************************************************** ****************
EVERSON v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF EWING TP., 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...ol=330&invol=1
The USSC defined the Establishment Clause in Everson v. Bd of Ed and here
is what they used to define it:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.e...6c83ba5?hl=en&
*******************************************************************************
All nine justices agreed with the rule of law as forulated in Everson:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.education/msg/dfe64fd46773f934?hl=en&
Your shorter link is: http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q1132371C
buckeye-ELO Jan 10 2004, 8:55 am show options
Newsgroups: misc.education, alt.education, alt.politics.usa.constitution,
alt.politics.usa.republican, alt.society.liberalism
From: - Find messages by this author
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 08:55:36 -0500
Local: Sat, Jan 10 2004 8:55 am
Subject: Re: Judge Refuses to Remove Ten Commandments Display
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | View Thread | Show original | Report
Abuse
I finally located what I was looking for way back when we were having this
"discussion"
I will add it to this. I thought the follow up explanation was in the
Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education of School District, when in
fact the main explanation I was remembering was in TORCASO v. WATKINS,
see below:
http://members.aol.com/TestOath/Torcaso.htm
TORCASO v. WATKINS, CLERK.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND.
While there were strong dissents in the Everson case, they did not
challenge the Court's interpretation of the First Amendment's coverage as
being too broad, but thought the Court was applying that interpretation too
narrowly to the facts of that case. Not long afterward, in Illinois ex rel.
McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203, we were urged to repudiate as
dicta the above-quoted Everson interpretation of the scope of the First
Amendment's coverage. We declined to do this, but instead strongly
reaffirmed what had been said in Everson, calling attention to the fact
that both the majority and the minority in Everson had agreed on the
principles declared in this part of the Everson opinion. And a concurring
opinion in McCollum, written by MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER and joined by the
other Everson dissenters, said this:
"We are all agreed that the First and Fourteenth Amendments have a
secular reach far more penetrating [367 U.S. 488, 494] in the conduct of
Government than merely to forbid an `established church.'. . . We renew our
conviction that `we have staked the very existence of our country on the
faith that complete separation between the state and religion is best for
the state and best for religion.'"8
The Maryland Court of Appeals thought, and it is argued here, that this
Court's later holding and opinion in Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, had
in part repudiated the statement in the Everson opinion quoted above and
previously reaffirmed in McCollum. But the Court's opinion in Zorach
specifically stated: "We follow the McCollum case." 343 U.S., at 315.
Nothing decided or written in Zorach lends support to the idea that the
Court there intended to open up the way for government, state or federal,
to restore the historically and constitutionally discredited policy of
probing religious beliefs by test oaths or limiting public offices to
persons who have, or perhaps more properly profess to have, a belief in
some particular kind of religious concept.9
[367 U.S. 488, 495]
We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal
Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or
disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or
impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers,10 and
neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God
as against those religions founded on different beliefs.11
**************************************************************************************
That rule of law was :
[EMPHASIS ADDED]
The still more important fact is that the type of article used in the
establishment clause makes no difference. The First Amendment does not say
that Congress shall not establish a religion or create an establishment of
religion. It says Congress shall make no law RESPECTING an establishment of
religion. Whether "respecting" connotes honoring or concerning, the clause
means that Congress shall make no law on that subject THE BAN IS NOT JUST
ON ESTABLISHMENTS OF RELIGION BUT ON LAWS RESPECTING
THEM, A FACT THAT ALLOWS A LAW TO FALL SHORT OF CREATING AN ESTABLISHMENT
YET STILL BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
(SOURCE: The Establishment Clause, Religion and the First Amendment,
Leonard W. Levy, Second Edition, Revised, The University of North Carolina
Press, (1994) p. 118
-----------------------------------------------
THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE AS DEFINED IN 1947:
-----------------------------------------------
The Establishment Clause as defined by the USSC in Everson v. Bd of Ed,
1947
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at
least this:
(1) neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
(2) Neither can pass laws which aid one religion,
(2a) aid all religions,
(2b) or prefer one religion over another.
(3) Neither can force
(3a) nor influence a person to go to
(3b) or to remain away from church against his will
(3c) or force him to profess a belief
(3d) or disbelief in any religion.
(4) No person can be punished for entertaining [p*16]
(4a) or professing religious beliefs
(4b) or disbeliefs,
(4c) for church attendance
(4d) or non-attendance.
(5) No tax in any amount,
(5a) large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities
(5b) or institutions, whatever they may be called,
(5c) or whatever form they may adopt to teach
(5d) or practice religion.
(6) Neither a state
(6a) nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the
(6b) affairs of any religious organizations
(6c) or groups,
(6d) and vice versa.
************************************
U.S.N.Y. 1973. A law may be one "respecting the establishment of religion'
even though its consequence is not to promote a state religion, and even
though it does not aid one religion more than another but merely benefits
all religions alike. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 1.-Committee For Public Ed. and
Rel'g'ous Liberty v, Nyquist, 93 S.Ct. 2955, 413 U.S. 756, 37 L.Ed.2d 948,
concurring opinion Committee for Public Ed. & Religous Lib. v. Nyquist, 93
S,Ct. 2988, 413 U.S. 756, 37 L.Ed.2d 948, dissenting opinion 93 S.Ct, 2993,
413 U.S. 756, 37 L.Ed.2d 948.
Careful examination is required of any law challenged on establishment
grounds, with a view to ascertaining whether it furthers any of evils
against which the establishment clause protects. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend.
I.-Id.
In order to pass muster under establishment clause, law in question must
reflect a clearly secular legislative purpose, have primary effect which
neither advances nor inhibits religion and avoid excessive governmental
entanglement with religion. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. I.-Id.
**************************************************************************************
*****************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
