How did the Ten Commandments End on Both Sides of the Wall of Separation between Church and State?
How did the Ten Commandments End on Both Sides of the Wall of Separation between Church and State? The Contradicting Opinions of Van Orden v. Perry and McCreary v. ACLU
Tyson Radley O’Connell, 69 Mont. L. Rev. 263 (2008)
On June 27, 2005, in Van Orden v. Perry, the United States Supreme Court held the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment allows a Ten Commandments monument on Texas State Capitol grounds. This opinion appeared to be a major step forward in Establishment Clause jurisprudence. However, on the same day, in McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, the Court held the State of Kentucky violated the Establishment Clause by posting Ten Commandments displays in two county courthouses.
These conflicting judgments do little to clear up the debate concerning religious monuments on government property. Instead, Van Orden and McCreary seem to have opened the floodgates to further litigation and blurred the “wall of separation between church and state.”
This case note explains how the conflicting judgments in Van Orden and McCreary create unacceptable precedent. Part II provides background information on the various tests the Court has applied in Establishment Clause cases. Part III presents the facts from Van Orden and McCreary. Part IV covers the Van Orden and McCreary holdings. Part V presents the Court’s reasoning for determining the outcome of each case. Part VI analyzes the contradictions between the Van Orden and McCreary opinions, and shows why these inconsistencies will create problems in future Establishment Clause challenges. Part VII suggests alternative approaches to future Establishment Clause cases.
One Comment
Since its apparently that the courts have their heads on backwards, why don’t they just display nude pictures on the walls of the court houses and blind those who come into it with blind folds.