1. The 1st amendment is multifaceted. An important distinction is between the Establishment clause and the free exericise clause. Visit http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt1toc_user.html and read the overview as well as a self selection of cases. Describe the rulings in your 2 cases and why they are important.
2. So what exactly is the Courts stand on flag salutes? Read http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt1bfrag7_user.html#pg1053 and detail the grounds for the current laws on flag salutes.
3. Lastly, you can express yourself any way you'd like--except, when you can't! Look at http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt1dfrag4_user.html#amdt1d_hd14 and detail the exceptions and the protections against speech. What cases do you think the Court ruled incorrectly? Remember, its not enough to say---because I said so!
Final comment--you'll be flying back & forth from link to link remember--log in and also open a word document to save your writing.
Good luck and DHS cares!
1. First off im gonna say that this first thing doesn’t make any sense… I cant make anything out of the court cases so im just gonna wing it. Basically in Wallace v. Jaffree the state ruled that you’re allowed to have a “silent reflection” period in school where students can choose to pray, meditate, reflect, or whatever they choose. This is important because its giving students there 1st amendment right but its also bordering on the separation of church and state thing so as long as schools keep it as “silent meditation or reflection” its all good. When they start to say “silent prayer” is when its wrong. And in Abington School District of Pennsylvania v. Schempp it was decided that because of the 1st amendment stating “respecting an establishment of religion” reading from the bible or reciting the Lord’s prayer at the beginning of the school day is illegal because it does not allow for other religions and is therefore not respecting everyones right to free religion.
ReplyDelete2. I think its saying that schools have the power to expel students who don’t pledge the flag but the state has to prove that the student not pledging is causing clear and present danger? I have no clue but in our school im pretty sure you can pledge the flag if you want and you can also choose no to pledge. You just cant be disrespectful to students who choose to pledge.
3. It sounds like to me that under the first amendment you have the right to free speech but the government feels that in certain cases a persons freedom may be controlled if it has “clear and present danger.” And I don’t think the court was wrong in any of the cases in the article.
- Dakota
Amanda
ReplyDelete1.
The cases I looked up were both under the headline “Governmental Encouragement of Religion in Public Schools: Prayers and Bible Reading.” The first case I chose was Wallace v. Jaffree. I chose this case because it almost reminded me of the moment of silence we are required to have each morning at Dover. Basically in this case the Court said that an Alabama law which authorized a one-minute period of silence for “prayer or meditation” was unconstitutional. The Court said it violated the Lemon test because it was trying to return prayers to public schools. However, Justices Powell and O’Connor said that some statues regarding moments of silence could be Constitutional.
The second case I chose was called Lee v. Weisman. This case debated whether or not a prayer at the beginning of a high school commencement ceremony violated the Establishment Clause. The Court decided the Establishment Clause “guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise.” The Court also ruled that the option of not attending was “no real choice.”
These two cases are important because they both established important legal precedents regarding prayers in schools and at school sponsored functions.
2. I’m going to be honest here, I didn’t really understand a word they said, but this is what I got out of it. You can’t expel Jehovah’s Witnesses anymore because they don’t want to salute the flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Also, apparently if you remain passive during the ritual you present a “clear and present danger.” I didn’t really get it Hoover, sorry.
3. The main exceptions to the First Amendment are that you can’t say obscene things in certain circumstances and you can’t say things that present a “clear and present danger.” Also, you cant slander or libel (can I use that as a verb?) someone. I have to agree with Dakota that I think the Court ruled correctly in all the cases.
1. I was a little confused as to which heading I was suppose to click on..none of them made sense to me. I don't have an opinion on them, because I didn't fully understand them. I interpreted them the best I could and wrote something.
ReplyDeleteMy court cases dealt with the Freedom of Belief. The first court case, dealt with freedom of belief, West Virgina State. Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette. In the first amendment it does not speak of liberty in terms of choosing ones own beliefs, but later in the religion and the expression clause it says liberty of belief is the foundation of liberty to practice what religion one chooses. This brought along this case, which dealt with public schools saluting to the flag and saying the pledge of allegiance. By doing those two acts, it violates the first and fourteenth amendments. The federal Constitution did not feel these acts were a means of achieving "national unity." But evens still, children were permitted by schools to comply, and those who refused were subject to punishment. Therefore, the West Virgina Board of Education required children in public schools to salute the American flag.
The second court case, went right along with the first, Cantwell v. Connecticut. Speaking in context of religious freedom, the Court at one point said that while the freedom to act one's beliefs could be limited, the freedom to believe what one will is absolute. Basically, this court case was saying that believing what you want is fine, until you act upon it and solicit your belief.
2. The information is all very contradicting, but going along with what Dakota said, I thought in our school for example, if you didn't want to say the pledge of allegiance, you have the right not to. Those who choose not to pledge just have to show respect to those who still do. Although, like in my first court case, it states that schools do have the power to punish those students who don't pledge to the flag, as long as the can prove it is presenting a clear danger. So, I guess maybe it's saying that if a student doesn't say the pledge, but makes fun of the people who pledge, they will be punished. The student is allowed to practice his/her own beliefs, only if they don't discriminate against the majority belief, saying the pledge of allegiance.
3. I think it was saying that you have the right of freedom of speech, but only under certain circumstances. You can't say things that present a clear danger and you can't use slander or libel. If a person does, there freedoms are allowed to be controlled. With what I understand from the cases, I feel like the courts rulings were correct.
The first case i read was Watson v. Jones. This case said that about the churches. They have to like find out about the churches b4 they can make a ruling. This is important so that the churches have a fair chance and don't get ruled something unlawfully or whatever. The next case i read was the Wallace v. Jaffree and this was about have a moment of silent reflecttion or prayer. they didn't like that it said prayer but its okay since not forcing kids to have prayer. They can reflect, pray, or just stand there. So it works for everyone. Its good so that not forcing anyone to do anything and stil gives them thier rights.
ReplyDelete2.Right now the courts can't make anyone say the pledge or anything, even though some places think they should have to. They can't make you and they think its okay not to. They can't really punish you unless your being like a threat or danger by not.
3.You can't say things that could put people in danger like yelling fire when there's not. You can't say untrue things like slander and whatnot. You also can't say obscene things. I think that the courts did good in thier rulings.
1. In 1899 during the Bradfield vs. Roberts case, the court ruled that giving federal grants to a religious affiliated hospital is not unconstitutional. The ruled that the hospital is not a religious or sectarian body, thus allowing money and aid to be given to these such hospitals. In the Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire case, the court ruled that “any offensive, derisive, or annoying word” and “words . . . [which] have a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person to whom, individually, the remark is addressed,” can be punished by the law. This case shows how freedom of speech can be limited.
ReplyDelete2. Basically, you do not need to salute the flag if a religion conflicts with it. The one in question cannot be expelled or fired. Also, the one in question cannot threaten anyone in his choice not to salute.
3. You can’t say something that will harm others, damages reputations, slander, or cause dangers. I thing the court ruled incorrectly on all cases that offending people is unconstitutional. Why? Because some people deserve it!
I’m going to use my freedom of speech here: Personally, I though the website was a terrible source of information. There were way too many quotes that segmented the idea of the paragraph and even the topic. The rulings for the cases were even difficult to find. And all the stupid foot notes are a pain in the neck (and yes I wanted to use a different word but I didn’t want to offend anybody, cause apparently that’s unconstitutional!)
1. I was very confused..but i think they are saying about having the silent reflection after the pledge of alligence. That originally it was called silent prayer but now you can just stand there and have silent reflection. it works both ways because you can choose to have a silent prayer or just stand there.
ReplyDelete2. I think the article is trying to say that every American has the right to decide if they want to pledge to the flag or not. its the individuals choice to decide to do that and no one can really say anything about theyre decision!
3. what the article is saying is that you can have freedom of speech but only under some certain circumstances. you can't say something that can cause someone danger or put people in harm.
I'm upset that you did not share my view of the AWESOMENESS of the Cornell site. I did enjoy Billet's commentary--stupid, stupid, stupid. The NICE thing about the site is that it gives you a one stop shop for the cases. That said---its a law school and you are 11th grade. Maybe in 6 years it will..... ok, it will still be what it is.
ReplyDeleteRemember---DHS cares
1. ok so basically is the case of Wallace v. Jaffree the state said that you arent allowed to have a silent prayer is public school but you are allowed to hava a silent reflection or meditation this gives the chiledren and teachers a time to reflect meditate pray or opt out completely and just sit there. the reflection gives everyone there right to there 1st amendment but if it where prayer thats wrong because it doesnt seperate church and state. in the case of Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire it said that if person A calls person B something that affends person B then person A may get in trouble with the law.
ReplyDelete2. its saying that schools can expel you for not pleging to the flag but there are all of these rules so you cant just be expeled for it on the stop you have to pose a threat ? but i dont know how someone can pose a threat by not pleaging ... i just think it is direspectful to out country and out troops not to pleage.
3. the article is saying how you have the freedom of speech but to an extent like if you say im going to shoot the president that would be bad so dont say that. and im sure that i could find something that the courts were wrong about but its the super bowl and i dont wanna look to deep into it
oh and hoover why do you always say remember DHS cares???
Levi
Because---it's my saying...and DHS does care--so much that it has a 2 hour delay
ReplyDeleteOk so here's what I got...
ReplyDelete1. basically your civil rights cannot be taken away because of your religion or your worship choices. Congress cnnot establish or fvor one religion over another. However the religious choices are closely connected with the state. the two cases I saw were Walz v. Tax Commision of NY which the court ruled that tax exemptions cannot be given to places of worship...they get money taken away like the rest of us. The second one was Windmar v. Vincent where the court ruled that in the University the speech should remain content neutrl when it comes to religion... I guess s to not offend people.
2. Schools were allowed to expel kids who werent' joining in the salute to the flag. Later it was changed to well, if you could prove that there was a clear and present danger then it's ok. I don't know about the rest of you guys, but when I see someone not saluting to te flag, I get a bit nervous...cause that means the terrorists win... I believe thats probably what Hoover would say bout the sitution haha.
3. Anything that is an exception to free speech needs justification, or it needs to be a clear and present danger basically... I'm not really sure what happened in most of the cases but I saw something about child pornogrphy and I definately thing all of that crap needs to be ruled against... that crap is just sickening and people who watch it NEED HELP!!!!
...Oh and if DHS really does care they would have let us off because the roads look awful... and of course no guy would work on superbowl sunday... :(
1. The first case I read was Braunfeld v. Brown where court ruled that the free exercise clause couldn’t exempt a Jewish merchant from a Sunday Closing Law just because he had religious practices on Saturday. The State wouldn’t be infringing on his freedom of religion under the First Amendment, they only made it more expensive for him to practice his religion because he had to close two days instead of one. The second case I read was Cantwell v. Connecticut where three Jehovah’s Witnesses were convicted under a law that forbid the unlicensed selling of funds for religious or charitable purposes and also under a charge of breaching peace. The solicitation charge was voided because it was an infringement on religion because the officer had to ask the applicant if there was a religious cause and decline a license if the cause wasn’t religious. The Court’s rulings are important because they make sure that the State won’t infringe on the religious freedom of individuals.
ReplyDelete2. The First Amendment allows a person to practice what religion that choose and express themselves how they want. The Court‘s ruling on a school expelling students for not pledging allegiance and salute of the flag is unconstitutional. The ground for the current law is on freedom of expression, not freedom of religion. The government can’t make a person declare a belief which is what a salute to the flag symbolizes.
3. We are granted freedom of expression under the First Amendment but the government can regulate expression in some instances such as child pornography and obscenity. One current area of discrepancy is non-obscene child pornography. Government can’t regulate speech because of its subject matter or content. I think that the court ruled correctly in all these cases.
Brittany H.
Hydeeee
ReplyDelete1. The first case I read was “Epperson v. Arkansas” under “Governmental Encouragement of Religion in Public Schools: Curriculum Restriction.” In this case, the court voided a law in Arkansas in which teachers were not allowed to “teach the theory or doctrine that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals.” The court agreed that this law was an attempt to rule out part of the theory of evolution because it conflicted with the Bible. This case was important because it flat out contradicts what the First Amendment states about not making laws that establish articles of faith.
The second case I read about was “Larkin v. Grendel‘s Den” under “Miscellaneous.” In this case, a state statute was under question in which any church would be permitted to block the issuance of a license to anyone or any establishment within 500 feet of the church or school. The court ruled against this statute because although the church had the authority of “veto,” they thought it was contradictory to the mandate of the Establishment Clause. Allowing this statute would create too much connection between governmental and religious functions. This case was important because it defends the establishment clause by denying a religious organization the authority to regulate establishments outside of said organization.
2. The “Flag Salute Cases” are saying that the government cannot force anyone to pledge to the flag. You used to be able to expel people from school, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, for refusing to pledge. The first amendment limit’s the policy of requiring people to believe and say the pledge. I’m not sure if I understood this completely, but it’s pretty much saying that if you don’t want to say the pledge, you don’t have to, as long as you remain “passive” during the ritual, because it creates a “clear and present danger.”
3. The government may not regulate speech, obviously. They have, however, oriented a regulation of expression. This means that some forms of expression are protected by the First Amendment, and other forms of expression are not protected whatsoever (such as defamation and obscenity.) I agree with Dakota, Amanda, etc. that the courts have ruled correctly in their cases.