Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

Van Orden v. Perry (2005)

Read a random definition: Citizenship Clause

A quick definition of Van Orden v. Perry (2005):

Van Orden v. Perry was a case that went to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case was about whether it was okay for the state of Texas to have a monument with the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Texas State Capital. The court decided that it was okay because the First Amendment doesn't always mean that the government can't show a preference for religion over not having a religion. The court also said that having religious content or promoting a message that is consistent with a religious belief is not against the First Amendment.

A more thorough explanation:

Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005), is a U.S. Supreme Court case that dealt with the display of a monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Texas State Capital. The case addressed whether this display violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court ultimately held that the display of the monument did not violate the Establishment Clause. The Court reasoned that not all governmental preference for religion over irreligion is prohibited by the Establishment Clause. Additionally, the Court found that having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not necessarily violate the Establishment Clause.

For example, a public school may teach about the history of various religions without violating the Establishment Clause. However, a public school may not promote one religion over another or require students to participate in religious activities.

In the case of Van Orden v. Perry, the Court found that the display of the Ten Commandments monument did not promote one religion over another or require anyone to participate in religious activities. Therefore, the display did not violate the Establishment Clause.

Valuable papers | Vance v. Terrazas

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
14:15
LSD is in decay age of social network
renard99
14:15
^LMAO yeah
renard99
14:15
Basically accepted atp that I'm gonna have to R&R so might as well take up some jobs while I'm at it
14:15
sad. imagine being here in 2005/2010 when it was 100 operational. woe is me
@llama: back when 160s meant t14
14:16
born too late to experience full LSD born too soon to explore the galaxy
14:16
^ gets it
lilypadfrog
14:16
https://www.lsd.law/users/creep/cryptanon this is one of the guys who made the website
14:16
@lilypadfrog: wow more recent than i would have wagered
14:17
how is it so that I creep a rando and their app year is 2005-2005?
14:17
2005-2006* for example
renard99
14:18
^ find that rando in your circle and ask them where they've stored all their cycle letters
ReminiscentZestyFish
14:18
Vandy??
renard99
14:18
Possibly in a dark corner of the attic in a box
VANDY
soyalmondoatmilk
14:18
vandy A let's gooooo
all the Vandy
ReminiscentZestyFish
14:18
Aint no way
jackfrost11770
14:19
Wow that's awesome nothing from vandy
GreyCeaselessMammoth
14:19
what
GreyCeaselessMammoth
14:19
fuck
renard99
14:19
@soyalmondoatmilk: Congratulations!!!
jackfrost11770
14:19
I applied in November
jackfrost11770
14:19
Idk when the As did
GreyCeaselessMammoth
14:19
does anyone know if they usually release all at once or waht
nothing
jackfrost11770
14:20
Well I hope not otherwise I'm screwed
jackfrost11770
14:21
Anderson cooper PLEASEEEEE
For ED and their last wave of decisions it was an email all at once
GreyCeaselessMammoth
14:22
ugh
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.