Talk:Everson v. Board of Education

Is this really the first?
Is this claim true?

{quote}This was the first Supreme Court case incorporating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as binding upon the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision in Everson marked a turning point in the interpretation and application of disestablishment law in the modern era.{/quote}

Everson refers to JONES v. CITY OF OPELIKA, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) 319 U.S. 105, which says this:

{quote} The First Amendment, which the Fourteenth makes applicable to the states, declares that 'Congress 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 ....' It could hardly be denied that a tax laid specifically on the exercise of those freedoms would be unconstitutional. Yet the license tax imposed by this ordinance is in substance just that.{/quote}

And it in turn refers to other cases to justify the contention that the Fourteenth applies the First Amendment to the states:

{quote}The real contention of the witnesses is that there can be no taxation of the occupation of selling books and pamphlets because to do so would be contrary to the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which now is held to have drawn the contents of the First Amendment into the category of individual rights protected [319 U.S. 105, 121]  from state deprivation. Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 666, 45 S.Ct. 625, 630; Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 707, 51 S.Ct. 625, 708; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303, 60 S. Ct. 900, 903, 128 A.L.R. 1352. Since the publications teach a religion which conforms to our standards of legality, it is urged that these ordinances prohibit the free exercise of religion and abridge the freedom of speech and of the press.

The First Amendment reads as follows: 'Congress 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.'{/quote} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.251.205 (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Cantwell and establishment of religion
Before Everson, Cantwell says this

"First. We hold that the statute, as construed and applied to the appellants, deprives them of their liberty without due process of law in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment. The fundamental concept of liberty embodied in that Amendment embraces the liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment. 3 The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws. The constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect. On the one hand, it forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship. Freedom of conscience and freedom to adhere to such religious organization or form of worship as the individual may choose cannot be restricted by law. On the other hand, it safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion."

Were there decisions on the establishment of religion before Cantwell? Jonathan.robie (talk) 13:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

NPOV
Harvardgirl33 left a message on my talk page indicating that she thinks "this article seemed very slanted against Justice Black and leaves the reader the impression that in the legal field it is widely accepted that people view Everson as illegitimate."--Cdogsimmons (talk) 13:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Rulings
This article is pretty vague about the actual rulings of the lower and Supreme Court. The New Jersey court actually agreed with Everson, I believe, and the article makes it seems as though it didn't and he appealed, whereas if I am correct the opposite in fact occured, and was subsequently overturned by the Supreme court. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MennoMan (talk • contribs) 16:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed by adding the NJ Supreme Court decision in favor of Everson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacontorte (talk • contribs) 11:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

introduction
introduction does not actually inform readers as to what the case was, only it's importance Saganatsu (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Controversy Section
Deleted a large passage of sweeping - and questionable - unsubstantiated historical claims about the First Amendment and the framing of the constitution. Such passages are likely more suited to pages on the First Amendment, the Constitutional Convention or the concept of separation of church and state. Remnant of legal debate remains but section is suitable to expansion with sourced legal arguments. Olekinderhook (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've scrapped the rest of it as well. The "criticism/controversy" section has been riddled with problems. First, Hamburg's interpretation of Black's decision - is it faithful to what he wrote, and if so is his opinion here notable? As it was formerly written in that section, Black is described as coming to his decision based on a reluctance to fund parochial schools when that was never an issue at trial (parents, not the schools, were recipients of the funds in question).  Black is also irrational, in this depiction, since in his decision and written opinion he permitted the reimbursements to families of Catholic parochial students.  Second, the "separation of church and state" controversies about Jefferson, Madison, et al, was confusingly conflated with the case law establisted in this decision.  This article needs to focus on the controversy of this decision, not the controversy of that particular phrase.  There is overlap, yes, but this section needs to tie them, or to describe how that phraseology started a controversy following this decision. I've blanked it to coax better sourcing and better development of the connection between this decision (which allowed the funding) and the ensuing disputes over the "wall of separation" allegedly erected by it. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I added the Dreiser quote to try to give some "better sourcing" to what I think is an important issue. However, I admit that my potential for NPOV on this is high, since I agree with Dreiser, so if you think my edit needs some cleaning up, have at it. Especially since it's a potentially inflammatory issue, anything that adds balance (perhaps a defense of Black on this issue from another author?) would probably be helpful. Rinne na dTrosc (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)