Thank you for explaining the Lemon Test. Seniors at our High School watched this and now understand how to explain the Lemon Test better. We appreciate that you uploaded this on RUclips so that it was easily accessible.
If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe [ say require] what shall be orthodox [ normal, acceptable] in politics, nationalism, >>>>religion, >matters of opinion,
Do you believe this test accurately represents what the founders believed when they wrote the constitution? If not, is it fair to say this is judicial activism at its worst?
Thanks for commenting. Based on the second half of your question I assume your responses would be (i) No and (ii) Yes. Please feel free to expand below and express what you believe and why you believe it.
Yes, you accurately assume my positions. My intention is not to debate but to clearly understand how we got where we are. I think history is very clear that we were founded as a Christian nation. The founding fathers and jurist prior to the civil war are very detailed in their support of a Christian nation. Our political system was not designed to withstand a pure democracy that could be overrun by the mob. Nor was capitalism designed to work with immoral people. The founding fathers struggled with whether or not the church(es) could survive without financial support of the government. My lack of understanding is how we got to 1971. How in the world could this decision come about? Although I know the Civil War destroyed the faith of many people what happened to allow this travesty in 1971. You may not consider it a bad interpretation of law and of course I have to accept that. If you think it is a legitimate interpretation please tell me your understanding of how it was legitimized.
Joe,Thanks. I am going to focus my response mainly on the Establishment Clause and not on some of the other points you raised. A number of judges & scholars would agree with the following: (i) The Constitution should always be interpreted according to the intentions of the framers of the Constitution;(ii) The factors propounded in the Lemon Test are inconsistent with the intentions of the framers; therefore:(iii) Courts should not apply the Lemon Test to determine whether the government (usually in practice a state government) violated the Establishment Clause.This view is not a fringe opinion - - you can find articles in law journals and elsewhere expressing and defending these views. Of course, not everyone agrees with points (i) - (iii). Have you read views opposing your own? Your post above expresses surprise that the Supreme Court could have reached the decision it reached in 1971. I think it makes sense to first read Everson v. Board of Education (1947) www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/330/1 and then read Lemon v. Kurtzman. If you read Everson and then consider the development of disestablishment views in the 19th century, Lemon v Kurtzman might not be all that surprising. Again, I understand that based on points (i) & (ii) above people will disagree with the historical analysis in Everson & Lemon. You are also upset that Lemon v. Kurtzman is an example of "judicial activism at its worst”. Assuming that Lemon v Kurtzman is an example of judicial activism, why do you believe it is an example of activism “at its worst”. Are there examples of judicial activism that you would consider more acceptable?
Thank you for your answers. I'll have to read these cases before I ask any more questions. Hopefully I'll learn how we went from the Founding Fathers definitely wanting to promote various forms of Christianity to now promoting secular humanism only. Thank you.
I don't think I provided answers but I hope I provided some direction. In my experience, when I read something assuming I already know the answers, I learn less. Please read the cases, articles published in peer reviewed academic journals about religious history in the United States and the development of the Establishment Clause and the Lemon Test. You will find scholars who share at least some of your perspectives. Just as important, you will find perspectives that are well researched and well thought out that will differ from your own.
....If the government is overly involved in administrative functions of a religious institution or a religious institution is overly involved in administering a government function there would also be excessive entanglement.
![What is the Lemon Test? Lemon v. Kurtzman [No. 86]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5R5E8cjhrxg/mqdefault.jpg)
Watch at 1.5x speed. You’re welcome.
game changer
1.25x feels better
Thank you for explaining the Lemon Test. Seniors at our High School watched this and now understand how to explain the Lemon Test better. We appreciate that you uploaded this on RUclips so that it was easily accessible.
Hey 4eK, you made my day. Why not go ahead and read the case now? You'll get a better understanding than what you can get from my short vid.
I really appreciate the well-paced narration here.
Man you just helped a kid pass his midterm
Thank you, I've watched other channels and read some paper about it. But the only helpful explanation is your video!
Thank you for making this video! I was having a difficult time understanding part of the test. I feel like it is much clearer now.
Thanks SR, I appreciate it.
I almost died till I figured out I could speed it up...smh
Great explanation of the lemon test
I was expecting a video completely different from this one. Yikers
Awesome thank you !
If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe
[ say require] what shall be orthodox [ normal, acceptable] in
politics,
nationalism,
>>>>religion, >matters of opinion,
Above from west virginia board of education vs barnette
Makes sense
Do you believe this test accurately represents what the founders believed when they wrote the constitution? If not, is it fair to say this is judicial activism at its worst?
Thanks for commenting. Based on the second half of your question I assume your responses would be (i) No and (ii) Yes. Please feel free to expand below and express what you believe and why you believe it.
Yes, you accurately assume my positions. My intention is not to debate but to clearly understand how we got where we are. I think history is very clear that we were founded as a Christian nation. The founding fathers and jurist prior to the civil war are very detailed in their support of a Christian nation. Our political system was not designed to withstand a pure democracy that could be overrun by the mob. Nor was capitalism designed to work with immoral people. The founding fathers struggled with whether or not the church(es) could survive without financial support of the government.
My lack of understanding is how we got to 1971. How in the world could this decision come about? Although I know the Civil War destroyed the faith of many people what happened to allow this travesty in 1971.
You may not consider it a bad interpretation of law and of course I have to accept that. If you think it is a legitimate interpretation please tell me your understanding of how it was legitimized.
Joe,Thanks. I am going to focus my response mainly on the Establishment Clause and not on some of the other points you raised.
A number of judges & scholars would agree with the following:
(i) The Constitution should always be interpreted according to the intentions of the framers of the Constitution;(ii) The factors propounded in the Lemon Test are inconsistent with the intentions of the framers; therefore:(iii) Courts should not apply the Lemon Test to determine whether the government (usually in practice a state government) violated the Establishment Clause.This view is not a fringe opinion - - you can find articles in law journals and elsewhere expressing and defending these views.
Of course, not everyone agrees with points (i) - (iii). Have you read views opposing your own?
Your post above expresses surprise that the Supreme Court could have reached the decision it reached in 1971. I think it makes sense to first read Everson v. Board of Education (1947) www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/330/1 and then read Lemon v. Kurtzman. If you read Everson and then consider the development of disestablishment views in the 19th century, Lemon v Kurtzman might not be all that surprising. Again, I understand that based on points (i) & (ii) above people will disagree with the historical analysis in Everson & Lemon.
You are also upset that Lemon v. Kurtzman is an example of "judicial activism at its worst”. Assuming that Lemon v Kurtzman is an example of judicial activism, why do you believe it is an example of activism “at its worst”. Are there examples of judicial activism that you would consider more acceptable?
Thank you for your answers. I'll have to read these cases before I ask any more questions. Hopefully I'll learn how we went from the Founding Fathers definitely wanting to promote various forms of Christianity to now promoting secular humanism only. Thank you.
I don't think I provided answers but I hope I provided some direction. In my experience, when I read something assuming I already know the answers, I learn less. Please read the cases, articles published in peer reviewed academic journals about religious history in the United States and the development of the Establishment Clause and the Lemon Test. You will find scholars who share at least some of your perspectives. Just as important, you will find perspectives that are well researched and well thought out that will differ from your own.
Something that isn't good law anymore.
I understood entanglement to normally only apply financially, may be misunderstood thouggh.
You're correct - - excessive entanglement could also occur if a government is overly involved in a religion's finances.
....If the government is overly involved in administrative functions of a religious institution or a religious institution is overly involved in administering a government function there would also be excessive entanglement.
meow