What was significant of the Lemon v. kurtzman case and why did it violate the 1st amendment?
473349
Here you go:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman\n\nLooks like an issue of separation of Church and State.
288029
"now that the show is over, and we have jointly exercised our constitutional rights, we would like to leave you with one very important thought. sometime in the future, you may have the opportunity to serve as a juror in a so-called obscenity case. it would be wise to remember that the same people who would stop you from viewing an adult film, may be back next year to complain about a book, or even a tv program. if you can be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you can be told what to say or think. defend your constitutionally protected rights. no one else will do it for you. thank you."
125455
No... Why? First Amendment rights. Freedom of speech.
1058802
The First Amendment protects stupid opinions.
306136
The US Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes set out a "clear and present danger" limit to the first amendment protection of free speech in which shouting fire in a crowded theater was cited as the main example. Anyone who did so could be charged for willfully causing harm to others and instigating a riot.\n\nThat doesn't mean that you will be caught (who will be able to tell that it was you?), or that you can't just claim that you thought there was actually a fire breaking out.
744537
"However, when did this country decide that hate crime language is O.K. to spew at a PAYING audience? Why shouldn't the group of people offended sue his *ss off?"\n\nUhh... when the First Amendment was ratified way back in 1776... It isn't "illegal", so the lawsuit would have no merit and be tossed on Constitutional grounds... By the way, I find your "hate crime language" comment highly offensive- expect to hear from my attorney!
906444
The simple answer is this: nothing trumps the Constitution.  If, however, the Constitution does not specifically detail something, it is up to the interpretation of the Supreme Court.\n\nIn your case, the Constitution protects the business's right to refuse service to anyone not wearing a shirt.  In the past, though, their right to refuse service to anyone has been checked by not allowing discrimination on the basis of race, gender, etc.\n\nIn short: you're out of luck unless you can convince the Supreme Court that shirtless people deserve the same protections as other protected groups.  Good luck with that.
125011
The government may make no law respecting your freedom of speech. (1st Amendment).  No state may make any law depriving you of your freedom of speech (14th Amendment).  The freedom of speech applies to personal speech, political speech and even to a lesser extent, commercial speech.  In general, no prior restraint may be made against your freedom of speech (Times v. Sullivan).  However, the freedom of speech is not absolute.  You may not exercise freedom of speech when to do so would subject the public to danger (for example, you may not shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater if there is no fire).  This is a synopsis of ideas from the Constitution and many Supreme Court cases.\n\nYour exercise of freedom of speech may not interfere with other constitutionally guaranteed rights. Many cases have addresssed the use of religious symbols in public places as well as actions of political speech such as burning of the American flag. These cases are not always models of consistency.\n\nSuffice it to say that freedom of speech is well protected but not absolute.\n\n\nIn the context of these cartoons and comments, at least in the USA, you can publish these ideas, even if they are offensive to others.  You are really not addressing the "freedom of speech" as such as much as you are addressing editorial judgment of the press.  While the press is free to say what it wants, it ought to consider the sensibilities of others, especially those who might legitimately take offense to the writings or utterances.
705324
Only for non-US citizens.\n\nThe MCA directly contradicts Supreme Court precedent, and the plain text of the constitution, which mandates that 5th and 6th Amendment protections apply to anyone held in custody by the US govt, and anyone prosecuted by the US govt.\n\nIt also directly violates Article I Section 9, by suspending the writ of Habeas Corpus. As the Supreme Court ruled over a hundred years ago, the phrase "except during rebellion or invasion when the public safety may require it" means that as long as the federal courts are open for business, they can hear Habeas petitions for anyone detained or held prisoner by the federal government.  \n\nThe law is facially unconstitutional. The only question is, can someone come up with a creative jurisdictional standing argument and find a way to get a federal court to hear the constitutional challenge?
345893
The eighteenth amendment was done away with; it was about the prohibition of alcoholic beverages.  Consequently, many people made their own beer and liquor, which was called bootlegging.
266260
The First Amendment reads:\n\nCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.\n\nThat means that criticism of the Government or of individuals is generally allowed. If it is libellous, then public officials can take legal action to defend their reputation. \n\nIn the world wars, the Supreme Court upheld laws against sedition. However, since the second world war, the Supreme Court has generally found in favour of free speech. In Yates vs Smith, the Supreme Court ruled that the Smith Act was aimed at "the advocacy of action, not ideas". In other words, a person would have to specifically have to advocate violent action against the US Government in order to be seditious.
112712
Probable Cause: Referencing the 1st link below (comes from Smith v. U.S. 1949 establishing the experienced police officer standard)\nThe 2nd link details the Fourth Amendment, which is where your rights against unlawful searches and seizures of your person/property/etc are explained.\n\nMR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE delivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe case was Brinegar v. United States, where Mr. Brinegar was arrested for liquor running in Oklahoma. The link below details the case, including the subsequent appeals and relation to another case, Carroll v. United States. Both of which revolve around search and seizure rules as relating to  vehicles.
157210
It violates the 6th amendment in that it allows the government to jail citizens indefinately without a trial. This also violates the 13th amendment (punishment without conviction). It violates the 4th amendment in that it allows wiretapping, survalience of internet use,  and disclosure of library records without probable cause. It violates the first amendment in that it criminalizes ANY discussion of specific FBI searches. \n\nBad legislation from the worst administration EVER.
112407
The starting point really is Griswold v. Connecticut saying that the state has no right to regulate your childbearing decisions.  There's nothing in the constitution specifically saying that there's a right to privacy.  Courts have found that it exists in the "penumbra" or shadow of all explicit rights in the Constitution.  \n\nPeople who read the Constitution literally word for word say that the word "privacy" doesn't appear in the Constitution and that the framers of the constitution according to the "plan of the convention" - code word for the mores of the 18th century - never intended for there to be a right to privacy.  This is the battleground on which some people want to attack the continued viability to constitutional protection for abortion rights under Roe v Wade, which ultimately is founded on an extension of the Griswold right to privacy (right to reproduce without state regulation or interference).
847371
(1) Such a law would (from the description you provided) violate the First Amendment.  From my recollection, the only time the government can gag the press is when it may substantially affect the determination of a criminal trial ... and even then, the ability of a court to do so is limited.  And for good reasons.\n\n(2) With respect to this particular family, it is unconstitutional to enact an ex post facto law criminalizing past behavior.  And for good reasons.
661083
The separation of church and state was from a Thomas Jefferson speech and not found in the Constitution.\n\nHad the First Amendment been advertised as a path way to remove faith from the public square it would have never been ratified. The First Amendment was installed to insure that Congress would not create a Church that put the Government in the role of theologian. \n\nThe Founders were looking to prevent Congress from establishing a Religion where they were above the law and to be worshipped. They did not want a repeat of King Henry VIII who created a Church where he ostensibly replaced the Pope.
291597
Not so brief, but it sums it up I think. =-)\n\nEngel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that determined that it is unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and require its recitation in public schools, even when it is relatively non-denominational and students may excuse themselves from participation. This was decided in a vote of 6-1, with Justices Frankfurter and White unable to vote.\n\nThe case was brought by the parents of students who complained the prayer to "Almighty God" contradicted their religious beliefs and was supported by groups opposed to the school prayer including Madalyn Murray O'Hair's American Atheists . The prayer in question was:\n\n    Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country. Amen.\n\nThe plaintiffs argued that opening the school day with such a prayer (even if students are not required to recite it) violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (as applied to the states through the Fourteenth), which says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The governments of twenty-two states1 signed on to an amicus curiae brief urging affirmance of the New York Court of Appeals decision that upheld the constitutionality of the prayer. The American Ethical Union, the American Jewish Committee, and the Synagogue Council of America each submitted briefs urging the Court to instead reverse and rule that the prayer was unconstitutional.\n\nJustice Hugo Black, writing for the majority, pointed out that the prayer is a religious activity by the very nature of its being a prayer. The majority further ruled that prescribing such a religious activity for school children is inconsistent with the Establishment Clause. That is, the program was created by government officials to promote a religious belief and therefore not permissible.\n\nIn response to the defendant's claims that: (a) the prayer does not respect any specific established religion; and (b) the prayer is voluntary, Black's opinion held that neither of these claims frees it from contradicting the Establishment Clause. The opinion held that the fact that it promotes a religion is sufficient to conclude it is in violation, even if that promotion is not coercive. Furthermore, the opinion held that the fact that the prayer is vaguely worded enough to not promote any particular religion is not a sufficient defense, as it does still promote a family of religions (those that recognize "Almighty God"), which is also a violation of the Establishment Clause.