McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union
http://dbpedia.org/resource/McCreary_County_v._American_Civil_Liberties_Union an entity of type: Thing
McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky ist ein am Obersten Gerichtshof der Vereinigten Staaten verhandelter Fall zur religiösen Neutralität staatlicher Einrichtungen in den USA, insbesondere der Frage, ob die Zurschaustellung einer Tafel mit den Zehn Geboten in Gerichtsgebäuden die religiöse Neutralitätspflicht des Staates verletzt.
rdf:langString
McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, 545 U.S. 844 (2005), was a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on March 2, 2005. At issue was whether the Court should continue to inquire into the purpose behind a religious display and whether evaluation of the government's claim of secular purpose for the religious displays may take evolution into account under an Establishment Clause of the First Amendment analysis.
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
McCreary County v. ACLU
rdf:langString
McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
McCreary County, Kentucky, et al., v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, this case was initially started by Paul Lee Sr. Of Pulaski County Kentucky, et al.
xsd:integer
1465001
xsd:integer
1091679223
<second>
25920.0
rdf:langString
Scalia
xsd:integer
3
rdf:langString
Rehnquist, Thomas; Kennedy
rdf:langString
Stevens, O'Connor, Ginsburg, Breyer
<second>
172800.0
<second>
25920.0
xsd:integer
844
xsd:integer
545
rdf:langString
right
xsd:gMonthDay
--03-02
xsd:integer
2005
rdf:langString
McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky,
xsd:gMonthDay
--06-27
xsd:integer
2005
rdf:langString
McCreary County, Kentucky, et al., v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, this case was initially started by Paul Lee Sr. Of Pulaski County Kentucky, et al.
rdf:langString
Displaying the Ten Commandments bespeaks a religious object unless they are integrated with a secular message. The government violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment in three ways: The first way was that they were displaying the Ten Commandments in isolation; the second for showing the Commandments along with other religious passages; the third for presenting the Commandments in a presentation of the "Foundations of American Law" exhibit.
rdf:langString
McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky
rdf:langString
Souter
rdf:langString
Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?
rdf:langString
--Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in her opinion.
rdf:langString
padding:8px;
<perCent>
27.0
rdf:langString
McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky ist ein am Obersten Gerichtshof der Vereinigten Staaten verhandelter Fall zur religiösen Neutralität staatlicher Einrichtungen in den USA, insbesondere der Frage, ob die Zurschaustellung einer Tafel mit den Zehn Geboten in Gerichtsgebäuden die religiöse Neutralitätspflicht des Staates verletzt.
rdf:langString
McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, 545 U.S. 844 (2005), was a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on March 2, 2005. At issue was whether the Court should continue to inquire into the purpose behind a religious display and whether evaluation of the government's claim of secular purpose for the religious displays may take evolution into account under an Establishment Clause of the First Amendment analysis. In a suit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the displays—in this case, a Ten Commandments display at the McCreary County courthouse in Whitley City, Kentucky and a Ten Commandments display at the Pulaski County courthouse—were unconstitutional. The appeal from that decision, argued by Mathew Staver of Liberty Counsel, urged reformulation or abandonment of the "Lemon test" set forth in Lemon v. Kurtzman, which has been applied to religious displays on government property and to other Establishment Clause issues. The Supreme Court ruled on June 27, 2005, in a 5–4 decision, that the display was unconstitutional. The same day, the Court handed down another 5–4 decision in Van Orden v. Perry with the opposite outcome. The "swing vote" in both cases was Justice Stephen Breyer.
rdf:langString
O'Connor
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
17734
