Constitutional Law Writing Assignment Fall 2019: Explain How

Constitutional Lawwriting Assignmentfall 2019explain How If You Were

Explain how, if you were a justice on the Supreme Court, you would rule. Your ruling should take the form of an essay and set forth the following points in order: 1. A brief synopsis of the relevant facts; 2. A citation or reference to the specific portion of the Constitution that is relevant, if there is one, ideally with a direct quote from the Constitution; 3. A summary of the arguments for each side in this case; and 4. Your opinion in the matter; be sure to include citations or references to previous Supreme Court cases that support your decision, if any, and if you are aware of any cases that are contrary to your position, explain how and why they do not apply here.

Paper For Above instruction

The case concerns the constitutionality of a judge’s practices in a courtroom that involve religious expressions, specifically prayers led by clergy and the display of the Ten Commandments. Judge Favre's courtroom begins each day with a prayer read by a member of the clergy, which is non-denominational but primarily Christian, and features a replica of the Ten Commandments displayed behind the bench. The defendant, Roger Vinatonka, a non-Christian, alleges that these practices violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, which prohibits government establishments of religion, and the principle of separation of church and state.

The relevant constitutional provision is the First Amendment, which states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This clause has been interpreted over time to prevent government actions that endorse, favor, or promote religion over non-religion and to protect individuals’ rights to free exercise of their religious beliefs. Historically, the Supreme Court has clarified the boundaries of this clause in cases such as Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), which established the Lemon Test to assess whether government actions violate the Establishment Clause.

Advocates for the defendant, Vinatonka, argue that the prayers led by clergy and the prominent display of the Ten Commandments in a government courtroom constitute an endorsement of religion, thus violating the Establishment Clause. They argue that the prayers are Christian-centric, even if labeled non-denominational, and that they create a coercive environment where non-Christian defendants or observers might feel compelled to participate or feel excluded. The display of the Ten Commandments behind the judge’s bench further signals official endorsement of a particular religious tradition, which is contrary to the principles set out in Lynch v. Donnelly (1984) and Engel v. Vitale (1962), where government-sponsored religious symbols and prayer were found unconstitutional in public spaces.

The court, however, must also consider Judge Favre’s claims that such practices are rooted in tradition and serve to instill moral values based on religious principles shared by many Americans. On the other hand, supporters of the practices argue they violate the Establishment Clause because they endorse a specific religious viewpoint in a government setting, which is prohibited by Supreme Court precedent. The key issue is whether the practices constitute a government endorsement of religion, thereby infringing upon the constitutional rights of those who do not share the same beliefs.

If I were a Supreme Court justice ruling on this case, I would find that the practices of Judge Favre in his courtroom violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. First, the prayers, even if non-denominational, are led by clergy and resemble religious ceremonies that endorse particular religious beliefs, which the Court has consistently held to be unconstitutional in cases like Wallace v. Jaffree (1985). The Court emphasized that government-sponsored prayer, even if voluntary or initiated by individual officials, conveys support for religion, thus alienating non-adherents and violating the constitutional separation of church and state.

Furthermore, the display of the Ten Commandments behind the judge’s bench signifies official endorsement of a religious code, which the Supreme Court has previously found to be unconstitutional when it promotes a religious message in a governmental space, as established in Van Orden v. Perry (2005). Despite Judge Favre’s intention to use religious symbols to promote moral values, the Constitution requires a clear separation between government functions and religious endorsement, especially in criminal proceedings that must guarantee fairness and neutrality for all defendants regardless of their beliefs.

Supporting this interpretation are key precedents like Lemon v. Kurtzman, which sets out the Lemon Test: government action must have a secular purpose, neither advance nor inhibit religion, and must not entangle church and state excessively. The court in Lemon held that public prayer and religious symbols displayed by government entities violate these principles because they endorse particular religious views.

It is important to note that this ruling does not seek to diminish the importance of religious morality but aims to uphold the constitutional principle that government must remain neutral regarding religion. The Supreme Court has consistently held that religious expression in public institutions must be carefully circumscribed to prevent an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. For instance, in Lynch v. Donnelly (1984), the Court differentiated between a purely religious display and one with a secular purpose, but in this case, the religiosity of the prayer and the Ten Commandments display clearly cannot be justified as secular or inclusive.

In conclusion, the practices in Judge Favre’s courtroom, including daily prayer led by clergy and the display of religious symbols, impair the constitutional rights of non-religious individuals and violate the Establishment Clause. As a justice, I would therefore rule that these practices be discontinued, and the religious elements removed, to ensure that the courtroom remains a neutral space that upholds the constitutional protections of freedom of religion and separation of church and state. Ensuring a fair and unbiased legal process, devoid of religious endorsement, aligns with the foundational principles of the First Amendment and the precedent set by the Supreme Court.

References

• Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971).
• Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962).
• Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984).
• Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985).
• Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005).
• Locke v. Davey, 540 U.S. 712 (2004).
• Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983).
• Board of Education v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226 (1990).
• Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000).
• Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963).