Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

marble falls

(72,528 posts)
Thu Jun 20, 2024, 02:37 PM Jun 2024

The Ten Commandments and the Supreme Court - Stone vs Graham (maybe a time to take a breath and calm a bit?)

Stone v. Graham
law case

https://www.britannica.com/event/Stone-v-Graham

Written by Malila Robinson

Fact-checked by the Editors of Encylopedia Britanica
Article History

Date:
November 17, 1980

Location:
United States



Stone v. Graham, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on November 17, 1980, ruled (5–4) that a Kentucky statute requiring school officials to post a copy of the Ten Commandments (purchased with private contributions) on a wall in every public classroom violated the First Amendment’s establishment clause, which is commonly interpreted as a separation of church and state.

In addition to the posting of the Commandments, the Kentucky statute (1978) required that this notation was to be placed, in small print, at the bottom of each display: “The secular application of the Ten Commandments is clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western Civilization and the Common Law of the United States.” Opponents of the statute claimed that it violated the establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment. Sydell Stone, among others, sued, and James B. Graham, the state’s superintendent of education, was named as the respondent. A trial court upheld the statute, ruling that its purpose was secular. The case then went to the Kentucky Supreme Court, which was divided, thereby leaving the lower court’s ruling in place.

In 1980 the case was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court. In a per curiam (unsigned) opinion, it used the so-called Lemon test to evaluate whether the statute was permissible under the establishment clause. In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), the Supreme Court held that (a) a “statute must have a secular legislative purpose”; (b) “its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion”; and (c) the statute cannot promote “an excessive government entanglement with religion.” If any of the points are violated, the statute must be ruled unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court held that the Kentucky statute violated the first part of the so-called Lemon test. The court rejected arguments that the notation on the bottom of the Ten Commandments was sufficient to indicate the secular purpose of the posting. Moreover, the court was of the opinion that the posting of the Ten Commandments was clearly religious and not educational. The Commandments were not part of the curriculum, and the court maintained that the state was instead encouraging students “to read, meditate upon, and perhaps venerate and obey” the Commandments, which is a violation of the establishment clause. The court considered it to be irrelevant that the copies were bought with private funds, because displaying the Commandments demonstrated official state support of their message.

Malila N. Robinson


Louisiana's law will not stand. I don't think the legislators involved expected it to stand when they passed it. It's meant to be a lightening rod and some sort of "knee jerk issue" issue.

17 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Ten Commandments and the Supreme Court - Stone vs Graham (maybe a time to take a breath and calm a bit?) (Original Post) marble falls Jun 2024 OP
The purpose is to overturn precedent Uncle Eddie Jun 2024 #1
Exactly. Also, the SC can use its recent precedent . . . John1956PA Jun 2024 #3
Precedent when out the window when trmps 3 judges lied about it. spanone Jun 2024 #13
Exactly! No matter what recent conservative justices claimed in their confirmation hearings, elocs Jun 2024 #15
Why Louisiana's radical new law on Ten Commandments, schools matters LetMyPeopleVote Jun 2024 #2
Like Roe V Wade? The right to an abortion was there. Autumn Jun 2024 #4
Precisely!! SorellaLaBefana Jun 2024 #9
They are hell bent on tearing it all down and rebuild it to suit themselves. Autumn Jun 2024 #10
'Roe vs Wade are not the same separation of church and state. Roe vs Wade was decided on ... marble falls Jun 2024 #11
Not making Roe V Wade the law of the land was not a "mistake". It was kept a ruling because it Autumn Jun 2024 #16
Every action like this is an attempt/invitation to reverse existing precedents RockRaven Jun 2024 #5
posting them is a form of oppression against people with other spiritual beliefs (or none) nt msongs Jun 2024 #6
Hope you are correct, but 5-4 in 1980 caught my eye. Raven123 Jun 2024 #7
What if Traildogbob Jun 2024 #8
Alabama's Chief Judge Ordered to Remove Ten Commandments Monument from Courthouse marble falls Jun 2024 #12
You obviously have more faith in the current court Bettie Jun 2024 #14
Supreme Court backs push to remove Ten Commandments monument marble falls Jun 2024 #17

Uncle Eddie

(5 posts)
1. The purpose is to overturn precedent
Thu Jun 20, 2024, 02:44 PM
Jun 2024

This "law" was passed as a lob to the SCOTUS for a slam dunk on precedent. That whole argument about Stone v Graham is as safe as the argument about abortion precedent...meaningless. A secondary benefit is that it gives La governor a lot of media coverage. He wins even if the case loses

John1956PA

(5,118 posts)
3. Exactly. Also, the SC can use its recent precedent . . .
Thu Jun 20, 2024, 02:52 PM
Jun 2024

. . . in the after-football-game-prayer-gathering case to find that "tradition" permits the posting of The Ten Commandments in public schools.

 

elocs

(24,486 posts)
15. Exactly! No matter what recent conservative justices claimed in their confirmation hearings,
Thu Jun 20, 2024, 05:58 PM
Jun 2024

that they considered Roe to be settled law, they lied and awaited their first opportunity to reverse it. So if they did it with Roe, they will do it with whatever else they please.

LetMyPeopleVote

(181,969 posts)
2. Why Louisiana's radical new law on Ten Commandments, schools matters
Thu Jun 20, 2024, 02:45 PM
Jun 2024

The Supreme Court has said Ten Commandments displays in public schools are unconstitutional. Louisiana Republicans passed a new law on this anyway.



https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/louisianas-radical-new-law-ten-commandments-schools-matters-rcna158001

In recent months, a handful of Republican-dominated states have flirted with the idea of government-sponsored religious displays in public school classrooms, though those efforts ultimately fell short. As NBC News reported, however, GOP officials in Louisiana actually followed through on the idea.

Louisiana has become the first state to require that the Ten Commandments be displayed in every public school classroom under a bill Republican Gov. Jeff Landry signed into law Wednesday. The GOP-drafted legislation mandates that a poster-size display of the Ten Commandments in a “large, easily readable font” be in all public classrooms, from kindergarten to state-funded universities.


Under the new law, which will take effect in 2025, assorted other documents — including the Mayflower Compact and the Declaration of Independence — can also be displayed in classrooms, but only the Decalogue is required.....

It wasn’t long before Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana, and the Freedom from Religion Foundation announced their intention to challenge the new law in court.

“The law violates the separation of church and state and is blatantly unconstitutional,” the groups said in a joint statement. “The First Amendment promises that we all get to decide for ourselves what religious beliefs, if any, to hold and practice, without pressure from the government. Politicians have no business imposing their preferred religious doctrine on students and families in public schools.”....

So why would Louisiana Republicans take a step that the Supreme Court has already rejected? It’s probably because they’re confident that the newly politicized high court and its dominant far-right majority — not to mention the brazen Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals — will simply overturn the Stone precedent, doing fresh harm to the wall that’s supposed to separate church and state in this country.

“I can’t wait to be sued,” Landry said at a fundraiser over the weekend. Those were the words of a partisan who expects his ideological judicial allies to let him trample over Louisianans’ religious rights.

SorellaLaBefana

(514 posts)
9. Precisely!!
Thu Jun 20, 2024, 04:19 PM
Jun 2024

Thank you for making this (one would have thought) obvious point.

There is A Vision, and they'll not stop until they Are STOPPED

marble falls

(72,528 posts)
11. 'Roe vs Wade are not the same separation of church and state. Roe vs Wade was decided on ...
Thu Jun 20, 2024, 05:29 PM
Jun 2024

... on 'equal access', and separation of church and state in the First Amendment's "freedom of religion". The mistake of Roe vs Wade was not putting it into the law of the land. We depended on the ruling too long.

Autumn

(49,019 posts)
16. Not making Roe V Wade the law of the land was not a "mistake". It was kept a ruling because it
Thu Jun 20, 2024, 09:10 PM
Jun 2024

was a useful tool, it's been the main feature on the republican menu for a long time. I am not the least bit optimistic that this fucking corrupt court will knock down Louisiana's law stupid law.

RockRaven

(19,748 posts)
5. Every action like this is an attempt/invitation to reverse existing precedents
Thu Jun 20, 2024, 03:03 PM
Jun 2024

so hanging a hat on a prior precedent is a very obtuse framing for analysis.

msongs

(74,172 posts)
6. posting them is a form of oppression against people with other spiritual beliefs (or none) nt
Thu Jun 20, 2024, 03:07 PM
Jun 2024

Raven123

(7,894 posts)
7. Hope you are correct, but 5-4 in 1980 caught my eye.
Thu Jun 20, 2024, 03:18 PM
Jun 2024

Given the composition of today’s court, not sure I am as confident as you.

Traildogbob

(13,156 posts)
8. What if
Thu Jun 20, 2024, 03:28 PM
Jun 2024

Those poster size Ten Commandments were printed over the trump mug shot, with Absolute Immunity printed in larger font at the top? Mandated in dorm rooms at state colleges.

marble falls

(72,528 posts)
12. Alabama's Chief Judge Ordered to Remove Ten Commandments Monument from Courthouse
Thu Jun 20, 2024, 05:33 PM
Jun 2024

Alabama's Chief Judge Ordered to Remove Ten Commandments Monument from Courthouse
Affiliate: ACLU of Alabama
November 18, 2002 12:00 am

media@aclu.org
(212) 549-2666
125 Broad Street
18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
United States

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/alabamas-chief-judge-ordered-remove-ten-commandments-monument-courthouse

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

MONTGOMERY, AL — A monument to the Ten Commandments displayed on the grounds of the state judicial building here was ordered removed today by a federal district judge who said the display “crossed the line.”

“The federal court today vindicated the religious freedom of all Alabama citizens, not just those who share the Chief Justice’s views that a belief in a Christian God is the only real religion in Alabama,” said Rob Weinberg, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama, which along with other groups had challenged the display.

Following a seven-day trial, U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson gave Chief Justice Roy Moore 30 days to remove the two-and-a-half ton monument to the Judeo-Christian text he had erected last year in the rotunda of the State Judicial Building.

In a scholarly 79-page opinion, Judge Thompson rejected all of the Chief Justice’s arguments that his monument to the Ten Commandments was a legally permissible display that merely acknowledged God.

The ACLU and its clients had argued that the Judicial Building — which houses Alabama’s three highest courts of appeal — should be a place where profession of religious faith is not a prerequisite to seeking justice.

Moore made no apologies when he testified at trial that his display was specifically meant as a monument to the Judeo-Christian God and not directed at a God of any other religions.

The federal court held that Moore violated the Constitution when he “installed a two-and-a-half ton monument in the most prominent place in a government building, managed with dollars from all state taxpayers, with the specific purpose and effect of establishing a permanent recognition of the ‘sovereignty of God,’ the Judeo-Christian God, over all citizens in this country, regardless of each taxpaying citizen’s individual personal beliefs or lack thereof. To this, the Establishment clause says no.”

Two separate lawsuits, Glassroth v. Moore and Maddox et al. v. Moore, were filed on behalf of the three local attorneys by the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The decision in the case is online at http://www.almd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/index_of_opinions.htm

Bettie

(19,869 posts)
14. You obviously have more faith in the current court
Thu Jun 20, 2024, 05:45 PM
Jun 2024

than most of us do.

They are there to advance a right wing Christian worldview, they are theocrats dressed as judges. They have shown that precedent means nothing to them, unless it advances the worldview that they are shooting for.

marble falls

(72,528 posts)
17. Supreme Court backs push to remove Ten Commandments monument
Thu Jun 20, 2024, 11:11 PM
Jun 2024

Supreme Court backs push to remove Ten Commandments monument
Published 1:23 PM CDT, October 16, 2017

https://apnews.com/general-news-df7741ba91c549d48242e88f16d6c1b9

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday sided with a lower court that ordered a New Mexico city to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the lawn outside City Hall.

Civil liberties advocates behind the case called the decision involving the city of Bloomfield a victory for the separation of church and state.

ACLU of New Mexico Executive Director Peter Simonson said it sends a “strong message that the government should not be in the business of picking and choosing which sets of religious beliefs enjoy special favor in the community.”

-snip-

The city claims it avoided endorsing a particular religion by placing disclaimers on the lawn stating the area was a public forum for citizens and that the privately funded monuments did not necessarily reflect the opinions of the city.

-snip-
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Ten Commandments and ...