The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation - BestLightNovel.com
You’re reading novel The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation Part 145 online at BestLightNovel.com. Please use the follow button to get notification about the latest chapter next time when you visit BestLightNovel.com. Use F11 button to read novel in full-screen(PC only). Drop by anytime you want to read free – fast – latest novel. It’s great if you could leave a comment, share your opinion about the new chapters, new novel with others on the internet. We’ll do our best to bring you the finest, latest novel everyday. Enjoy
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Const.i.tution, -- 1879 (1833).
[12] Ibid. -- 1874.
[13] Principles of Const.i.tutional Law, 224-225, 3d ed. (1898).
[14] Saul K. Padover, The Complete Jefferson, 518-519 (1943).
[15] 98 U.S. 145 (1879).
[16] Ibid. 164. In his 2d Inaugural Address Jefferson expressed a very different, and presumably more carefully considered, opinion upon the purpose of Amendment I: "In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Const.i.tution independent of the powers of of the general government." This was said three years after the Danbury letter. 1 Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 379 (Richardson ed. 1896).
[17] Everson _v._ Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947).
[18] Ibid. 15, 16.
[19] McCollum _v._ Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948).
[20] Ibid. 212.
[21] 333 U.S. 203, 213 (1948).
[22] Ibid. 216-218. Justice Frankfurter's princ.i.p.al figure in the fight against sectarianism is Horace Mann, who was secretary of the Ma.s.sachusetts Board of Education, 1837-1848. Mann, however, strongly resented the charge that he was opposed to religious instruction in the public schools. "It is true that Mr. Mann stood strongly for a 'type of school with instruction adapted to democratic and national ends.' But it is not quite just to him to contrast this type of school with the school adapted to religious ends, without defining terms. Horace Mann was opposed to sectarian doctrinal instruction in the schools, but he repeatedly urged the teaching of the elements of religion common to all of the Christian sects. He took a firm stand against the idea of a purely secular education, and on one occasion said he was in favor of religious instruction 'to the extremest verge to which it can be carried without invading those rights of conscience which are established by the laws of G.o.d, and guaranteed to us by the Const.i.tution of the State.' At another time he said that he regarded hostility to religion in the schools as the greatest crime he could commit. Lest his name should go down in history as that of one who had attempted to drive religious instruction from the schools, he devoted several pages in his final Report--the twelfth--to a statement in which he denied the charges of his enemies." Raymond B. Culver, Horace Mann on Religion in the Ma.s.sachusetts Public Schools, 235 (1929).
[23] 333 U.S. 203, 222 ff. (1948).
[24] Ibid. 213.
[25] Ibid. 225-226.
[26] Ibid. 231.
[27] Ibid. 232, 234.
[28] 333 U.S. 244.
[29] Ibid., 253, 254.
[30] Zorach _v._ Clauson, 303 N.Y. 161, 168-169; 100 N.E. 2d 403 (1951).
[31] Zorach _v._ Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952).
[32] Ibid., pp. 313-314. Justices Black, Frankfurter, and Jackson dissented.
[33] Doremus _v._ Board of Education, 342 U.S. 429 (1952).
[34] Three dissenters, speaking through Justice Douglas, argued that, since the New Jersey Supreme Court had taken the case and decided it on its merits, the United States Supreme Court was bound to do the same.
Ibid. 435-436.
[35] Bradfield _v._ Roberts, 175 U.S. 291 (1899).
[36] Quick Bear _v._ Leupp, 210 U.S. 50 (1908).
[37] Cochran _v._ Louisiana State Board of Education, 281 U.S. 370 (1930).
[38] Everson _v._ Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947).
[39] 42 U.S.C.A. ---- 1751-1760; 60 Stat. 230 (1940).
[40] Davis _v._ Benson, 133 U.S. 333, 342 (1890).
[41] Cantwell _v._ Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303, 304 (1940).
[42] Pierce _v._ Society of Sisters of Holy Names, 268 U.S. 510 (1925).
[43] Reynolds _v._ United States, 98 U.S. 145, 166 (1879).
[44] Ibid. 167.
[45] Davis _v._ Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 345 (1890).
[46] Reynolds _v._ United States 98 U.S. 145 (1879); Davis _v._ Beason, 133 U.S. 333 (1890).
[47] 322 U.S. 78 (1944).
[48] Ibid. 89.
[49] 310 U.S. 296 (1940).
[50] Minersville School Dist. _v._ Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586 (1940).
[51] Jones _v._ Opelika, 316 U.S. 584 (1942).
[52] Jones _v._ Opelika, 319 U.S. 103 (1943); Murdock _v._ Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943).
[53] Board of Education _v._ Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943). On the same day the Court held that a State may not forbid the distribution of literature urging and advising, on religious grounds, that citizens refrain from saluting the flag. Taylor _v._ Mississippi, 319 U.S. 583 (1943).
[54] Martin _v._ Struthers, 319 U.S. 141 (1943).
[55] Prince _v._ Ma.s.sachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944).
[56] 334 U.S. 558 (1948).
[57] Kovacs _v._ Cooper, 336 U.S. 77 (1949).
