Thomas concurrence: mere presence of the monument involves no coercion and d/n violate Est. Clause (can look away from the monument)
Breyer concurrence (moves over to majority after McCreary): looks at context of display and finds that its physical setting (lots of secular symbols around) & circumstances surrounding its placement 40 yrs ago suggest that the State intended secular aspects of the display’s message to predominate (historical msg and secular moral msg).
Dissent: Est Clause has created a strong presumption vs. the display of religious symbols on public property. 10 Commandments display reps inherently sectarian msg. Follows neutrality principle.
Prob: How do you know how many symbols need to surround it for non-religious display? History may solve prob of whether intent of display was to unite around religion.
Federal
|
State
|
Art. I § 9
|
Art. I § 10 (could limit state power)
|
Art. III
|
Art. IV § 2
|
1791 Bill of Rights
|
Art. IV § 4
|
Art. I, sec. 10[1]: “No state shall … pass any bill of attainder or ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts.”
Art. IV, sec. 2[1]: “The citizens of each state shall be entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.”
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
