Case Argument: Lee v. Weisman 505 US 577 (1992)
Case Summary: Daniel Weisman filed for a temporary restraining order to prohibit middle and high school officials in Providence, Rhode Island from including public prayers in the graduation of his daughter Deborah Weisman four days before the ceremony. The District Court denied Weisman’s motion for lack of adequate time to consider it. The Weisman family then attended Deborah’s graduation at the Nathan Bishop Middle School and Rabbi Leslie Gutterman of Temple Beth El led the prayers. After the graduation, Weisman filed for a permanent injunction that would bar Robert E. Lee, Deborah’s middle school principal, and various other Providence School officials from inviting clergy to deliver invocations and benedictions at future graduations.
Concurring Opinions: Blackmun concurred: “Government may neither promote nor affiliate itself with any religious doctrine or organization, nor may it obtrude itself in the internal affairs of any religious institution…Government pressure to participate in a religious activity is an obvious indication that the government is endorsing or promoting religion.” Likewise, Souter also concurred: “I write…on two issues…: whether [the Establishment Clause]…applies to…practices that do not favor one religion or denomination over others, and whether state coercion of religious conformity, over and above state endorsement of religious exercise or belief, is a necessary element of an Establishment Clause violation.”
Linder, D. (2009). “Introduction to the Establishment Clause.” Exploring Constitutional Conflicts. Kansas: University of Missouri-Kansas City Law School. Retrieved July 20, 2007, from http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/estabinto.htm.
U.S. Supreme Court. (1989). “County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U.S. 573.”
U.S. Supreme Court. (1992). “Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577.” FindLaw. Retrieved July 17, 2007, from http://laws.findlaw.com/us/505/577.html.
U.S. Supreme Court. (1971). “Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602.” FindLaw. Retrieved July 20, 2007, from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=403&invol=602.
U.S. Supreme Court. (1984). “Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668.”
U.S. Supreme Court. (1985). “Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38.”
Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.Read more
Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.Read more
Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.Read more
Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.Read more
By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.Read more