Posted on 10/20/2001 11:46:14 AM PDT by Khepera
The attack on the American religious tradition comes from the same circles that attack all other aspects of our traditional culture and values.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) - Court overturns Gobitis but is broader in its scope. No one can be forced to salute the flag or say the pledge of allegiance if it violates the individual conscience.
McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948) - Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.
Zorach v. Clausen, 343 U.S. 306 (1952) - Court finds that release time from public school classes for religious instruction does not violate the establishment clause.
Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) - Court finds school prayer unconstitutional.
Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) - Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional and Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) - Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional.
Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968) - Court says the state cannot ban the teaching of evolution.
Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) - Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.
Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985) - Court finds state law enforcing a moment of silence in schools had a religious purpose and is therefore unconstitutional.
Edwards v. Aquillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) - Court finds state law requiring equal treatment for creationism has a religious purpose and is therefore unconstitutional.
Board of Education v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226 (1990) - The court rules that the Equal Access Act does not violate the First Amendment. Public schools that receive federal funds and maintain a "limited open forum" on school grounds after school hours cannot deny "equal access" to student groups based upon "religious, political, philosophical, or other content."
Lee v. Weisman, 112 SCt. 2649 (1992) - Court finds prayer at public school graduation ceremonies violates the establishment clause and is therefore unconstitutional.
Lamb's Chapel et al. v. Center Moriches Union Free School District, 508 U.S. 384 (1993) - Court says that school districts cannot deny churches access to school premises after-hours, if the district allowed the use of its building to other groups.
Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, (1994) - Court states that the New York State Legislature cannot create a separate school district for a religious community.
Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, (2000) - Court rules that student-led prayers at public school football games violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Good News Club v. Milford Central School, (2001) - Court rules that Milford Central School cannot keep Good News Club from using its facilities because the school had created a limited public forum and prohibiting the religious club was viewpoint discrimination.
Please refer to the section of my article regarding Interpreting things.
So you're starting with that nonsense again are you? "generally come to mean" isn't the same as the truth, is it? What you're looking for so hard just isn't in the Constitution, and all your twisting of the facts doesn't make it so. What part of "prohibiting the free excercise thereof" don't you understand? Take your silly anti religious sentiments over to DU where they will be appreciated. You're a sad, sick person.
The definition, however, canbot be established by review of prior cases. It is in fact a priori, based on Black's(and other judges') desire to end political discussion about aid to Catholic Schools and impose a national rule on the states.
Where is this written?
I thought this would be a slam dunk, but
it isn't, is it?
To the judges, the
ministers of this power, it belongs to interpret all acts of the legislature,
agreeably to the true principles of the constitution
I don't think the supreme court really gets into interpreting
acts of legislature, does it? If the law is being enforced as
written, the defendants don't have much hope outside
proving unconstitutionality. See the Nichols thing,
wherein his constitutional remedies ended when the SC
ruled the FBI files were immaterial, regardless of the
intentions of the law being challenged, ie habeas corpus.
The legislative history of a bill usually provides
an indication of the framer intentions, so that
judicial interpretation is at a minimum, I would
think.
Isn't it more accurate to say that the SC
interprets the Constitution such that it
casts a light on the legislation in question
and renders it either within Constitutional
limits or not?
The prohibition of "Establishment" of religion absolutely was understood by EVERYONE of that era as meaning all forms of Protestant Christianity were to be treated equally and none favored by any government.
In practice this meant that that the majority religion in a town could collect TAXES to support the local denominational church even from members of another denomination (unless the local member of a minority denomination had a certificate of his belonging and attending another denomination's church).
In practice it also meant that Catholicism, Judaism and Quakerism were LEGALLY substandard to basic vanilla Protestantism.
Anti-Catholicism (actually pro-generic-Protestantism) was very much a part of the USA's founding.
While I am glad that anti-Catholicism is no longer legal, I regret that the COnstitution has been ignored in doing so. Inother words, I am not willing to accept the good outcome at the expense of destroying the Constitution.
The USA has always overtly and officially relied upon God. Those who declare otherwise are truly very ignorant - though understandably so given the Supreme Court's pretense over the last 140 years that increasingly ignores the facts.
Those truly interested in the facts can freepmail me for the references.
So how does this negate my ability to freely exercise my religious beliefs by standing up in school and reciting a prayer or leading a group in prayer? How does this negate my right to freely speak of my beliefs in school or any other public place? The lies of the Liberal courts are contrary to the constitution of the United States.
SCOTUS opinions actually contain bald-faced and absolute errors (I would say lies) as to the meaning of "establishment" and the historical context of that word.
] It is truly enough to make one rage or cry when one realizes how the lie has been foisted upon generations of school kids who propagate it and believe for the rest of their lives.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.