Supremes reinforce secularization in government school programs
The U.S. Supreme Court banned the first amendment from government schools Oct. 4. In its refusal to hear an appeal of Stratechuk v. Board of Education, South Orange-Maplewood School District, the high court upheld a ruling that religious songs have no place in public school holiday performances.
School programs may include non-holiday religious music, and holiday religious music may be taught in classrooms.
Michael Stratechuk, the father of two in the school district, claimed the district’s action deprived his children of their rights under the Establishment Clause: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
The test used by the District Court in analyzing the Establishment Clause was the Lemon test. This test has its origins in the Supreme Court 1971 case, Lemon v. Kurtzman. The three prongs of the test address whether the government’s action lacks a secular purpose, whether the government action has the principal or primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, and whether the government action involves an excessive entanglement with religion. If any of these prongs are satisfied, the government action violates the Establishment Clause.
Stratechuk’s attorney, Robert Muise of the Thomas More Law Center, claimed the school district was “disapproving…
What the GOP Pledge Reflects and Why We Need To Stand By It
When the Pledge to America was first announced, it immediately met backlash from the other side of the aisle. President Obama began a tour dedicated specifically to breaking down the plan’s items one by one. While to many political strategists, this response may be seen as politics as usual, there are many holes in the argument that show his plans and the plans of his liberal followers may be sinking their own ship.
Does pain dictate the life of an Unborn Child?
How many realize a small unborn child is life, but if she/he feels no pain it would be ‘OK’ to abort? When does a preborn infant feel pain? In the early 17th century people felt that it had to see the light of day first. Modern gynecology has already dispelled that.
Abortion Options: Limit Lifetime, Restrict Childbearing, and/or Suffer
If you opt for an abortion, you opt for restrictions on your life including death. That doesn’t sound like ‘empowering’ the woman, but weakening her, limiting her choices, and forcing her to be subservient to the whims of society. Of course, it doesn’t include putting a human to death. One that already has every chromosome in place that includes hair color, intelligence, gender, and all attributes. Read more
With Kagan’s Nomination, We Get A Lifetime Obama
The bottom line, however you want to look at it, to Obama’s selection for Supreme Court is the choice’s reasoning is for his power only. Not only is Kagan not a correct choice for the nation but for the court as well; especially in this time of war and fiscal challenge.
No matter who it is, everyone you will speak to about Kagan has their own ideas of her but the one thing that stands out within everyone’s response is clear: “No experience in the judicial chambers.” Although many follow that up with other previous members of the Supreme Court and their glowing background as justices, it is not just the experience but what comes along with it that we should be just as concerned with. It is the timing of her arrival.
A Vote for Kagan Is a Vote to Take Away Your Guns
By John Lott
As the number of President Obama’s judicial appointments and nominations continues to grow, it appears pretty clear that he does not care about the individual’s right to self-defense. We can tell this by looking at the record of his two Supreme Court picks but also by examining the long list of lower-level judicial appointments. All of these reflect a pattern of favoring person who have written anti-gun opinions.
Elena Kagan, Obama’s newest Supreme Court nominee, fits this mold. The Supreme Court has only been very narrowly supportive of an individual’s right to bear arms. For example, there was the 5-4 vote in the Heller decision when it struck down Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban in 2008 and a similar 5-4 vote in on Monday in the decision to strike down Chicago’s ban in “McDonald.”
In the future, Kagan’s opinion could be crucial: If Justice Kennedy or one of the four more conservative members of the court were to retire or die, her vote could easily tip the balance on gun rights.
Read more
A few ‘vapid’ questions for Elena Kagan
By George F. Will
Given Elena Kagan’s aversion to “vapid and hollow” confirmation hearings devoid of “legal analysis,” beginning Monday she might relish answering these questions:
– It would be naughty to ask you about litigation heading for the Supreme Court concerning this: Does Congress have the right, under its enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce, to punish the inactivity of not purchasing health insurance? So, instead answer this harmless hypothetical: If Congress decides that interstate commerce is substantially affected by the costs of obesity, may Congress require obese people to purchase participation in programs such as Weight Watchers? If not, why not?
– The government having decided that Chrysler’s survival is an urgent national necessity, could it decide that “Cash for Clunkers” is too indirect a subsidy and instead mandate that people buy Chrysler products?
– If Congress concludes that ignorance has a substantial impact on interstate commerce, can it constitutionally require students to do three hours of homework nightly? If not, why not?
– Can you name a human endeavor that Congress cannot regulate on the pretense that the endeavor affects interstate commerce? If courts reflexively defer to that congressional pretense, in what sense do we have limited government? Read more
Judges, the Constitution & Gun Control Laws
By Thomas Sowell
Now that the Supreme Court of the United States has decided that the Second Amendment to the Constitution means that individual Americans have a right to bear arms, what can we expect?
Those who have no confidence in ordinary Americans may expect a bloodbath, as the benighted masses start shooting each other, now that they can no longer be denied guns by their betters. People who think we shouldn’t be allowed to make our own medical decisions, or decisions about which schools our children attend, certainly are not likely to be happy with the idea that we can make our own decisions about how to defend ourselves.
When you stop and think about it, there is no obvious reason why issues like gun control should be ideological issues in the first place. It is ultimately an empirical question whether allowing ordinary citizens to have firearms will increase or decrease the amount of violence. Read more
