Establishment Clause Of The First Amendment

Constitution's First Amendment requirement that the District neither establish religion in the schools nor prohibit students’ free exercise of religion according to pertinent interpretation and application of those constitutional provisions by the courts. Any religious characters need to conform to policy 8800” (Markesan District School, 2013). “Decisions of the United States Supreme Court have made it clear that it is not the province of a public school to advance or inhibit religious beliefs or practices” (Markesan District School, 2015). Under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, this remains the “inviolate province of the individual and the church of his/her choice. The rights of any minority, no matter how small, must be protected. District staff members shall not use prayer, religious readings, or religious symbols as a devotional exercise or in an act of worship or celebration” (20 U.S.C. 4071 et seq.) (Markesan District School, 2015). Having examined the Markesan District School First Amendment related to this topic the next step is to conclude my research on this topic.

Religion is one of the most controversial issues in society today. The concern of allowing prayer in schools is an on-going debate and has resulted in numerous lawsuits. Religious school clubs, after school activities, curriculums, and moments of silence during school are just a few of the court cases that judges have administered. People in favor of prayer in schools believe that their children can only learn certain values through religious practice. On the other hand, an individual against religious practice in schools views this issue as an infringement on his or her children’s rights as Americans.

Explain the tension between the establishment clause and the free exercise clause of the First amendment. Support your explanation with at least one example. First we must understand the purpose of each of these clauses of the First Amendment. A common misunderstanding of the Establishment Clause is that it safeguards individual rights. In reality the purpose of the Establishment Clause is to limit the government’s power in respect to legislating on matters that deals with "respecting an establishment of religion.". The Free Exercise Clause has only a sole purpose, the safeguarding of individual rights, specifically related to religion.

The First Amendment is designed to protect all citizens by giving them the right to express themselves in different ways. In doing so, we still have to be careful on how we do it. Students have the right to express themselves as long as it does not cause any disruption. In my school district, we abides by the First Amendment by not forbidding all mention of religion in the school system (Pamlico County Board of Education, 2015). The only part that is prohibited is the advancement or inhibition of religion (Pamlico County Board of Education, 2015). My school district feels that there’s nothing unconstitutional about using religious subjects or materials as long as it is in compliance to the neutrality of the education program (Pamlico County Board of Education, 2015).

Issues involving public schools and religion have been topics involving intense debate. It is difficult for the government to elucidate the appropriate boundaries of religion in the public schools. It is true that teaching about religion is permitted in the public education systems, but the real question is where the margin should be set between teaching religion and simply teaching about religion. It is almost impossible to teach about the history of the United States without teaching that religious beliefs associated with the history, artwork, and literature. More than the public is lead to believe, The Constitution permits religious activities in and around public school buildings. It is unfortunate that the

The first amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of speech and expression. One particular form of expression that has grown in popularity is body art; also known as tattoos. This creative form of expression can be displayed anywhere on the body. It is because of this same freedom that I believe there should be restrictions on what and where a tattoo is placed. Some feel as if the Marine Corps shouldn’t have any tattoo restrictions. But I strongly disagree. This Organization has been built on so many great principles, like our Corps Values: “Honor, Courage, and Commitment.” Then we have our official United States Marine Corps (USMC) slogan: “The Few, The Proud, The Marines”. We have a reputation for being a professional, disciplined fighting force. Granted, society will always change. From the modern day fads, the fashion statements, to the personal beliefs plus the need to be an individual; we as a people can change in the blink of an eye. But should we allow that to dictate the USMC? Should we change our foundation because of our society? Although tattoos have become a part of the societal norm, in order to maintain good order, discipline, and a professional military appearance; restrictions must remain in place.

The case of Wallace v. Jaffree calls into question the constitutionality of an Alabama statute that authorized teachers to lead a one-minute period of silence for “meditation or voluntary” prayer in all public schools. Ishmael Jaffree, the parent of three students in the Mobile County Public School system filed a complaint that two of his three children had been “subjected to various acts of religious indoctrination,” as a result of Alabama statute 16-1-20.1 and asked for an injunction prohibiting Mobile County schools from “maintaining or allowing the maintenance of regular religious prayer services.” The purpose of Jaffree’s complaint was to prohibit the devotional services occurring in his children’s school and the consequent mockery of his children that occurred when they refused to recite the prayers to “Almighty God” (Stevens, 40). This type of law in Alabama public schools was not the first of its kind. Prior to statute 6-11-20.1, Alabama passed law 16-1-20 authorizing one minute of silence in public schools for meditation. After the authorization of statute 16-1-20.1 came 16-1-20.2, which allowed teachers to lead “willing students” in a prayer (Stevens, 40).

On September 17, 1787, the United States Constitution was signed by delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, who were directed by George Washington. The 1787 convention was called to draft a new legal system for the United States now that the states were free and colonized. This new Constitution was made to increase federal authority while still protecting the rights of citizens. It established America’s National Government. In 1971, the Bill of Rights were added to Constitution containing the 10 amendments guaranteeing protection for citizens. The first commandment consisting of freedom of speech and religion. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

In the First Amendment it states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” This is known as the Establishment Clause, and it has been a controversial topic of many Supreme Court cases throughout America’s history. There are three different methods of constitutional interpretation--textualism, intentionalism, and pragmatism—that have shaped the Supreme Court’s rulings on the Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause is usually interpreted in two different ways: “The Establishment Clause prohibits government actions—federal, state, or local—that promote religion,” and that “The Establishment Clause prohibits the establishment of a national religion.” There is a common metaphor that accompanies the Establishment Clause know as the “wall of separation.” The Establishment Clause has this “wall” in order to keep the church and state separate. This is a reoccurring theme I have seen develop throughout various court cases. I studied four different cases that made it to the Supreme Court: Everson vs. Board of Education, Lynch vs. Donnelly, Lee vs. Weisman, and Santa Fe Independent School District vs. Jane Doe. During the brief period of me studying these four cases involving the Establishment Clause, I have inferred that pragmatism has indicated the utmost dominance in shaping the Supreme Court’s rulings on the Establishment Clause.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…” Sound familiar? Well it should. That quote was a section of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Those lines are one of the many things that set America apart from other countries around the world. It has protected us for centuries from “unreasonable searches and seizures…” made by anyone, including the government. This is all beginning to change with the inventions of the smartphone, computer, and even GPS. These inventions have possibly turned our world for the better, or maybe even for the worse.

For centuries, the debate has existed whether or not to allow prayer in public schools. Many Americans feel it is not right of the schools to teach religion. With all the diversity associated with the United States, public schools cannot select one standard religion to practice, due to the cultural and religious differences in the country. Not only are schools the storm center of controversy involving religious differences, they are the principal institution charged with transmitting the identity and mission of the United States from one generation to the next. If we fail in our school policies and classrooms to model and to teach how to live with differences, we endanger our experiment in religious liberty and our

American citizens, provided that they do not insight some form of disturbance or riot (see Chaplinski vs.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Article II, Section IV of the United States Constitution states that: “The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Throughout the course of American history, past Presidents have committed actions that have brought up the discussion and even started the process of impeachment from holding office. In the chapter “Impeachment in the Constitutional Order” by Jeffery K. Tulis, he talks about the differences between the legalistic and political interpretations of impeachment and how to properly use the process in a successful manner. Tulis states “how and why the impeachment process, far from politically irrelevant, is a vital attribute of the theoretical architecture of a well- functioning separation of powers regime” (Tulis 229).

In the Federal Constitution, article 10 is the key to the second part of the Constitution. Here are some basic liberties we have set up recently. In general, Article 10 relates only to the standards, controls and restrictions that Malaysians have the right to independently publish, collect and evaluate. As a native, we are lucky to say what we need. However, we have the same rights, but article 10 (2) (a) (b) (c) clearly states the right of parliament to impose