Law Commons^™

The Original Meaning Of "God": Using The Language Of The Framing Generation To Create A Coherent Establishment Clause Jurisprudence, Michael I. Meyerson

All Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court’s attempt to create a standard for evaluating whether the Establishment Clause is violated by religious governmental speech, such as the public display of the Ten Commandments or the Pledge of Allegiance, is a total failure. The Court’s Establishment Clause jurisprudence has been termed “convoluted,” “a muddled mess,” and “a polite lie.” Unwilling to either allow all governmental religious speech or ban it entirely, the Court is in need of a coherent standard for distinguishing the permissible from the unconstitutional. Thus far, no Justice has offered such a standard.

A careful reading of the history of the framing …

The Lawless Rule Of The Norm In The Government Religious Speech Cases, Kyle Langvardt

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Has Society Become Tolerant Of Further Infringement On First Amendment Rights?, Nicholas Primrose

Barry Law Review

No abstract provided.

Defining Religion Down: Hasanna-Tabor, Martinez, And The U.S. Supreme Court, Carl H. Esbeck

Faculty Publications

While two recent Supreme Court cases on religious freedom appear sharply at odds, in one material respect they harmonize around an understanding that religion is fully protected only when exercised in private. CLS v. Martinez involved Hastings College of Law. Hastings' regulation of extracurricular organizations was unusual in requiring that any student can join an organization. This all-comers rule had a discriminatory impact on organizations with exclusionary memberships, such as the Christian Legal Society (CLS) which required subscribing to a statement of faith and conduct. The Court acknowledged the discriminatory effect, but said that the Free Speech Clause protects speech …

Nonbelievers And Government Speech, Caroline Mala Corbin

Articles

In the past few years, nonbelievers have become much more prominent in the United States. But while their visibility has increased, they are still a small minority, and they remain disliked, distrusted, and not truly American in the eyes of many. As a result, many nonbelievers are hesitant about disclosing their views, and those who do often face hostility and discrimination.

This Article argues that government religious speech such as "In God We Trust" or a Latin cross war memorial violates the Establishment Clause in part because it exacerbates the precarious position of nonbelievers in this country. One of the …

Standing On Holy Ground: How Rethinking Justiciability Might Bring Peace To The Establishment Clause, John M. Bickers

Cleveland State Law Review

The Establishment Clause is home to both procedural and substantive disorder. Particularly when evaluating religious speech by the government, the Supreme Court has applied a number of distinct tests, with varying degrees of strictness. There has never been an overarching principle for determining which test would appear at which time; commentators, and occasionally the Justices themselves, have suspected that desired results drove the choice of tests. At the same time, the Court has articulated a series of requirements necessary for a plaintiff to have standing to challenge government action, only to ignore them in government religious speech cases. The resulting …

Public School Students' Religious Speech And Viewpoint Discrimination, Kristi L. Bowman

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Why Student Religious Speech Is Speech, John E. Taylor

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Religion And Democracy, Steven H. Shiffrin

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Should citizens armed with religious reasons for public policy outcomes present those reasons in the public forum or otherwise rely on them in making decisions? Those questions have produced a flurry of scholarship, both within and outside of the law. Moreover, as Kent Greenawalt's work richly demonstrates, these related questions raise many more questions still. Do the answers to those questions differ, for example, if the citizen is a judge, a legislator, a columnist, a religious leader, or a "mere" voter? Are some religious reasons acceptable for presentation in a public forum, but not others?

If one holds a constricted …

When Separate Is Equal: Why Organized Religious Exercises, Unlike Chess, Do Not Belong In The Public Schools (Symposium: Freedom Of Association), Ruti Teitel

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.