1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Running First Amendment thread

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Dick Whitman, Jul 29, 2011.

  1. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

  2. heyabbott

    heyabbott Well-Known Member

    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.

    Just so everyone is posting with the same information.

    The following is from Wiki concerning the Lynch v. Donnelly case. I wrote an article on this case back in my law school days, and this is a decent synopsis.

    I disagreed, and still do, with the majority, but remember the purpose of the religion clause is prevent the establishment of a particular religion as official and the prevention of the free exercise of religion.

    The "Lemon test", which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion. It consists of three prongs:

    The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
    The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
    The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

    When discussing whether or not the government's action violates the 1st Amendment's religion clause, argue with these factors.
  3. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    Whether the Lemon test is still valid, or ever was, is very much up in the air. Write some of Scalia's scathing dissents about it. And, when in the majority, he won't apply it. Hence, it has become the O'Connor test: Would a reasonable person knowing all the facts find this to be a government endorsement of religion? Until, of course, someone wants to use the "entanglement" test. Then the Lemon test is on again.

    Bottom line: It's a mess.

    What is ironic about the establishment clause is that it was actually originally intended to stop only the federal government from endorsing a religion - so that the states would be able to do so freely. It's actually a federalism clause. Well, not anymore. But originally that's what it was.
  4. heyabbott

    heyabbott Well-Known Member

    Scalia, for my money, is intellectually dishonest. see the Violence Against Women Act v. State regulation of Marijuana and his failure to endorse a literal meaning of the warrant requirement of the 5th Amendment.
  5. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    Wait a minute - I thought they were all consistent when it came to the VAWA and the Raich marijuana decision? It was funny because all the conservatives had to be pro-marijuana and all the liberals had to be anti-marijuana.

    His most intellectually dishonest moment, if I recall, was the "Piss Christ" NEA decision.
  6. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    The solution to this is simple. Put a link to Planned Parenthood up. Problem solved.
  7. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    I present "More of Us," Trace Adkins's new Jesus-belongs-in-schools-and-courtrooms opus. Surprised his nuanced take on the Establishment Clause is on his album instead of a peer-reviewed academic journal.

    I think it's time we remind those fools of something that they forgot:
    That there's more of us
    Than there are of them

  8. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page