Sentences with phrase «establishment clause in»

But those who follow the issue, and I know that that's most of you in this room, knew that that decision, while it closed one battleground — and that was a battleground over the federal Establishment Clause in the United States Constitution — it also threw the spotlight on a remaining battleground, and that is the battleground over state constitutional restrictions on government aid for religious institutions.

The accusation, if borne out, would be both discrimination on basis of gender and a violation of the Establishment Clause in the first amendment.

It's the idea at the heart of the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: «Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.»

Is Kentucky giving tax breaks to a for profit religious group a violation of the establishment clause in the constitution?

Not exact matches

«There are some establishment clause cases to the contrary, but the establishment clause does not apply to actions taken abroad in relation to other nations.»

«It is well established that evidence of purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may be considered in evaluating Establishment and Equal Protection Clause claims,» the judges wrote on Thursday.

Ironicus is correct that allowing religious inst.itutions to hold worship services in public facilities is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Const.itution.

Ironically, the Court's interpretations of the establishment clause have probably contributed more to religious divisiveness in America than the practices that were the subjects of the Court's cases.

Recent attempts to use the establishment clause as an engine of secularity have had some effect, but such attempts rely on distortions of both the past and present, and in themselves are no more «religiously neutral» than the generalized acceptance of Christian dominance that preceded them.

He said federal law, under the Establishment Clause, is clear that public schools can not «approve in advance a student's prayer» or «carve out time specifically for religious expression.»

In the U.S., the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution is always being tested.

Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another... in the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect «a wall of separation between church and State»... That wall must be kept high and impregnable.

In a case that began this past week, Gaylor v. Mnuchin, the Foundation is suing the IRS and charging the provision, saying that it actually violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The United States is a Christian theocracy and there ain't no «establishment clause» in the Bible!

Like the establishment clause of the First Amendment, which Madison authored a few years later, it was a Madisonian addendum to the Lockean ideal of liberal toleration in a society with an established church.

Ever since 1947, when the Supreme Court first applied the First Amendment's establishment clause to the states in Everson v. Board of Education, the court has held that government must be neutral on matters of religion.

To be more pointed, a psychotherapeutic reading of Shakespeare would be hard to challenge in court, but presenting Shakespeare's view of human nature in terms of biblical realism would almost certainly be considered a violation of the establishment clause.

Contrary to McConnell's contention, establishment - clause claims have not fared well in the Supreme Court lately.

While it is true that the primary purpose of the 1st Amendment is to guarantee freedom of religion, it does, in some very important ways, provide for freedom of religion within the Establishment Clause.

Under the establishment clause every person is also entitled to government that does not sponsor, support or inculcate one religion, religion in general or all religions collectively; that does not prefer one religion over another; that does not build up the real estate or the personnel of a religious institution or set up religious proprietaries not required to supply state - impaired religious access; and that does not compose, initiate or promulgate official prayers, rites or liturgies, or otherwise «play church.»

While it is true that the primary purpose of the 1st Amendment is to guarantee freedom of religion, it does, in some very important ways, provide for freedom from religion within the Establishment Clause.

The unanimous 1987 decision in Corporation of the Presiding Bishop v. Amos revised a lower court's holding that Congress violated the establishment clause when it permitted churches to hire their own members in preference to others for nonreligious jobs, a form of religious discrimination prohibited for other private employers.

JT: Yes, so I'm very glad that the issue came to a head in the early 1960's so that the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment could finally be properly enforced, as it has been since.

But in many recent cases they have tended to agree more readily on another thesis: that the free - exercise clause does not interpose protections of religious obligations and practices that it once did (from 1940 to 1981), and that the establishment clause does not have the, force against government action that it once did (from 1948 to 1985)

The court has been whittling back on both free - exercise and establishment - clause claims in favor of wider amplitude for the exercise of the powers of government.

In Texas Monthly, for example, a fragile plurality of the Court ruled that tax exemption for a religious book business constituted a violation of the «no establishment» clause.

The rules surrounding how and why Judge Watson found the President's ban unconstitutional are complex, but in brief, the ban was found to likely violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.

I won't waste time posting Jefferson / Madison quotes, but simply refer to the Establishment Clause, Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists and Reynolds v U.S. (1878) which referencing the Jefferson letter's «separation» language in interpretation of the Establishment / Free Exercise clauses states: «Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured.»

Passage of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment («Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...») was one of the first effective exertions of political muscle by minority groups in the United States.

The «free exercise» clause applies to all faith groups equally and should not be seen as a threat to those that are in the minority — precisely the groups that the «no establishment» clause was designed to protect.

In recent years the courts have been especially sensitive to the establishment clause, and in doing so they have greatly narrowed the definition of free expressioIn recent years the courts have been especially sensitive to the establishment clause, and in doing so they have greatly narrowed the definition of free expressioin doing so they have greatly narrowed the definition of free expression.

wiki ~ The Establishment Clause is the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment ofEstablishment Clause is the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment ofestablishment of religion....

Two hundred years after the adoption of the religion clauses, Kristol argues, the prevailing liberal mind - set is far more concerned with avoiding religious establishment than in encouraging religious expression.

In the most recent form of this debate, the courts have ruled that Creation - Science is not science but the propagation of particular religious beliefs, and as such the mandatory requirement of it being taught in public schools violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the ConstitutioIn the most recent form of this debate, the courts have ruled that Creation - Science is not science but the propagation of particular religious beliefs, and as such the mandatory requirement of it being taught in public schools violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the Constitutioin public schools violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

What, do you suppose, was the evil that the Founders had in mind when they adopted the First Amendment's Religion Clause with its «free exercise» and «no establishment» provisions?

In due course, a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the AFLA was brought on the ground that the inclusion of religious organizations among the participants violated the Establishment Clause.

Judge Graham expresses in his decision thoughts that by now should be quite familiar to our readers: «The Justices of the Supreme Court disagree among themselves on the proper role of religion in public life and the extent of the Court's authority to decide these issues under the Establishment Clause.

Under the test, first proposed by Supreme Court Justice Sandra O'Connor in a 1984 case from Pawtucket, Rhode Island, a display violates the Establishment Clause if it amounts to an official endorsement of religion, that is, if it suggests that the government approves a particular religious message (or disapproves such a message, though that issue does not regularly arise).

The problem lies in the government violating the establishment clause by endorsing it.

Also, in case anyone is interested, I recently found this web page which shows various SC rulings dealing with religion and education — often regarding the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment:

AHA lawyer, Monica L Miller said: «The district's actions in assisting the Gideons in distributing Bibles to elementary students represents a clear breach of the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution and we hereby demand assurances that this practice will discontinue immediately.»

The State can not finance secular instruction if it permits religion to be taught in the same classroom; but if it exacts a promise that religion not be so taught — a promise the school and its teachers are quite willing and on this record able to give — and enforces it, it is then entangled in the «no entanglement» aspect of the Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence [Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 666, 668].

There has always been some tension between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise protections of the First Amendment, but the Supreme Court, when considering a similar challenge to the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act in 2005 — wherein the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that granting protections to religious prisoners amounted to a violation of the Establishment Clause — ruled that alleviating a state - imposed substantial burden on religious practice did not violate the Establishment Clause.

Twenty - one years after the RFRA was introduced in the House of Representatives by Chuck Schumer, passed nearly unanimously by Congress, and signed into law by President Bill Clinton, the Freedom From Religion Foundation has filed an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to strike it down as an unconstitutional «takeover of the Court's power to interpret the Constitution» and a violation of the Establishment Clause.

Something I haven't seen anybody mention before is that even though the government does establish nor prohibits religion (Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment,) the system of laws can inadvertently end up being setup to practically prohibit being a Christian by the advocacy of certain groups who go above and beyond to have the courts rule in such matters.

Central to this drama are two Supreme Court cases: Engle v. Vitale (1962), in which the Court decided that government - directed prayer in public schools was an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment's establishment clause; and Abington v. Schempp (1963), which declared unconstitutional a Pennsylvania statute that provided for compulsory Bible reading in public classrooms.

Regardless of how we ought to understand the establishment clause, Intelligent Design does not belong in high - school biology classrooms.

In 1947, the Court ruled that the establishment clause must be applied against the states, and that no establishment means no «promotion» of religion.

Like others who support the original understanding of the Constitution, I disagree with many of the Supreme Court's decisions under the establishment clause, but in our system of government a federal - district judge like Judge Jones is bound by those decisions.

It simply has the Establishment Clause, which is interpreted in various ways, one of them being «the separation of church and state,» which in turn is sufficiently ambiguous to be applied in numerous different fashions.