Religion in U.S. public venues has been strategically constrained by the First Amendment of the Constitution. Specifically, the Establishment Clause bedevils school leaders in negotiating the boundaries of government and religion as operated in or around schools. To traverse the blurry lines between church and state, school leaders may find help in two major interpretive methods, namely original intent and stare decisis. Understanding the elements that give these methods their character and the methodologies that make them operative in resolving legal disputes could serve as a navigational tool for school leaders.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abington Township, School, District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963).
2.
Barton, D. (1989). Myth of separation. Aledo, TX: Wallbuilder.
3.
BeVier, L.R. (1996). Integrity and impersonality of original intent. Harvard Journal of Law and Policy, 19, 289-290.
4.
Black, H.C. (1999). Black’s law dictionary (7th ed.). St. Paul, MN: West.
5.
Bork, R. (1986). Great debate: Interpreting our written constitution. Washington, DC: The Federalist Society.
6.
Bork, R. (1990). Tempting of America: The political seduction of the law. New York: Simon & Schuster.
7.
Bradford, M.E. (1993). Original intentions: On the making and ratification of the United States Constitution. Athens: University of Georgia Press.
8.
Carter, S. (1989). The religiously devout judge. Notre Dame Law Review, 64, 932.
9.
Carter, S. (1993). Culture of disbelief: How American law and politics trivialize religious devotion. New York: Basic Books.
10.
Church of Holy Trinity v. United States, U.S. Supreme Court (1892).
11.
Conway, D. (1956). Religion and public education in the states. International Journal of Religious Education, pp. 34-40.
12.
Cord, R. (1986). Church-state separation: Restoring the no preference doctrine of the First Amendment. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 9, 129.
13.
Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962).
14.
Estep, W.R. (1990). Revolution within the revolution. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Erdmans.
15.
Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947).
16.
Gibbs, N. (1991, December 9). America’s holy war. Time, p. 64.
17.
Idelman, S.C. (1988). Role of religious values in judicial decision making. Indiana Law Journal, 68, 433.
18.
Kingston, Sen. [GA]. (1994, August 8). Congressional record: Proceedings and debates of the 103d Congress. 103d Cong. 2nd Sess., Vol. 140, No. 1, H.7186. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
19.
LaHaye, T. (1982, April 20-21). The religion of secular humanism: Public school and the First Amendment. Proceedings of the conference sponsored by Phi Delta Kappa School of Education. Indiana University, Indianapolis, pp. 1-13.
20.
Laycock, D. (1991). Non-coercive support for religion: Another false claim about the Establishment Clause. Valparasio University Law Review, 26, 39.
21.
Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992).
22.
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971).
23.
Levy, L.W. (1994). The Establishment Clause: Religion and the First Amendment. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
24.
McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948).
25.
Monaghan, H.P. (1988). Stare decisis and Constitutional adjudication. Columbia Law Review, 88, 723.
26.
Murray V. Curlett. 179 A.2d 698 (1962).
27.
Pfeffer, L. (1967). Church, state, and freedom. Boston: Bacon Press.
28.
Rehnquist, W. (1976). The notion of a living Constitution. Texas Law Review, 54, 693.
29.
Reynolds v. United States, 95 United States Supreme Court (October Term 1878).
30.
Scalia, A. (1989). Original intent: The lesser evil. Cincinnati Law Review, 57, 840.
31.
Tumulty, K. (1994, January 9). Time, pp. 23-32.
32.
Walz v. Tax Comm. of N.Y., 397 U.S. 664 (1970).
33.
Wilson, J.F. (Ed.). (1965). Church and state in American history. Boston: D.C. Heath.
