Marsh v. Chambers Saul, 1
Marsh v. Chambers; Use of chaplaincy in the court Comment by Crystal G. DeLong: Court cases are ALWAYS italicized Comment by Crystal G. DeLong: :
Zachary Saul
Liberty High School
AP US Government, 2A
The Supreme Court case of Marsh v. Chambers all started as a rather small affair in Nebraska, and quickly became case with far-reaching consequences. Ernest Chambers, the current representative on Nebraska 's 11th district in the Nebraska State Senate, argued in 1983, that the use of a tax-funded chaplaincy in Nebraska 's court was against the Establishment Clause of the United States Bill of Rights. In the Nebraska Circuit court case, it was ruled that while the use of a chaplain in the court
…show more content…
Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote the Majority Opinion, saying that since the practice was not in violation of the Lemon test. The Lemon test was a test created in Lemon v. Kurtzman in which ??the court concluded that for a law to comply with the Establishment Clause, it must (1) have a secular purpose; (2) have a predominantly secular effect; and (3) not foster ?excessive entanglement? between government and religion?? (Pew Research Center, 2009) and thusly was not in violation of the Establishment Clause (Chicago-Kent Institute of Law, n.d.). In support of this opinion, Justice Brennan wrote that the argument of "Following too heavily the advice of the Founding Fathers" strengthened the case for the chaplaincy, instead of weakened it. Per Justice Brennan, the use of a chaplaincy was considered "Historical Custom" and helped to preserve some of the great traditions and history of our country. Comment by Crystal G. DeLong: Too? No to? It doesn?t make sense ? try paraphrasing in your words
The Minority Opinion, written by Justice J. Stevens, states that the use of a chaplain of a particular faith would show preference of a particular faith over another, thusly establishing a religion, and therefore violating the Establishment Clause of the First