Law Commons^™

"No Person . . . Shall Ever Be Molested On Account Of His Mode Of Worship Or Religious Sentiments . . . .": The Northwest Ordinance Of 1787 And Strader V. Graham, Allan W. Vestal

Marquette Law Review

The Article looks at the first article of compact of the Northwest Ordinance,

the religious liberty guarantee: “No person . . . shall ever be molested on

account of his mode of worship or religious sentiments . . . .” Congress

provided that the Northwest Ordinance articles of compact would “forever

remain unalterable.” But in a fugitive slave case from 1851, Strader v. Graham,

Chief Justice Roger Taney declared the articles of compact to be no longer in

force.

In evaluating Chief Justice Taney’s reasoning, the question posed at the

dawn of the 20th Century by historian Professor Andrew McLaughlin …

God And State Preambles, Peter J. Smith, Robert W. Tuttle

Marquette Law Review

Those who question the permissibility of official acknowledgements of God might be surprised to learn that the preambles of forty-five of the fifty state constitutions expressly invoke God. The practice is common in both liberal and conservative states and is equally prevalent in all regions of the country. Virtually all of those preambles give thanks to God, and many also seek God's blessing n the state's endeavors. Yet there has been no detailed assessment of the preambles' history or significance. This paper seeks to remedy that gap.

The preambles complicate the claim that official acknowledgements of God are incompatible with …

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

Marquette Law Review

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 …