Education: July 1902 Archives
Interesting Discoveries Made While Researching
· A website where one can get a list of all the petitions for a hearing before the court that the Supreme Court officially recognizes, and a good interface to that data.
· Many documents published by various governmental entities are, like this report of testimony before a House Subcommittee, undated. As this omission makes information gathering more difficult, this author wonders why such important documents have no date on them.
· The web contains many pages with the following text: "... the good society which lies just around the corner can be easily attained if only we work systematically to destroy the language, the values, the culture, the ideology of bourgeois society"; yet this author was unable to source this on the web. It is not found in Marx's The Communist Manifesto or selected essays at Project Gutenberg.
Quote
"It appears that some school officials, teachers, and parents have assumed that religious expression of any type is either inappropriate or forbidden altogether in public schools; however, nothing in the First Amendment converts our public schools into religion-free zones." President Bill Clinton
Fun Facts to Know and Share
After leaving office, George Washington became the nation's largest alcoholic beverage distiller. In 1798, the year before his death, he produced 11,000 gallons of whisky (Scotch) which earned him a profit of $7,500. Compare this amount to the $2,500 the Federal Government spent a few years later to fund Lewis and Clark's expedition.
Source: Masters, B. A. First President's 100-Proof Heritage at
According to Measuring Worth.com, in 2006, $7,500.00 from 1798 is worth:
$126,845.64 using the Consumer Price Index
$123,834.99 using the GDP deflator
$1,736,739.13 using the unskilled wage
$4,022,801.28 using the nominal GDP per capita
$241,366,463.41 using the relative share of GDP
Bumper Stickers that caught my eye
PETA - People Eating Tasty Animals
Stop Repeat Offenders - Don't Re-Elect Them
APPENDICES
Summary of the 35 1st Amendment - Free Speech Clause cases, from 1925 through 1999, listed on the ACLU's Successes - 100 Greatest Hits webpage
Note that the First 3 of the 100 greatest are free speech cases. The following case descriptions are from the ACLU website:
· 1925 Gitlow v. New York: Gitlow's conviction for distributing a pamphlet calling for the overthrow of the government was upheld. But the ACLU's first Supreme Court landmark established that the 14th Amendment "incorporates" the First Amendment's free speech clause and therefore applies to the states.
· 1927 Whitney v. California: Whitney's conviction for membership in a group advocating the overthrow of the state was upheld. But Justice Brandeis laid the groundwork for modern First Amendment law in a separate opinion, in which he argued that under a "clear and present danger" test, the strong presumption should be in favor of "more speech, not enforced silence."
· 1931 Stromberg v. California: A California law leading to the conviction of a communist who displayed a red flag was overturned on the grounds that the law was vague, in violation of the First Amendment.
· Skip 3
· 1938 (not speech but religion?) Lovell v. Griffin: In this case on behalf of Jehovah's Witnesses, a Georgia ordinance prohibiting the distribution of "literature of any kind" without a City Manager's permit was deemed a violation of religious liberty.
· Skip 7
· 1949 Terminiello v. Chicago: In this exoneration of a priest convicted of disorderly conduct for giving a racist, anti-Semitic speech, Justice William O. Douglas stated, "the function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute." Aclu seems to have reversed this protection
· 1951 Kunz v. New York: The Supreme Court ruled that a permit to speak in a public forum could not be denied because a person's speech had, on a former occasion, resulted in civil disorder.
· Skip 6
· 1959 Smith v. California: A bookseller could not be found guilty of selling obscene material unless it was proven that he or she was familiar with the contents of the book.
· Skip 6
· 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan: Public officials cannot recover damages for defamation unless they prove a newspaper impugned them with "actual malice." A city commissioner in Montgomery, Alabama sued over publication of a full-page ad paid for by civil rights activists.
· 1964 Jacobellis v. Ohio: The Court overturned a theater owner's conviction for showing the film "The Lovers," by Louis Malle, and Justice Potter Stewart admitted that although he could not define "obscenity," he "knew it when he saw it."
· Skip 1
· 1964 Baggett v. Bullitt: A Washington State loyalty oath required of state employees was held void for vagueness in violation of the First Amendment.
· 1964 Carroll v. Princess Anne County: A county's decision to ban a rally without notifying the rally organizers of the injunction proceeding was invalidated on free speech grounds.
· Skip1
· 1965 Lamont v. Postmaster General: Struck down a Cold War-era law that required the Postmaster General to detain and destroy all unsealed mail from abroad deemed to be "communist political propaganda" - unless the addressee requested delivery in writing.
· Skip 10
· 1969 Brandenburg v. Ohio: The ACLU achieved victory in its 50-year struggle against laws punishing political advocacy. The Court agreed that the government could only penalize direct incitement to imminent lawless action, thus invalidating the Smith Act and all state sedition laws.
· 1969 Tinker v. Des Moines: Suspending public school students for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War was unconstitutional since students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the school-house gate."
· 1969 Gregory v. Chicago: The Court unanimously overturned a conviction of disorderly conduct against Dick Gregory and others who picketed Chicago's Mayor Daley. When disorder is created by a hostile audience, peaceful demonstrators cannot be arrested because of a "heckler's veto."
· 1969 Street v. New York: A state law under which a man was convicted for burning the American flag to protest the assassination of civil rights leader Medgar Evers was unconstitutional.
· 1969 Watts v. U.S.: Threats against the life of the President of the U.S., if they were no more than "political hyperbole," are protected by the First Amendment.
· Skip 1
· 1971 Cohen v. California: Convicting an anti-war protester of disturbing the peace for wearing a jacket that bore the words, "F**k the draft," was unconstitutional. The government cannot prohibit speech just because it is "offensive."
· 1971 Organization for Better Austin v. Keefe: An injunction against the distribution of leaflets in an entire residential suburb was struck down on the grounds that the privacy interests of the residents did not justify such a sweeping restraint.
· 1971 U.S. v. New York Times: Enjoining the press from publishing the Pentagon Papers, leaked by a former Defense Department official, was an unconstitutional prior restraint which was not justified by national security interests.
· Skip 12
· 1976 Buckley v. Valeo: This challenge to the limits on campaign spending imposed by amendments to the Federal Elections Campaign Act represented a partial victory for free speech, as the Court struck down the Act's restrictions on spending "relative to a candidate."
· 1977 Wooley v. Maynard: A New Hampshire law that prohibited a Jehovah's Witness from covering up the license plate slogan "Live Free or Die" was invalidated by the Court as a denial of the "right not to speak."
· 1978 Smith v. Collin: A Nazi group wanted to march through a Chicago suburb, Skokie, where many Holocaust survivors lived. The ACLU's controversial challenge to the village's ban on the march was ultimately successful. In re Primus An ACLU cooperating attorney had been reprimanded for "improper solicitation" by the state supreme court for encouraging poor women to challenge the state's sterilization of welfare recipients. The Court distinguished between lawyers who solicit ""for pecuniary gain"" and those who do so to "further political and ideological goals through associational activity."
· 1980 Prune Yard Shopping Center v. Robins: Shopping mall owners appealed a California state court ruling that a shopping center allow distribution of political pamphlets on its premises. The Court rejected the owners' property rights claim, and ruled that a mall was comparable to streets and sidewalks.
· 1982 Board of Education, Island Trees School District v. Pico: Students successfully sued their school board on First Amendment grounds for removing certain "objectionable books" from the school library. While acknowledging a school's right to remove material that was "pervasively vulgar" or "educationally unsuitable," the Court held that in this case, the students' First Amendment "right to know" had been violated.
· Skip 3
· 1989 Texas v. Johnson: In invalidating the Texas flag desecration statute, the Court provoked President Bush to propose a federal ban on flag burning or mutilation. Congress swiftly obliged, but the Court struck down that law a year later in United States v. Eichman - in which the ACLU also filed a brief.
· Skip 1
· 1992 R.A.V. v. Wisconsin (actually R.A.V. v. ST. PAUL): A unanimous Court struck down as overly broad a local law banning the display, on public or private property, of any symbol "that arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender."
· Skip 1
· 1992 Lee v. Weisman: The inclusion of a prayer at the beginning of a public high school graduation ceremony violated the Establishment Clause..
· Skip 3
· 1993 Wisconsin v. Mitchell: Wisconsin's "hate crime" statute, providing for additional criminal penalties if a jury found that a defendant "intentionally selected" a victim based on "race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry, "did not violate the First Amendment because the statute punished acts, not thoughts or speech".
· 1994 Ladue v. Gilleo: A Missouri town's ordinance that barred a homeowner from posting a sign in her bedroom window that said, "Say No to War in the Gulf - Call Congress Now!" was deemed to violate the First Amendment.
· 1995 Lebron v. Amtrak: An artist argued successfully that Amtrak had been wrong to reject his billboard display because of its political message. The Court extended the First Amendment to corporations created by, and under the control of, the government.
· 1995 McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission: A state prohibition against the anonymous distribution of political campaign literature violated the right to anonymous free speech.
· 1995 Capitol Square Review Board v. Pinette: Upheld the right of the KKK to put up a cross in an area in front of the Ohio State Capitol building that was a traditional public forum used by many other groups, rejecting Ohio's argument that allowing the display violated the separation of church and state.
· Skip 2
· 1996 Board of Commissioners v. Umbehr: Government contractors cannot be subjected to reprisals, such as the loss of a contract, for expressing their political views.
· 1997 Reno v. ACLU: The Court struck down Congress' Communications Decency Act, which was an attempt to censor the Internet by banning "indecent" speech, ruling that "the interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship."
· Final 5 (looks like ACLU only listed 99)
Note: some of the links below take one to a findlaw.com site. If you access the site more than a few times per browser session, you will have to register. It's free and seems to be something of a standard on the web.
Selected Supreme Court Free Speech cases, from 1925 through 1999, listed on the ACLU's 100 Greatest Hits webpage
Leading dates are the date of the Court's decision
(addi) = Additional Information
(arwp) = ACLU Reference Web Page
(sco) = Supreme Court Opinions
(toa) = Transcript of Oral Arguments
1925-06-08 Does the 1st Amendment (free speech) apply to the States? Yes, via the 14th Amendment
Gitlow v. New York, 268 U. S. 652 (1925) Argued April 12, 1923 #19, reargued Nov. 23, 1923, by Walter Nelles and Walter H. Pollak for Petitioner. And W.J. Weatherbee, Deputy AG of New York, and John Caldwell Myers, ADA of New York County for Respondent. Decided June 8, 1925.
1938-03-28 Requiring written permission before distributing literature violates the 1st Amendment.
Lovell v. City of
1949-05-16 The Court held that even speech that is designed to stir up and provoke disputes is protected by the First Amendment
(ACLU - brought suit) Terminiello v.
1977-04-20 Creating the "Right Not To Speak"
(ACLU - brought suit) Wooley v. Maynard, 430
(sco) (oa) (addi) (addi) (addi)
1978-10-16 Supreme Court let stand ruling that allows the Nazis to march in Skokie IL
Smith v. Collin , 439
1992-06-22 R.A.V. v. ST. PAUL; A St. Paul city ordinance banning all public displays of symbols that arouse anger on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, or gender was found invalid under the 1st Amendment.
(ACLU - brought suit) R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992). Argued December 4, 1991 #90-7675 by Edward J. Cleary for Petitioner. And Tom Foley for Respondent. Decided June 22, 1992. Certiorari ... Supreme Court of
1992-06-24 The inclusion of a prayer at the beginning of a public middle school graduation ceremony violated the Establishment Clause.
(ACLU - brief only) Lee v. Weisman, 505
1993-06-11 Wisconsin's hate crime status doesn't violate 1st Amendment because it punishes acts, not thoughts or speech.
(ACLU - ?) Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993). Argued April 21, 1993 #92-515 by Lynn S. Adelman for Respondent. And James E. Doyle for Petitioner. Decided June 11, 1993. Certiorari ... Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
1997-06-26 Affirming lower court decision that the federal Communications Decency Act (CDA) is an unconstitutional restriction on free speech.
(ACLU - filed suit) Reno, US Attorney General, et al. v. ACLU et al. 521 U. S. 844 (1997) Argued March 19, 1997 #96-511 by Seth P. Waxman, Esq., Deputy Solicitor General, DOJ on behalf of the Appellants. And Bruce J. Ennis Esq.,
Supreme Court Free Speech cases, since 1997, listed on the ACLU's Press Releases web pages
(ab) = ACLU Brief
(addi) Additional Information
(arwp) = ACLU Reference Web Page
(sco) = Supreme Court Opinions
(toa) = Transcript of Oral Arguments
Leading dates are the date of the Supreme Court's decision; also the ACLU Press Release date.
2000-03-22 WASHINGTON, DC -- Supreme Court ruled today that public colleges and universities can use mandatory student fees to fund campus groups that engage in speech that some students may find objectionable.
(ACLU - brief only) Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Scott Harold Southworth et al 529 U.S. 217 (2000). Argued November 9, 1999 #98-1189, by Paul D. Clement, Esq., Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice,
2001-05-21 NEW YORK--The Supreme Court ruled saying that a radio station cannot be sued for airing a cell phone conversation that addresses matters of public concern but was illegally taped by a third party.
(ACLU - brief only) Bartnicki et al. v. Vopper, aka Williams, et al. 532 U. S. 514 (2001), No. 99--1687 (with No. 99--1728). Argued December 5, 2000 - Decided May 21, 2001 [list of these lawyers can be found on the (toa) below] Certiorari ... third circuit
2002-04-16 NEW YORK --The U.S.
(ACLU - brief only) Ashcroft, Attorney General, et al. v. Free Speech Coalition et al. 535 U.S. 234 (2002). Argued October 30, 2001 #00-795 by Paul D. Clement, Esq., Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice,
(arwp) (ab) (toa) (sco) (addi)
2003-06-23 NEW YORK - ACLU disappointed in ruling on Internet censorship in libraries, but sees limited impact for adults.
(ACLU - litigated) United States et al. v. American Library Association, Inc. et al. 539 U.S. 99999999 (2003). Argued March 5, 2003 #02-361 by Theodore B. Olson Esq., Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington D.D.; on behalf of the Petitioners. And Paul M. Smith Esq., Washington D.C on behalf of the Respondents. Decided June 23, 2003. Appeal ... Eastern District Court of PA. Consolidated with U.S. v. Multnomah County Library et al.
2003-06-23 SALT LAKE CITY - The Supreme Court rejects Utah Church Main Street
[ACLU - litigated US District (of
2003-10-14 NEW YORK
(ACLU - litigant) Walters v. Conant No. 03-40 (formerly Conant v. McCaffrey). Ninth Circuit hearing by Graham Boyd, Director of the ACLU's Drug Policy Litigation Project. A Reply Brief For the petitioner from the Supreme Court. The 9th Circuit ruling.
2003-12-10 WASHINGTON -- The ACLU today criticized the Supreme Court's decision upholding much of McCain-Feingold; an unprecedented restriction on core political speech.
(ACLU - litigant) Senator Mitch McConnell v. Federal Election Comm'n, 540 U. S. 93 (2003). Argued September 8, 2003 #02-1674 by ?. And . Decided December 10, 2003. Appeal ... District of Columbia Court. No. 02-1734, American Civil Liberties Union v. Federal Election Commission et al
2004-04-26 WASNINGTON - Supreme Court lets ban on coerced Prayer at Virginia Military Institute stand.
(ACLU - litigant) Mellen v. Bunting, 327 F.3d 355 (4th Cir. 2003). Amicus Curiae to the Supreme Court, Docket # 03-863 in support of VMI. Fourth Circuit Court's Opinion; Decided on April 28, 2003. Amicus Curiae to the United Stated Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in support of VMI, No. 02-1215 and 02-1267. Note: ACLU prosecuted as a Religions Liberty issue, not speech.
2004-06-29 NEW YORK
(ACLU - brought suit) Ashcroft Attorney General v. American Civil Liberties Union et al., 542 U. S. 656 (2004). Argued March 2, 2004 #03-218 by Gen. Theodore B. Olson, Esq., Solicitor General, DOJ on behalf of the Petitioner. And Ann E. Beeson Esq., New York ACLU Associate Legal Director, on behalf of the Respondents. Ashcroft's Brief. Decided June 29, 2004. Certiorari ... Third Circuit.
2005-03-29 NEW YORK
(ACLU - briefs only) Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545
2005-06-27 WASHINGTON
(ACLU - brought suit) McCreary County, Kentucky, et al. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky et al. 545 U.S. 844 (2005). Argued March 2, 2005 #03-1693 by Matthew D. Staver on behalf of Petitioner. And, David A. Friedman, General Counsel for the ACLU of
Here again the ACLU did not defend the First Amendment's free speech clause when applied to the Ten Commandments. Rather they attacked the display because it infringed on "Religious Liberty". Specifically, the religious liberty of not having to experience a religious message! Or, as they put it:
People [are] made to feel like outsiders [by] the prevailing religious view.
2006-06-26 WASHINGTON - Supreme Court affirms ACLU position that Vermont
(ACLU - litigant) Randall et al. v. Sorrell et al. Nos. 04-1528, 04-1530 and 04-1697. Argued February 28, 2006--Decided June 26, 2006. Certiorari ... Second Circuit. This was a tough case; the Court issued 6 opinions!
(arwp) (ab) (toa) (sco) (addi) (addi)
2007-06-25 WASHINGTON - ACLU slams Supreme Court decision in student free speech (Bong Hits 4 Jesus) case.
(ACLU - brought suit?) Morse et al. v.
(arwp) (tao) (sco) (addi) (addi)
The Court upheld the suspension of a high school student who held up a banner with the words "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" as the Olympic Torch Relay passed by his high school in
The Court's record on free speech issues was a mixed one ... the Court in effect created a drug exception to student free speech rights. However, the Court stopped short of endorsing the
Here they object to (or, in their own, strong words, "Slam") the Court for creating an exception to free speech. Yet, they celebrate the Court's creation of the Hate Crime speech exception. And they insist upon a Christian speech exception.
Glossary Words I looked up at Merriam-Webster Online while working on this document
Main Entry: amicus cu·ri·ae
Pronunciation: -'kyur-E-"I, -'kur-, -i-"E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural amici curiae
Etymology: New Latin, literally, friend of the court
: one (as a professional person or organization) that is not a party to a particular litigation but that is permitted by the court to advise it in respect to some matter of law that directly affects the case in question.
[This 'friend of the court' has an important interest in how the court rules, so they ask for permission to write a "Brief" paper on what they think the court should do and have it reviewed by the court before they rule.]
Main Entry: bam·boo·zle
Pronunciation: \bam-ˈbü-zəl\
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: origin unknown
Date: 1703
1 : to deceive by underhanded methods : dupe, hoodwink
Main Entry: cer·tio·ra·ri
Pronunciation: \ˌsər-sh(ē-)ə-ˈrer-ē, -ˈrär-ē, -ˈra-rē\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin, literally, to be informed; from the use of the word in the writ Date: 15th century
: a writ of superior court to call up the records of an inferior court or a body acting in a quasi-judicial capacity.
[A petitioner asks the Supreme Court to 'take up' a case a lower court has decided, by asking that a "writ of certiorari" to be issued to the lower court, i.e. asking the Supreme Court to 'call up' the records of the lower court's proceedings for review.]
Main Entry: char·ac·ter
Pronunciation: 'ker-ik-t&r, 'ka-rik-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English caracter, from Latin character mark, distinctive quality, from Greek charaktEr, from charassein to scratch, engrave; perhaps akin to Lithuanian zerti to scratch
2 a : one of the attributes or features that make up and distinguish an individual b (1) : a feature used to separate distinguishable things into categories; also : a group or kind so separated <advertising of a very primitive character> (2) : the detectable expression of the action of a gene or group of genes (3) : the aggregate of distinctive qualities characteristic of a breed, strain, or type <a wine of great character> c : the complex of mental and ethical traits marking and often individualizing a person, group, or nation <the character of the American people> d : main or essential nature especially as strongly marked and serving to distinguish <excess sewage gradually changed the character of the lake>
Main Entry: char·ac·ter·is·tic
Pronunciation: "ker-ik-t&-'ris-tik, "ka-rik-
Function: noun
1 : a distinguishing trait, quality, or property
Main Entry: char·ac·ter·ize
Pronunciation: 'ker-ik-t&-"rIz, 'ka-rik-
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -ized; -iz·ing
1 : to describe the character or quality of <characterizes him as ambitious>
2 : to be a characteristic of : DISTINGUISH <an era characterized by greed>
Main Entry: clap·trap
Pronunciation: 'klap-"trap
Function: noun
Etymology: 2clap; from its attempt to win applause : pretentious nonsense : TRASH
Main Entry: cul·ture
Pronunciation: 'k&l-ch&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, cultivated land, cultivation, from Anglo-French, from Latin cultura, from cultus, past participle
5 a : the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations b : the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group; also : the characteristic features of everyday existence (as diversions or a way of life) shared by people in a place or time <popular culture> <southern culture >
Main Entry: dis·sem·ble
Pronunciation: di-'sem-b&l
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): dis·sem·bled; dis·sem·bling /-b(&-)li[ng]/
Etymology: Middle English dissymblen, alteration of dissimulen, from Middle French dissimuler, from Latin dissimulare -- more at DISSIMULATE
transitive verb
1 : to hide under a false appearance
Main Entry: enu·mer·ate
Pronunciation: i-'n(y)ü-m&-"rAt
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Latin enumeratus, past participle of enumerare, from e- + numerare to count, from numerus number
2 : to specify one after another : LIST
Main Entry: in·ci·dent
Pronunciation: 'in(t)-s&-d&nt, -"dent
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Medieval Latin incident-, incidens, from Latin, present participle of incidere to fall into, from in- + cadere to fall
2 a : an occurrence of an action or situation that is a separate unit of experience.
Pronunciation: \in-ˈrā, -ˈrē\
Function: preposition
Etymology: Latin
Date: 1877
: in the matter of : CONCERNING, RE --often used in the title or name of a law case
Main Entry: rhet·o·ric
Pronunciation: 're-t&-rik
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English rethorik, from Anglo-French rethorique, from Latin rhetorica, from Greek rhEtorikE, literally, art of oratory, from feminine of rhEtorikos of an orator, from rhEtOr orator, rhetorician, from eirein to say, speak -- more at WORD
2 a : skill in the effective use of speech b : a type or mode of language or speech; also : insincere or grandiloquent language
Main Entry: sanc-tion
Function: transitive verb
1 : to make valid or binding usually by a formal procedure (as ratification)
2 : to give effective or authoritative approval or consent to
synonym see APPROVE
Main Entry: she·nan·i·gan
Pronunciation: sh&-'na-ni-g&n
Function: noun
Etymology: origin unknown
1 : a devious trick used especially for an underhand purpose.
Main Entry: soph·ism
Pronunciation: 'sä-"fi-z&m
Function: noun
1 : an argument apparently correct in form but actually invalid; especially : such an argument used to deceive
Main Entry: soph·ist·ry
Pronunciation: 'sä-f&-strE
Function: noun
1 : subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation
Web Resources
ACLU American Civil Liberties
ACLU Religion and Belief home page
ACLU Monitor Keeping an eye on
Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) Defending our First
American Bar Association Defending
Belief Net Inspiration. Spirituality. Faith.
Boston College Freedom of Speech in the
The Cato Institute Individual Liberty, Limited Govt., Free Markets and Peace
CFIF
Citation Finder for the
Cornell University Law School "lawyers in the best sense"
Democracy21 Making democracy work for all Americans.
Dept. of Justice Handling the legal business of the United States.
Drug Policy Alliance Alternatives to the Drug War
Duke Law & Technology Review legal intersection of law and technology
Electronic Frontier Foundation Defending Freedom in the Digital World
Electronic Privacy Information Center A
Exploring Constitutional Law hosted by Doug Linder, Univ. of Missouri-Kansas
FECWatch Federal Election Committee
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
FindLaw for the Public
First Amendment Center preserve and protect 1st Amendment
Free Speech Coalition on the frontline against censorship
Freedom Forum Free Press. Free Speech. Free Spirit.
Freedom From Religion Foundation Protecting the separation of State and Church
Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy
Jews On First Defending the 1st Amendment against the Christian Right
Journal of Law & Education
Justia US Supreme Court Center
Measuring Worth A service for calculate relative worth over time
Merriam-Webster Online An abridged dictionary
National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools It's coming back ...
NVRI National Voting Rights Institute
OYEZ U.S. Supreme Court Media (has audio recordings of arguments)
Purdue University ΠΣΑ Students of Government Honor Society
Stop the ACLU.com Beating Then With Their Own Sickle and Hammer
Stop the ACLU Coalition.org Fight the ACLU with everything, except litigation
Street Law A course in practical law
The Supreme Court of the
Townhall Where your opinion counts
US Court of Appeals 1st Circuit
US Court of Appeals 2nd Circuit
US Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit
US Court of Appeals 4th Circuit
US Court of Appeals 5th Circuit
US Court of Appeals 6th Circuit
US Court of Appeals 7th Circuit
US Court of Appeals 8th Circuit
US Court of Appeals 9th Circuit
US Court of Appeals 10th Circuit
US Court of Appeals 11th Circuit
US Politics Today A non-partisan news service for political professionals
United Stated District Court for Utah for the District of Utah
RELIGION AND BELIEF : LIST ALL
The Press Releases listed below can be found by going to the ACLU.org home page, dropping-down the Issues menu on the right, and selecting "Religion and Belief". A short way down this page is the first press release. Immediately above it, select "VIEW ALL" from the right side of the grey bar. This presents a list of 100+ press releases, sorted by descending release date.
The titles of the releases below are taken verbatim from the ACLU pages. The number in parentheses before the title is the releases' position ACLU's list.
The press releases listed below have been grouped by Court Case, and then these groups are grouped by Issue Area, both sorted by descending release date.
I. ACLU Confusion re: Religion, History, Tradition and Culture Cases.
Although it took them decades, the ACLU has, via the Supreme Court again, successfully defined the word "religion" for American Jurisprudence; a thing is religion if there is anything remotely religious about it, or in some cases it is religion if an appropriate party declares it to be so. For example, in the case of the Ten Commandments, there is certainly something religious about it, ergo it is religion in the eyes of the law. There is also most certainly something historic about it, as it was first recorded thousands of years ago and has figured prominently in Western history since then. There is also something traditional about it, as generations have handed it down as a behavior guide. There is also something cultural about it - as there is about everything both historical and traditional - by definition. Quite obviously, there are many aspects to the Ten Commandments, yet our law requires that we view any and all such things as religion, while at the same time prohibiting the consideration of any and all other aspects. Why?
The law pretty much deals with particular events occurring in an enveloping context. It is the context of the event that usually determines what law is applied and how. . In the life of a typical person many multi-faceted things come up, and a typical person can pretty much tell which aspect/s has come up by the context of the experience. So, when it comes to some multi-faceted thing which has a religion facet, why does the ACLU need to control, by law, which facet is considered? The short answer is that they need to prevent the consideration of all the other facets. I. E. If some other facet of the thing is considered, some other part of the law will be applied and the religious facet would be ignored as irrelevant. The ACLU needs to select the one facet to be considered in advance of any actual event, in order to prevent the law from considering the context of the event, which could direct them somewhere else in the law. The ACLU needs these events to be treated as religion because there is a very small part of the law which
Bible Case, ACLU v. North Carolina
· (4) ACLU of
· (18)
· (64) ACLU Files Lawsuit Challenging Religious Discrimination by
· (67) ACLU Urges
Cases Regarding Cross on Mt. Soledad
· (30) ACLU Represents Jewish War Veterans and San Diego Residents in Effort to Relocate Mt. Soledad Memorial (08/24/2006)
· (161) High Court Rebuffs San Diego's Latest Attempt to Manipulate Sale of Cross on Public Lands (04/21/2003) SAN DIEGO