Fact Pattern
Final Essay
Fact Pattern Throughout the over-the-top case of Professor Frieda Speak and President Smacksem, several legal issues were persistent in the lawsuit. However, Professor Speak attempted to bring a lawsuit on several issues where President Smacksem has done no wrong. These issues pertain to his Easter display, his prayer breakfast, and several aspects of the bill that he promoted with Senator Tellinemwhatodo. The first issue that Professor Speak had was with the display that President Smacksem erected on the Union lawn. The display featured a 10 feet tall Easter basket with eggs, a 50 feet tall crucifix of Jesus, a 5 foot pagan earth symbol and a generic sign stating “Salute Life, Celebrate Spring, Go U.S.A. Rock it Mean Green”. …show more content…
Speak had issue with is the optional weekly breakfast that President Smacksem would put on for the faculty. The majority of this action is protected by the Constitution. One of the larger issues that Dr. Speak had with this is that the breakfast ends with a Judeo-Christian prayer. Yet the Supreme Court Case of Marsh v. Chambers (1983) is approving of prayer at the end of a state meeting, just as Congress has approved this action. This is not seen as a religious act, but an acknowledgment of beliefs. In addition to Marsh, Greece v. Galloway (2014) helps President Smacksem’s case because Greece ruled that it is unconstitutional to force someone to say a prayer of another religion. Because of that, Dr. Speak cannot press charges on the fact that she asked, and denied, that President Smacksem say a Native American prayer. This does present one of the issues associated with freedom of religion: that you cannot deny someone from practicing something, you cannot favor one religion over another, yet you cannot force someone to acknowledge or say a prayer if they do not want to. If she had an issue with the meeting being held in general, her argument would also fall flat due to the ruling in Board of Education v. Mergens (1990) that ruled that if a school denied a religious program then they would have to deny all programs, and vice versa. Since there is no indication that President Smacksem is denying other religious meetings from being held than we must …show more content…
Section 2 Part (e-f) would currently pass by the Supreme Court without issue. This part is dealing with providing of information about abortion or birth control at University Health Centers. The Rust v. Sullivan (1991) decision deals with a similar scenario where President Bush presents an executive order where no funding will be sent to Doctors that inform patients about abortion. According to the Court, this does not remove the option to get an abortion or birth control, it just removes the Doctor from giving information about it, similar to a teacher not being able to give information to students on religion. Now, because part (f) does deny the University Health Centers from disseminating birth control, this portion could run into a bit of trouble because it does limit where one could get their birth control from. However, President Smacksem and Senator Tellinemwhattodo may receive some help from the decision in Webster v. Reproductive Health Service (1989). That Court ruled that the Due Process clause does not automatically result in government aid being a right. In this current lawsuit, part (f) does not restrict the University Health Center from providing birth control, it is only removing the government aid to provide that birth control, meaning that the state has the authority to remove funding as long as they do not restrict the actual
Fact Pattern Throughout the over-the-top case of Professor Frieda Speak and President Smacksem, several legal issues were persistent in the lawsuit. However, Professor Speak attempted to bring a lawsuit on several issues where President Smacksem has done no wrong. These issues pertain to his Easter display, his prayer breakfast, and several aspects of the bill that he promoted with Senator Tellinemwhatodo. The first issue that Professor Speak had was with the display that President Smacksem erected on the Union lawn. The display featured a 10 feet tall Easter basket with eggs, a 50 feet tall crucifix of Jesus, a 5 foot pagan earth symbol and a generic sign stating “Salute Life, Celebrate Spring, Go U.S.A. Rock it Mean Green”. …show more content…
Speak had issue with is the optional weekly breakfast that President Smacksem would put on for the faculty. The majority of this action is protected by the Constitution. One of the larger issues that Dr. Speak had with this is that the breakfast ends with a Judeo-Christian prayer. Yet the Supreme Court Case of Marsh v. Chambers (1983) is approving of prayer at the end of a state meeting, just as Congress has approved this action. This is not seen as a religious act, but an acknowledgment of beliefs. In addition to Marsh, Greece v. Galloway (2014) helps President Smacksem’s case because Greece ruled that it is unconstitutional to force someone to say a prayer of another religion. Because of that, Dr. Speak cannot press charges on the fact that she asked, and denied, that President Smacksem say a Native American prayer. This does present one of the issues associated with freedom of religion: that you cannot deny someone from practicing something, you cannot favor one religion over another, yet you cannot force someone to acknowledge or say a prayer if they do not want to. If she had an issue with the meeting being held in general, her argument would also fall flat due to the ruling in Board of Education v. Mergens (1990) that ruled that if a school denied a religious program then they would have to deny all programs, and vice versa. Since there is no indication that President Smacksem is denying other religious meetings from being held than we must …show more content…
Section 2 Part (e-f) would currently pass by the Supreme Court without issue. This part is dealing with providing of information about abortion or birth control at University Health Centers. The Rust v. Sullivan (1991) decision deals with a similar scenario where President Bush presents an executive order where no funding will be sent to Doctors that inform patients about abortion. According to the Court, this does not remove the option to get an abortion or birth control, it just removes the Doctor from giving information about it, similar to a teacher not being able to give information to students on religion. Now, because part (f) does deny the University Health Centers from disseminating birth control, this portion could run into a bit of trouble because it does limit where one could get their birth control from. However, President Smacksem and Senator Tellinemwhattodo may receive some help from the decision in Webster v. Reproductive Health Service (1989). That Court ruled that the Due Process clause does not automatically result in government aid being a right. In this current lawsuit, part (f) does not restrict the University Health Center from providing birth control, it is only removing the government aid to provide that birth control, meaning that the state has the authority to remove funding as long as they do not restrict the actual