Dissent

The case was in the end decided 8-1 by the justices. The sole dissent came from Justice Potter Stewart. He believed “ The doctrine relied on in that case as implausible, given the long history of government religious practice in the United States, including the fact that the Supreme Court opens its own sessions with the declaration, "God Save this Honorable Court" and that Congress opens its sessions with prayers, among many other examples. Stewart believed that such practice fit with the nation's long history of permitting free exercise of religious practices, even in the public sphere.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abington_School_District_v._Schempp
After the case he went on to state “It is, I think, a fallacious oversimplification to regard the [religion clauses] as establishing a single constitutional standard of "separation of church and state", which can be applied in every case to delineate the required boundaries between government and religion.... As a matter of history, the First Amendment was adopted solely as a limitation upon the newly created National Government. The events leading to its adoption strongly suggest that the Establishment Clause was primarily an attempt to insure that Congress not only would be powerless to establish a national church, but would also be unable to interfere with existing state establishments. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abington_School_District_v._Schempp
And it is said many of the critics to the Court findings quote the justice when he said “If religious exercises are held to be an impermissible activity in schools, religion is placed in an artificial and state-created disadvantage.... And a refusal to permit religious exercises thus is seen, not as the realization of state neutrality, but rather as the establishment of a religion of secularism, or at least, as governmental support of the beliefs of those who think that religious exercises should be conducted only in private (Eastland, 1993, pp. 165). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abington_School_District_v._Schempp

Your Own Argument

I most definitely agree with the end decision. I do think religion being separate from state ensures the freedoms of society. I do not want to speak bad about religion or its practice. But the only thing I have a SERIOUS problem with is religious Christians or Catholic beliefs that state they leave no room for belief in another god, that there god is a jealous god. And they do not recognize any who do not believe in there god and look down on all other faiths and non faiths. Or that if I do not believe in their god I will go to hell. OOH that’s a great scare tactic. That’s how entire governments keep their citizens at bay, through fear. So that mentality I have a problem with. But going to church having coffee with like friends or listening to an inspirational sermon, I have no problem there. Not even with saying a good night prayer or reciting Hail Mary’s, whatever helps you get through the day. Keyword: YOU… not me. I get my own choices in life and I love my country for that! My Case Argument would have to be how local governments supersede national law. Or how can they pass a law that is not first approved by a national standard in the first place? Why can any local government make it’s laws and then the wait for the test of time to finally allow for justice? I’m sure there are reasons the courts don’t work in reverse but in this case I think the Supreme Court judges could see the real problem for what it was because it wasn’t their City, State, or Town. So then again, what if it was? Would they still see it from the outside looking in?

Rule of Law

As I previously stated the rule of law that existed before the case was before the Supreme Court consisted of two laws, The Free Exercise Clause, and the first Amendment’s Establishment Clause. These two laws allowed for the courts in America to dance around the subject to try and leave little to no wiggle room for a big change with regards to religion and school. The School District’s argument was valid with law binding points that in some way allowed for the practice to go on legally for as long as it did. The School District stated the Establishment Clause was specifically in place to prevent congress from making any laws regarding the establishment of Religion. This was intended to not suppress the right of those who already did believe and wanted to continue to practice religion. Not to misconstrue the idea and allow public school to impose religion on our youth and then not allow congress to “make any laws preventing the it’s practice.” The second was the Free Exercise Clause, which was intended to keep law makers from preventing the practice of religion or dictate the way its practices should be conducted. Again this was to protect those who believe in religion, not to force those who did not believe to practice against their will. Our youth is the most vital thing to our society and although I believe the majority of religions have a “do good get good mentality” yet it is not their right to make me think and feel that way about their book and their god unless I first choose to. This is a tough call for those in power many decades ago. They risk the uprising of “Hippies” or the enslavement of free expression and idea. Big choice for any human let alone a judge who has to decide the fate of millions of Americans alike. How do you not let your own bias get in the way of your decision? Can judges put their own personal beliefs aside for the sake of a society and a 200 year old piece of paper they swore in oath to uphold and protect? The best judges I think somehow do.

Reasoning of the Court

The courts did not have much reasoning for the case I feel because there were too worried about making judgments that contradicted previous laws and not judging the relevance of the case as the constitution would see it. There seemed to be a lot of influence through the commonwealth of the nation to uphold these laws and all judgments handed down up until this point. It seems like if the Supreme Court could avoid hearing the case the commonwealth could avoid the impending doom handed down by the judgment. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause were the two laws that allowed for contradiction to the rightful decision. The District Courts had a hard time finding for Schempp because they contended the laws already in place contradicted any other decision. My personal opinion is there would have been a large local political influence because many people in Congress at this time and even today are religious Christians. It took many decades to be able to ensure justice and uphold the integrity of the constitution and our nation but in the end it was done.
On June 17, 1963 The Supreme Court made its decision. It found (“The reading of the verses, even without comment, possesses a devotional and religious character and constitutes in effect a religious observance. The devotional and religious nature of the morning exercises is made all the more apparent by the fact that the Bible reading is followed immediately by a recital in unison by the pupils of the Lord’s Prayer. The fact that some pupils, or theoretically all pupils, might be excused from attendance at the exercises does not mitigate the obligatory nature of the ceremony for . . . Section 1516 . . . unequivocally requires the exercises to be held every school day in every school in the Commonwealth. The exercises are held in the school buildings and perforce are conducted by and under the authority of the local school authorities and during school sessions. Since the statute requires the reading of the 'Holy Bible,' a Christian document, the practice . . . prefers the Christian religion. The record demonstrates that it was the intention of . . . the Commonwealth . . . to introduce a religious ceremony into the public schools of the Commonwealth. (201 F. Supp., at 819; quoted in 374. U.S. 203 (1963)) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abington_School_District_v._Schempp.

Decision of the Court

The case Abington School District v. Schempp was only one of many cases brought before the courts weather at the city, state, or local level. Starting from about the year 1910 similar cases were being brought before the courts regularly. There were two pre-existing laws that took a long precedence before overturning the decision in the Supreme Court Case. The first was the First Amendment's Establishment Clause which stated (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”)http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Murray+v.+Curlett The other law is the Free Exercise Clause ("or prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]"). http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Murray+v.+Curlett These two laws were the previous precedent for all decisions of the courts alike. From about the turn of the century there were laws in certain areas barring the practices of religion and other areas that tolerated it or even condoned its practice. The laws in place at the time before the case went to the supreme court were based on various decisions directly relating to the two previous laws already in place and not the constitutionality of the practice of religion in public schools by itself. The case Abington School District v. Schempp was brought originally before the district court where Schempp was awarded a victory. The School District appealed to the courts and soon after a clause was written into the judgment allowing for the students to be excused as an alternate means of continuing the practice. Schempp was not satisfied stating implicitly there was still no separation from church and state. His case was then brought before the Supreme Court and then ordered back down to district court for a new trial. Schempp again won a b the case by a clear margin. And then again the School District appealed to the Supreme court, where it would finally be decided by the Supreme Court of the United States.

First Monday in October

After watching a brief part of the movie” First Monday in October”, I was introduced to different points of view regarding the porn industry in America in the 70’s. On one end the woman felt the evidence was relevant and distasteful. And the other justice did not feel he had to watch the movie, he already had his mind made up the movie falls within the first amendment rights protected by the government for all citizens. My take on the situation is that the porn movie is and should remain protected and the form of expression be a right of any and all citizens of legal age. I say this because even though the form of expression is lewd and distasteful and greed driven it is not the right of the government to set standards, because any infringement is a violation of the first amendment right and would only lead to more censorship. However there is a line needed to be drawn and made clear, any threat of safety made by any citizen affects all citizens and therefore should not be tolerated under the first amendment rights. There are many other cultures that take the notion of a naked person as normal and widely accept the idea of an appealing nude figure. In America the elders of the country fear chaos and think by limiting exposure to materials like this it benefits society in the long term, and it may. However it is not their right to make those decisions, only establish an opinion. There is no immediate health or safety issue pertaining to the practice of x rated films, it is a very profitable industry and quite frankly there would always be a black market for porn so the government might as well accept it as our right and just tax the product. The American ideals are funny and misunderstood, our rules and laws come from fear. Fear of an epidemic toward society, so much so we segregate, separate and group likenesses together to form popular opinion in hopes of trumping the opposition. Our laws come from different times and day in age, like when African Americans were slaves or when citizens feared the up rise of their race in America. Women’s rights… need I go on? We are all human and our ideals are all screwed up. I think the United States government goes to great lengths to right its past wrongs but safety and prosperity should be the only ideals guaranteed and protected by any government. Not exploitation and greed. I will leave this post by saying; I walk this earth with two moral laws, do not hurt anyone who doesn’t hurt me first, and do not suppress my freedom of expression as I will not suppress yours. And if you think my freedom of expression hurts you… close your eyes, turn around and get out a dodge! That’s your right! Your rights do not include suppressing my rights. Those are my moral laws, follow this ideal and all humans can co-exist I think.

Illicit Means

To me this is a funny topic because who doesn’t like the idea of something for free or something for nothing or even for less than its value. The moral to the video in the end stated the problem will never be solved until or unless the people trying to stop it take a look at the demand. I totally agree, personally I don’t give a shit about knockoffs or piracy and the problem it causes. If you asked me it’s just two groups of people saying to one another they can and will sell a product for what they think its value truly is because the people they associate with say they can.
On one side you have government, free trade agreements, copywriting, brand identity, registered trademarks and a company with the right to use produce and sell that product for whatever they think its worth, 2-3 or more times it’s initial or resale value. The government protects the company’s right to the product and threatens to stop lookalike or knockoff products.
On the other side you have people who are part of a chain of networks that undermine the authority of protection and in-turn participate in the production of the same products which become for sale to the same demographic only for a cheaper price than the originals.
Here’s my argument: If the same people who created the originals would sell the products based on a profit percentage and not a greed incentive their product knockoff would have a hard time to compete. Yet here you have a government who protects the greed and rights of these companies to allow product inflation to the point a product is bought not for its use but to identify class representation among society.
I feel everyone should have the right to protect an idea or creation, DON’T TELL ANYONE! Short of that if you let the cat out of the bag and someone steals or copies your idea the only thing you can do is… “Be better than they are…be the best.” That is the only recourse you should have, not laws, jail or crime. It would allow the best products to be produced and at the most cost efficient price.
So even though I’m studying Graphic Design and I would hate to have my ideas stolen only to watch someone else make money off them. I say this… “I’m going to use everything I can get my hands on digitally from the internet, analyze it and come up with my own ideas to sell and market. Once I get there I will look only to myself to be the best at what I do because that is where true competition lies, within yourself.” I will not look to a government for protection or a (piece of paper) patent that says it’s my idea just because some paper issuing patent people said so; I don’t want any part of the courts or law. Point blank if I’m there in the first place it’s because someone figured out how to do the same thing only better. And I’m not in the business of being right or first. I’m in the business of being the best and making money.
I watched a movie last night called Flash of Genius, and in it the man claims although Dickens did not invent the English language, or even a single word in the English dictionary, yet the book “A Tale of Two Cities” is his, and the order of the words he used in the book make it his creation and no one else’s. All Dickens did is rearrange the pieces of an already existing puzzle to create his own work of art. Someone could say “…that’s not his; he would have to invent his own language and then write it for it to be his.” How stupid is that? The point I’m making is once something is created, invented, and shown to the world it’s every ones idea, the first person to get to the bank is the smart one, the real genius!
Stealing people’s ideas and profiting off them keeps commerce in check and keeps governments and greedy corporations from running away with supply, demand and all the profits. That concept rules the global market, no government, country, mafia or cartel can control it entirely. Because if they could their profit margin would be no different from the companies they protect, like Louis Vuitton.