Lemon Vs Kurtzman The Wall Of Separation Doctrine

1. The supreme court has expanded the definition of freedom of speech to include expression, actions, how people think, etc. The court has also narrowed the definition of speech. How? And in what circumstances has the court limited speech? Even though everyone has freedom of speech, there are restrictions that need to be made to ensure safety of the public. For example, in the Supreme Court case of Tinker v. Des Moines, there was a debate on deciding what form of speech is allowed at school due to multiple students wearing armbands to protest the Vietnam War. The court’s decision was in favor of Tinker, because it is a form of political speech; however, if the speech disturbs the learning, then further action can be taken. This shows how the

In Lemon v. Kurtzman, the Wall of Separation Doctrine is applied because the local government interfered with the funding of religious actions, which violated the 1st amendment. Also, in the case of Engel v. Vitale, the court decided that it was unconstitutional for New York to create their own law requiring the Pledge of Allegiance and prayer while receiving money from States. Because the NY law got money from states for religious purposes, there was a violation of the separation of church and

Recently with the elections coming around, there has been a lot of talk about abortion, and whether an abortion is the individual’s right to decide or not. In the case of Griswold v. Connecticut, Griswold and planned parenthood broke the Connecticut state law by selling contraceptives. The court decided in this case that the selling of contraceptives was constitutional and was protected under the right to privacy (9th amendment). Another change in privacy rights over the past 40 years can be shown in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart, where they tried to fight against federal law of not being permitted to get an abortion in the 3rd trimester of pregnancy. The court concluded that the law was constitutional because it did not impose undue burden. As shown in these cases, it is evident that the right to privacy is given to any individual as long as it does not impose an undue