Thou Shalt Not?

University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender and Class, Vol. 6, pp. 439-90, 2006

Posted: 12 Jul 2007

See all articles by Mark Strasser

Mark Strasser

Capital University - Law School

Abstract

In Van Orden v. Perry and McCreary County v. ACLU, the Court handed down two decisions concerning Ten Commandments displays. One might have hoped that the Court would have clarified the jurisprudence when upholding the constitutionality of one display and striking down the other as a violation of constitutional guarantees. Regrettably, the Court only made a confusing jurisprudence more confusing - members of the Court could neither agree about which test to use in such cases nor how the relevant tests should be applied. This article examines Establishment Clause jurisprudence with a specific focus on Ten Commandments displays, concluding that the Court has squandered a golden opportunity to clarify the relevant jurisprudence. One can only hope that the Court will take the next opportunity to offer a considered and workable approach to Establishment Clause issues rather than illustrate some of the evils that the Establishment Clause was designed to prevent.

Keywords: 10 Commandments, Establishment Clause, coercion, Lemon, Marsh, endorsement

JEL Classification: K10

Suggested Citation

Strasser, Mark, Thou Shalt Not?. University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender and Class, Vol. 6, pp. 439-90, 2006, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1000030

Mark Strasser (Contact Author)

Capital University - Law School ( email )

303 E. Broad St.
Columbus, OH 43215-3200
United States
614-236-6686 (Phone)
614-236-6956 (Fax)

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
483
PlumX Metrics