FromWayDowntown
03-02-2005, 03:20 PM
This morning the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in two cases concerning the constitutionality of public displays of the Ten Commandments. One case involves a monument outside of the Texas Captial in Austin; the other involves a framed display inside a Kentucky courthouse. Both have been challenged on Establishment Clause grounds.
Interesting to read here (http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2005/03/ten_commandment.html#more) that according to those who heard the arguments, it appears from this morning's questions that the Court seems likely to decide the two cases differently, based on the factual distinctions between the displays, rather than articulating a clear rule to decide the issue. It would be similar to the fact-sensitive determinations the Court made in the mid-1980's in the "Creche cases," Lynch v. Donnelly and County of Allegheny v. ACLU, which involved the constitutionality of public Christmas displays.
It seems that the Texas monument will likely pass constitutional muster, likely because it has a historical genesis and is not overtly religious -- it is not intended to suggest that the Christian beliefs are the sole basis for governmental action. On the other hand, it seems that the Kentucky monument may be in question, because the County that erected the display expressly provided that the display was intended to show that "Jesus Christ was the Prince of Ethics." (for some reason, it strikes me as curious to use the Ten Commandments as proof if that was their intention).
They are interesting constitutional questions and might have some effects beyond these individual cases.
Interesting to read here (http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2005/03/ten_commandment.html#more) that according to those who heard the arguments, it appears from this morning's questions that the Court seems likely to decide the two cases differently, based on the factual distinctions between the displays, rather than articulating a clear rule to decide the issue. It would be similar to the fact-sensitive determinations the Court made in the mid-1980's in the "Creche cases," Lynch v. Donnelly and County of Allegheny v. ACLU, which involved the constitutionality of public Christmas displays.
It seems that the Texas monument will likely pass constitutional muster, likely because it has a historical genesis and is not overtly religious -- it is not intended to suggest that the Christian beliefs are the sole basis for governmental action. On the other hand, it seems that the Kentucky monument may be in question, because the County that erected the display expressly provided that the display was intended to show that "Jesus Christ was the Prince of Ethics." (for some reason, it strikes me as curious to use the Ten Commandments as proof if that was their intention).
They are interesting constitutional questions and might have some effects beyond these individual cases.