School District V. Schempp : Establishment Clause

     Since this country was founded, we have had a set of unalienable rights that our constitution guarantees us to as Americans. One of the most important rights that is mentioned in our constitution is the right to free speech. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the

The First Amendments is a blessing that the United States is fortunate enough to have. First and foremost, First Amendment protects the right to freedom of religion and expression, without any government interference ("First Amendment" n.p.). The freedom of expression includes the right to free speech, press, assembly, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances ("First Amendment" n.p.). Redress of grievances guarantees people the right to ask the government to provide relief for a wrong through courts or other governmental action ("First Amendment" n.p.). People are allowed to practice their own religions and do not have to conform to one religion, all because of the First Amendment. People's rights are protected with no government interference.

In summarizing the salient points of the Supreme Court case Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, it had to do with the respondent’s father who sued candidates, including a school region, affirming that the school locale's approach requiring the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance at his little girl's school damaged the First Amendment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that the father had standing and decided for the father. Certiorari was conceded to audit the standing and First Amendment issues.

In the Emerson v. Board of Education Case New Jersey passed a law authorizing local school boards to provide transportation of children to and from school. The Board of Education of Ewing Township, following this law, authorized reimbursement to parents of money spent by their children on public buses. However, Arch Everson, a resident and taxpayer in the Ewing Township school district, learned that a reimbursement was going to parents who sent their children to Catholic schools as well. He then claimed that this money supported religion and violated the establishment clause of the first amendment. Ultimately, the court ruled that the new law was not in violation of the establishment clause.

In response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Santa Fe Independent School District V. Doe (SFISD V. Doe) case, Chief Justice Rehnquist commented, “It [the ruling] bristles with hostility to all things religious in public life” (“United”). Separating religion and state has always been a matter of concern for the United States, as shown by the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment of our constitution. Although there have been many cases revolving around the relationship between the church and the state, SFISD V. Doe is among the most notable. By examining the background, reflecting on the decision, and analyzing the impact of the SFISD V. Doe case,

Decision: The court ruled against the school district and upheld the establishment clause of the first

Abington School District v. Schempp is a 1963 Supreme Court Case that challenged religious prayer and teachings in Pennsylvania public schools. The Pennsylvania law made it a requirement for schools in all districts to read from the Bible (at least 10 verses) every day before class began. There was also a clause included in the state action that allowed for any child to be excused from the reading with specific permission from their parent or guardian. The question that this case asks is if it is unconstitutional for public schools to mandate children to partake in Bible teachings and practices before classes began. The reason this case was heard in front of the Supreme court is because the Abington School District wanted to reverse an earlier decision by a district court. The district court decided in favor of the Schempp family and found that forced prayer in public schools, even with an opt out clause, still violates the Constitution under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Once the case was heard in front of the United States Supreme Court, eight out of the nine justices agreed with the previous district court’s ruling and found that prayer in public schools is unconstitutional.

In cases having to do with constitutionality, the issue of the separation of church and state arises with marked frequency. This battle, which has raged since the nation?s founding, touches the very heart of the United States public, and pits two of the country's most important influences of public opinion against one another. Although some material containing religious content has found its way into many of the nation's public schools, its inclusion stems from its contextual and historical importance, which is heavily supported by material evidence and documentation. It often results from a teacher?s own decision, rather than from a decision handed down from above by a higher power. The proposal of the Dover Area School District to

When defending himself to his principal, he used the first amendment but was still not taken seriously and was then required to see his guidance counselor for months afterward. This high school student then wrote a letter to the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) to ask for help. The ACLU had been searching for a “plaintiff” for many years. After taking this argument to the court, Abington school district defended themselves by saying that “Bible reading was not a religious practice” and that students who did not want to listen to the scripture reading did not have to, they also argued that the “practice need not to be outlawed because the Constitution does not require government to be ‘hostile to religion’” (The Battle pg. 167). To the school board also argued that “to outlaw Bible reading would blaze a trail that would eliminate from public life customs that ‘are now and have long been cherished and accepted by a vast majority of the people (The Battle pg. 167). The Schempp received harassment and abuse from other citizens living in Abbington because of their support of the end to scripture reading. In 1959, the federal district court found that this practice was unconstitutional but the school board quickly found a loophole. The school district then decided to excuse students not wanting to participate in the reading

One of our civil liberties is the First Amendment. The First Amendment states (Amar and Adams)“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 to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”. Freedoms granted under the First Amendment often come under fire and should be protected from proponents who try to undermine the very liberties it protects.

It has been over a long time since the U.S. Incomparable Court restricted petition in state funded schools in the now scandalous case Engle v. Vitale. (Joined States Courts, n.d., para. 4). By decision that school-supported nondenominational supplication in government funded schools disregarded the First Amendment of the Constitution, the training ended up noticeably impermissible in every single state funded school all through the nation. In the year following Engle v. Vitale, the Supreme Court heard a comparable case in Pennsylvania which challenged school-supported book of scriptures perusing and recitation of the Lord's

Dissent: Taxpayer money is being used to support religious establishments (schools), and is therefore in violation of the Establishment Clause. Also, Everson v. Board of Education decided that no

Ever since the Bush Administration and the events of September 11, 2001, the American people have dealt with the government taking away bits and bits of their constitutional rights. Such rights like the freedom of association, speech, unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to legal representation, speedy and public trial, and the right to liberty. Any new law that infringes on these rights ands is created and passed is a bit of freedom being taken away. The government has limited individuals’ right to freedom of assembly by authorities seeking to repress the activities of those that are simply defending human rights. Censorship has also limited

For generations, we as a society have evaluated what we call our freedoms, as they constantly continue to influence our quality of life. In the 1940s, President Franklin Roosevelt's Message to Congress promised the people of America Four Freedoms, or freedoms that are imperative to human life. These freedoms included freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. Freedom of speech goes back to the first amendment where there is the liberty of expression. Freedom of worship allows people to practice any belief system they desire, as well as worship the God that they please. Freedom from want meant no citizen should have to yearn for the basic needs to survive, and should be provided with a standard living. Finally, freedom from fear meant for there to be no fear of having to use aggression against a neighbor, in addition to being granted peace and a sense of security. These were the guaranteed freedoms stated by the president for the future. However, as time progressed and certain events in history began occurring, these freedoms may have slipped from view and become less practiced. It is clear to see that the United States government did not effectively uphold these freedoms during, the time the U.S declared war against the Japanese, during the scare of Communism, and in the day to day life for citizens in minority groups.

The free exercise of religion, the freedom of speech, and the freedom of assembly are each absolutely essential for the health of our Republic. That is why the Founding Fathers enshrined them all in the First Amendment. While some people up hold the first amendment and respect its meaning. Unfortunately, these freedoms are currently under assault by the government, state officials and communities.