Glassroth v. Moore, Maddox v. Moore
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 2003
335 F.3d 1282
Facts
Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy S. Moore placed a 5280-pound ton granite monument displaying the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of the Alabama State Judicial Building.
Procedure
A group of lawyers consisting of Stephen R. Glassroth, Melinda Maddox and Beverly Howard filed two separate civil suits (Glassroth v. Moore and Maddox v. Moore) in Federal Court against Justice Moore in his official capacity as Chief Justice and in his official capacity as Administrative Head of the Alabama Judicial System, respectively, to have the monument removed.
The United States District Court For The Middle District Of Alabama, Northern Division ordered the monument removed because it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The injunction was stayed pending appeal.
Issue
Did Chief Justice
Resulting relationship between government and religious authority. 2. The statute must not advance nor inhibit religious practice (also known as the Effect Prong) 3.The statute must have a secular legislative purpose. (also known as the Purpose Prong)
If any of these prongs are violated, the government 's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Chief Judge Edmondson delivered the opinion that, “The monument fails two of Lemon 's three prongs. It violates the Establishment Clause.”
Judgment
The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.
Evaluation
In this case, Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy S. Moore’s placement of a 5280-pound ton granite monument displaying the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of the Alabama State Judicial Building failed two if not all three of the prongs of the Lemon test and, therefore, violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Doe case, Taking place in Texas in the year 2000, ended with a five to four verdict (Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe). The decision was in support of Doe, a Mormon family and a Catholic family that contested the school’s support of prayer at football games. The result of this case restricted the first amendment freedom of religion. The “wall” between religion and government that the Establishment Clause creates was present in this case (Cornell University Law School). The end of this case led to a strong divide between public schools and students’ religious practices. This case caused social changes to occur that affected public schools across America. Other public schools and parents of public school students saw the outcome of this case as an example of the “wall” that exists between church and state and that it will be enforced. Because of this case, many schools changed or abolished their own policies regarding
Was Dred Scott a free man or a slave? The Dred Scott v. Sandford case is about a slave named Dred Scott from Missouri who sued for his freedom. His owner, John Emerson, had taken Scott along with him to Illinois which was one of the states that prohibited slavery. Scott’s owner later passed away after returning back to Missouri. After suits and counter suits the case eventually made it to the Supreme Court with a 7-2 decision. Chief Justice Taney spoke for the majority, when saying that Dred Scott could not sue because he was not a citizen, also that congress did not have the constitutional power to abolish slavery, and that the Missouri compromise was unconstitutional. The case is very important, because it had a lot
This case was appealed to the Supreme Court on June 17, 1963. The Court ruled 8-1 against the prayer recitation. This ruling was partially due to the case Engel v. Vitale, where a similar Establishment Clause issue was approached. In both cases, the strict...
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 include instruction of intelligent design in biology classes violates the United States Constitution by promoting an excessive religious presence in public schools.
Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow case is a litigation that was brought by an atheist father seeking for a determination of the constitutionality of the practice of recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance by public school students since it contained the phrase “under God.” The Supreme Court had two major issues to determine i.e. whether Newdow had the legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of the practice and school board’s policy and whether the phrase “under God” was an infringement of the Establishment Clause of the country’s constitution. In its ruling, the Supreme Court argued that Michael Newdow did not have the legal standing to file the litigation since he was a non-custodial parent.
The Ten Commandments should not be allowed to be posted in United States Government buildings. The Ten Commandments are a Judaic set of laws that according to their religious history was handed down from God to the prophet Moses. I believe these postings harm our county, its image of religious freedom, and it violates American citizen’s first amendment right. The three main reasons I believe that they should not be allowed is that it promotes a state-endorsed religion, it promotes religious intolerance and it creates an uncomfortable environment for people of other faiths.
The issue at hand is one of teacher endorsement and whether or not displaying a student’s religious work represents a personal endorsement from the teacher regarding religion or religious practices. Because the works of all students are displayed, the teacher is neither presenting nor endorsing a personal belief. If there is a concern over student interpretation of a teacher displaying the work, teachers can take an educational tact by explaining to students that a religious story presented by a student is their personal story and not a story of the teacher’s or the school, thus allowing the student’s work to be presented without violating the Establishment Clause (Ross, 2014). This piece of writing and the artwork that went with it are a personal belief to the student and represent who the student considers to be a hero, and do not represent the beliefs of the teacher or the school. Justice O’Connor explained this as an endorsement test, asking two questions: “whether government’s purpose is to endorse religion and second, whether the statue actually conveys a message of endorsement” (Schimmel, 1994, p. 16). In this case no endorsement is made because the teacher displays all student work and is in no way advancing a personally held belief. Having examined the appropriateness of displaying the student’s work, the next step is to determine how the First Amendment applies to
The pledge of allegiance violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. I believe that the pledge is mismatched with democracy and freedom which suggest that pledges of allegiance are features of dictatorial states like Nazi Germany.
This ruling can and will stand. This is because to rule any differently will violate the constitution and suppress free speech. Without the right to express one’s political views like this America would be no different than other countries who oppress their citizens, forbidding them to speak against the government. For this reason it is critical that acts such as flag desecration is allowed under the constitution.
Constitutionally, the case at first appears to be a rather one-sided violation of the First Amendment as incorporated through the Fourteenth. The court, however, was of a different opinion: "...
The case was filed against the town of Hialeah. The case was left to the decision of the Supreme Courts because the local court was likely to have bias. The issue in question here was whether Hialeah’s laws aiming to prevent animal sacrifice went against the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The town of Hialeah claimed that these local laws were to ensure the safety and health of their citizens, but the court found fault in that. Small numbers of cattle and hogs are allowed to be slaughtered, so the court questioned how this case was any different from religious animal sacrifices. The health risks would be the same whether it is a religious sacrifice or not. The local laws made were concluded to be specifically targeted at religious
The Establishment Clause of the Constitution’s First Amendment clearly reflects the Founding Father’s attempt to avoid the British practice of an intertwined state and church. It is evident that this clause was put into place to avoid government entanglement with religious affiliations. Having spent the majority of my life reciting the Pledge of Allegiance every morning at school, I never realized the government’s failure to comply with the Establishment Clause and ultimately defy the constitution. Having read both sides of the argument, I found Laycock’s assertions to be particularly convincing while Sekulow’s claims were less compelling.
Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion, or the prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech. Often times men who have no religious value will quote the first portion of this text without considering the latter part. There are no laws that are voluntary, but law is the binding virtue that casts it's judgment upon those who break it. All laws are derived by the moral virtue of natural rights. In the case of Engel v. Vitale is no expectation. The Establishment clause has been used to violate the First Amendment by establishing laws that prohibit any institution with a tax break, the right to express their religion even against the will of the majority. The First Amendment rightly prevents
In the last decade, many states are trying to reinstate the teaching of creationism in public schools under the more academic title of “intelligent design.” Funded heavily by the Discovery Institute, a conservative think-tank, intelligent design is an attempt to produce scientific backing for the idea that an intelligent being (the Abrahamic God) has designed all life on earth.... ... middle of paper ... ... Branch, Glenn. A. A. "Intelligent Design is not Science, and Should not Join Evolution in the Classroom."
... Case may Determine Direction of Church-State Law." Church & State 62.10 (2009): 220-2. Web.