Gallagher RICHARD H. DEANE, JR. LYN P. PRUITT Professor Melvin Urofsky of the United States Court Martial Atlanta, Georgia Little Rock, Arkansas MONA T. DUCKETT, Q.C. JEFFREY E. STONE Edmonton, Alberta Chicago, Illinois GREGORY M. LEDERER MICHAEL J. SHEPARD Cedar Rapids, Iowa San Francisco, California 53 59 65 67 Michele Bratcher Goodwin Defending the Skies — Heather Younger — Spring 2021 SANDRA A. FORBES CATHERINE RECKER — Quarantine: The Reach and General Victor Eugene Building Resistence Induction Ceremony Toronto, Ontario Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Limits of Government Action Renuart, Jr.
  • Whitney V. California, 274 U.S

    Whitney V. California, 274 U.S

    Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) 47 S.Ct. 641, 71 L.Ed. 1095 Constitutional Law Exercise of police power; relationship to KeyCite Red Flag - Severe Negative Treatment governmental interest or public welfare Overruled in Part by Brandenburg v. Ohio, U.S.Ohio, June 9, 1969 Right of free speech is not absolute right 47 S.Ct. 641 to speech without responsibility, and under Supreme Court of the United States police power state may punish utterances WHITNEY inimical to public welfare. v. 127 Cases that cite this headnote PEOPLE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA. No. 3. [4] Constitutional Law | Syndicalism Reargued March 18, 1926. Insurrection and Sedition | Nature and existence in general Decided May 16, 1927. Right of free speech is not denied Synopsis by California criminal syndicalism act. In Error to the District Court of Appeal, First Appellate California Criminal Syndicalism Act (See District, Division 1, of the State of California. Gen.Laws, Act 8428, West's Ann.Military & Vets.Code, 1632 et seq.); U.S.C.A.Const. Charlotte Anita Whitney was convicted of violating the Amend. 14. California Criminal Syndicalism Act, and to review a 73 Cases that cite this headnote judgment of the District Court of Appeal (57 Cal. App. 449, 207 P. 698), she brings error. On reargument, order (269 U. S. 530, 46 S. Ct. 22, 70 L. Ed. 396) dismissing writ [5] Constitutional Law of error vacated and set aside, and judgment affirmed. Right of Assembly Constitutional Law Freedom of Association West Headnotes (16) Right of assembly and association is not denied by California criminal syndicalism act.
  • The Jurisprudence of the Connecticut Constitution

    The Jurisprudence of the Connecticut Constitution

    University of Connecticut OpenCommons@UConn Faculty Articles and Papers School of Law 1984 The urJ isprudence of the Connecticut Constitution Richard Kay University of Connecticut School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://opencommons.uconn.edu/law_papers Part of the Common Law Commons, Jurisprudence Commons, and the State and Local Government Law Commons Recommended Citation Kay, Richard, "The urJ isprudence of the Connecticut Constitution" (1984). Faculty Articles and Papers. 66. https://opencommons.uconn.edu/law_papers/66 +(,121/,1( Citation: 16 Conn. L. Rev. 667 1983-1984 Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Mon Aug 15 16:59:26 2016 -- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License -- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text. -- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your HeinOnline license, please use: https://www.copyright.com/ccc/basicSearch.do? &operation=go&searchType=0 &lastSearch=simple&all=on&titleOrStdNo=0010-6151 THE JURISPRUDENCE OF THE CONNECTICUT CONSTITUTION by Richard S. Kay* The transformation of a law school from an institution of voca- tional competence into one of intellectual excellence is often associated with an increased attention to legal subjects that are national in scope. It is fair to say that as the University of Connecticut School of Law has grown in academic quality and ambition it has acquired that breadth of curricular offerings and scholarly interest which, we like to think, entitle it to be regarded as a national law school of the first rank.
  • United States District Court for the District of Connecticut

    United States District Court for the District of Connecticut

    Case 3:14-cv-01028-CSH Document 52 Filed 04/30/15 Page 1 of 78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT MARSHALL CARO and INDII.com USE, LLC 3:14-CV-01028 (CSH) Plaintiffs, v. FIDELITY BROKERAGE SERVICES, KATHERINE HO, BILL ROTHFARB, April 30, 2015 EVAN ROTHFARB, MICHAEL SHANNON, and MICHAEL HOENIG Defendants. RULING ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS HAIGHT, Senior District Judge: Plaintiffs Marshall Caro, pro se, and Indii.com USE ("Indii") bring this diversity action seeking damages arising from Defendants' allegedly unlawful restraint of Indii's Fidelity Brokerage account. Defendants are Bill Rothfarb, a judgment creditor, his attorney, Evan Rothfarb (the "Rothfarb Defendants") Fidelity Brokerage Services ("Fidelity"), the custodian of the Indii account, Katherine Ho, a Fidelity employee, and Michael Shannon and Michael Hoenig, Fidelity's attorneys (the "Fidelity Defendants"). The complaint sets forth claims arising under state common and statutory law. The Rothfarb Defendants and the Fidelity Defendants have filed separate motions to dismiss the complaint. Docs. [25] and [37]. Each set of defendants moves to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure12(b)(6) on the ground that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and is barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. The Fidelity Case 3:14-cv-01028-CSH Document 52 Filed 04/30/15 Page 2 of 78 Defendants also move to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction over Ho, Hoenig and Shannon, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). Plaintiffs oppose Defendants' motions to dismiss.
  • State of Connecticut Retail Compendium of Law

    State of Connecticut Retail Compendium of Law

    STATE OF CONNECTICUT RETAIL COMPENDIUM OF LAW Prepared by Hinckley, Allen & Snyder LLP 20 Church Street Hartford, CT 06103 (860) 725-6200 www.hinckleyallen.com 2016 USLAW Retail Compendium of Law THE FOLLOWING IS A SYNOPSIS OF CERTAIN AREAS OF CONNECTICUT LAW. IT IS DESIGNED TO PROVIDE A BRIEF REFERENCE OF SOME BASIC LEGAL PRINCIPLES AND FOR USE AS A STARTING POINT FOR FURTHER RESEARCH. IT IS NOT INTENDED TO AND DOES NOT PROVIDE A COMPLETE OR COMPREHENSIVE DESCRIPTION AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS PROVIDING LEGAL ADVICE TO THE READER. FURTHER, AS THE LEGAL LANDSCAPE IN CONNECTICUT CHANGES OFTEN, THE CITATIONS CONTAINED IN THIS COMPENDIUM WILL COMMAND FURTHER RESEARCH FROM TIME TO TIME. Retail, Restaurant, and Hospitality Guide to Connecticut Premises Liability ______________________________________________________________ Page I. Introduction 2 A. The Connecticut State Court System 2 B. Connecticut Federal Courts 3 II. Negligence 4 A. General Negligence Principles 4 B. Elements of a Negligence Cause of Action 5 C. The “Out of Possession Landlord” 7 D. Negligence Per Se 7 E. Assumption of Risk 8 III. Examples of Negligence Claims 9 A. “Slip and Fall” Type Cases 9 B. Liability for Violent Crime 13 C. Claims Arising From the Wrongful Prevention of Thefts 16 D. Food Poisoning 21 E. Construction-Related Claims 22 IV. Indemnification and Insurance-Procurement Agreements 27 A. Indemnification 27 B. Insurance Procurement Agreements 28 C. The Duty to Defend 29 V. Damages in Premises Liability Cases 31 A. Caps on Damages 31 B. Calculation of Damages 31 C. Nominal Damages 33 D. Punitive Damages 34 E. Mitigation 35 F.
  • WASHER Invented by Dr

    WASHER Invented by Dr

    flUinrIiMitnr Ettrttiaa finralA AVEKAOB DAILY OOUAILATION D. W. Kelasy is at ML Dora, Fla, coma in a atn-cursod world, and It Jor the toealk ot FVfenmry, Itfil THE WBATHBK t-here he will spend the next two YODNGSmSAREHAm the promise o f the life that la to be piat 'W M i he pBDdiNes to take TOWN v.'eeks. eternal to those who believe.” two FIRE GOMPANIES coto of ala trade. Fomeoat ot 0. 8. toeather BarMo.' _ t Manchester Hoitford 7) The Easter lUlea In the chancel A s soon os the eows and bulls J M V K BUYS LOT Fna.whowM iB muw O. ft. R. Johnson Is one o f Man­ 5 ,8 7 6 Fair totoght, Wedneaday elomty, AT HOSPTTAL EASTER were all memorial flowara, given by jm as'ars sold Mri Member ot the Aadtt M Unruan o f coiutruetioB^ chester's new residents, coming here Mr. and Mra. A. L. Crowell in mem­ Date Book GET SEVERAL CALLS Lpach pin hkvs ths ptssut ham probably amtw Wedneaday aftanoea tb* tank lNiUdl]i( w u ersct from Michigan. This morning a ory o f Mr. and Mra, A . W illard torn down and wm start work st Boreaa ot Cbeatotlow S urttttto IJ rra li and night.. Hot mneh ehango hi dog, which was left behind when the Many Groapa See To It That Tonight ATTOWNAUenON temperature. W U a Ttattor In .toira today. He Case; by Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence I No. 2 and No. S of Sonth Man­ ones on the ereetton of a model bam la fVrida for the i^tei family drove easL arrived by ' ex.
  • “White”: the Judicial Abolition of Native Slavery in Revolutionary Virginia and Its Racial Legacy

    “White”: the Judicial Abolition of Native Slavery in Revolutionary Virginia and Its Racial Legacy

    ABLAVSKY REVISED FINAL.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 4/13/2011 1:24 PM COMMENT MAKING INDIANS “WHITE”: THE JUDICIAL ABOLITION OF NATIVE SLAVERY IN REVOLUTIONARY VIRGINIA AND ITS RACIAL LEGACY † GREGORY ABLAVSKY INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1458 I. THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF INDIAN SLAVERY IN VIRGINIA .............. 1463 A. The Origins of Indian Slavery in Early America .................. 1463 B. The Legal History of Indian Slavery in Virginia .................. 1467 C. Indians, Africans, and Colonial Conceptions of Race ........... 1473 II. ROBIN V. HARDAWAY, ITS PROGENY, AND THE LEGAL RECONCEPTUALIZATION OF SLAVERY ........................................... 1476 A. Indian Freedom Suits and Racial Determination ...................................................... 1476 B. Robin v. Hardaway: The Beginning of the End ................. 1480 1. The Statutory Claims ............................................ 1481 2. The Natural Law Claims ....................................... 1484 3. The Outcome and the Puzzle ............................... 1486 C. Robin’s Progeny ............................................................. 1487 † J.D. Candidate, 2011; Ph.D. Candidate, 2014, in American Legal History, Univer- sity of Pennsylvania. I would like to thank Sarah Gordon, Daniel Richter, Catherine Struve, and Michelle Banker for their insightful comments on earlier drafts of this Comment; Richard Ross, Michael Zuckerman, and Kathy Brown for discussions on the work’s broad contours; and
  • San Diego History San Diego History

    San Diego History San Diego History

    The Journal of The Journal of SanSan DiegoDiego HistoryHistory The Journal of San Diego History Founded in 1928 as the San Diego Historical Society, today’s San Diego History Center is one of the largest and oldest historical organizations on the West Coast. It houses vast regionally significant collections of objects, photographs, documents, films, oral histories, historic clothing, paintings, and other works of art. The San Diego History Center operates two major facilities in national historic landmark districts: The Research Library and History Museum in Balboa Park and the Serra Museum in Presidio Park. The San Diego History Center presents dynamic changing exhibitions that tell the diverse stories of San Diego’s past, present, and future, and it provides educational programs for K-12 schoolchildren as well as adults and families. www.sandiegohistory.org Front Cover: Original Temple Beth Israel building located in Heritage Park, San Diego. Photo courtesy of Timothy Schenck. Back Cover: The Bishop’s School showing the chapel and tower designed by Carleton Winslow and to the right Bentham Hall entrance rebuilt. Photo editors’ collection. Design and Layout: Allen Wynar Printing: Crest Offset Printing Editorial Assistants: Cynthia van Stralen Travis Degheri Joey Seymour Articles appearing in The Journal of San Diego History are abstracted and indexed in Historical Abstracts and America: History and Life. The paper in the publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Science-Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. The Journal of San Diego History IRIS H. W. ENGSTRAND MOLLY McCLAIN Editors THEODORE STRATHMAN DAVID MILLER Review Editors Published since 1955 by the SAN DIEGO HISTORICAL SOCIETY 1649 El Prado, Balboa Park, San Diego, California 92101 ISSN 0022-4383 The Journal of San Diego History VOLUME 63 SPRING 2017 NUMBER 2 Editorial Consultants Published quarterly by the San Diego History Center at 1649 El Prado, Balboa MATTHEW BOKOVOY Park, San Diego, California 92101.
  • Perceptions of Religious Music in a Southern U.S. Public Middle School

    Perceptions of Religious Music in a Southern U.S. Public Middle School

    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 3-30-2018 Perceptions of Religious Music in a Southern U.S. Public Middle School: A Case Study Emily Marie Mercado Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations Part of the Music Education Commons, and the Other Religion Commons Recommended Citation Mercado, Emily Marie, "Perceptions of Religious Music in a Southern U.S. Public Middle School: A Case Study" (2018). LSU Doctoral Dissertations. 4526. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations/4526 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please [email protected]. ! PERCEPTIONS OF RELIGIOUS MUSIC IN A SOUTHERN U.S. PUBLIC MIDDLE SCHOOL: A CASE STUDY! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! A Dissertation! Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in The College of Music and Dramatic Arts ! by Emily Marie Mercado B.A., Oregon State University, 2005 M.A.T., Oregon State University, 2007 May 2018 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ! ! I would like to thank my advisor Dr. Ann Marie Stanley for guiding me through this rewarding process. Her expertise, calming presence, and “get it done” attitude kept me sane and on track to complete a successful dissertation. To the rest of my committee Dr.
  • No Aid, No Agency

    No Aid, No Agency

    NO AID, NO AGENCY Steven K. Green* ABSTRACT Over the past three decades, members of the Supreme Court have demonstrated increasing hostility to the Establishment Clause’s rule against funding religion, first enunciated in 1947. Over the years, the Court has not only narrowed the rule to allow for government aid to flow to religious schools and faith-based charities, it has more recently declared that to enforce that rule may amount to discrimination against reli- gion. This Article argues that a key reason for the decline in the no-aid principle rests on the weakness of the rationale underlying that rule: that funding of religion coerces the conscience of taxpayers. The taxpayer conscience rationale, though valid his- torically as basis for the clause’s prohibition on government funding of religion, no longer makes sense. And because the taxpayer conscience rationale is wanting, so too is the Flast v. Cohen rule permitting taxpayer standing to challenge government disbursements to religious entities. This Article then proposes an alternative basis for the no-aid principle, that being the concept that government has “no agency” over religious matters, a theory originally enunciated by James Madison. As explained, the no-agency theory is a structural or jurisdictional limitation on the power of gov- ernment to finance inherently religious activity. If adopted, the no-agency rationale would restore needed credibility to the no-aid principle. INTRODUCTION To state the obvious, the Supreme Court’s decisions prohibiting government financial aid to religious institutions have been controversial since the Court’s first holding in Everson v. Board of Education in 1947.1 There, a unanimous Court em- braced the “no-aid” theory underlying the Establishment Clause despite a bare majority upholding the aid in question: state reimbursements for transportation costs for stu- dents to travel safely to parochial schools.2 Speaking for the majority, Justice Hugo Black wrote: “The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: .