... In a 6-3 vote, Santa Fe Independent School District lost their right to have student-led prayer before their varsity football games. ... In the dissenting opinion of the Santa Fe case, Chief Justice William H. ... The reasoning behind the ruling in the Santa Fe case, the conservative background of Chief Justice Rehnquist’s dissenting opinion, the unconstitutionality of the court case paired against the precedents set by prior rulings of the same court prove that Santa Fe v. Doe was wrongly decided and should be overturned.
The Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe case spent five years in many courts before finally being decided in June of 2000. The case originated in April of 1995 when two sets of students at a high school that was included in the Santa Fe Independent School District based on infringement of their rights pertaining to alleged actions that “the school district had maintained various policies and practices that violated the establishment of religion clause of the Federal Constitution’s First Amendment and (2) in particular, the school district had allowed students to read overtly Christian prayers at graduation ceremonies and home football games”. ... The policy enacted by the Santa Fe Independent School District stated goals which were to “(a) solemnize the event, (b) promote good sportsmanship and student safety, and (c) establish the appropriate environment for the competition”. ...
The majority opinion filed by Justice Stevens agrees with Jane Doe (named changed for anonymity in court) that student-led prayer is not private speech that would be protected under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause. Stevens finds that the invocation is not private speech because “Santa Fe’s student election system ensures that only those messaged deemed ‘appropriate’ under the District’s policy may be delivered. ... As Rehnquist makes mention of, the precedent for ruling on abstract or “facial” policies was made in the 1987 case of United States v. ... In Salerno, the Supreme Court, the same court that ruled on Santa Fe v. Doe, ruled that a policy that “might operate unconstitutionally under some conceivable set of circumstances is insufficient to render the Act wholly invalid, since the United States Supreme Court has not recognized an “overbreadth” doctrine outside the limited context of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution”. ... As Gerard V. ... ” As V. ... The Supreme Court contradicts itself with it’s ruling in Santa Fe v. Doe. ... As his basis for his strong dissenting opinion in Santa Fe v. Doe, Rehnquist believed “the liberal faction of the Court too often tried to shape public policy by expanding the scope of the law beyond its original meaning”. In Santa Fe v. Doe, Rehnquist feels that the Court is extending the Establishment Clause too far and that in stretching it to the extent they have the Court has violated the Free Exercise clause set out in the very next line of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. ...
Chief Justice Rehnquist’s conservative opinion in the Santa Fe v.
To link to this page, copy the following code to your site:
All Papers Are For Research And Reference Purposes Only!
You may not turn these papers in as your own! You must cite our web site as your source!
