Ten Commandments Monuments and the Establishment Clause

4532 Words19 Pages
| | | | ------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------- | | | | THE TEN COMMANDMENTS MONUMENT IN PLEASANT GROVE’S PIONEER PARK DOES NOT VIOLATE THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE I. Introduction. In Pleasant Grove City v. Summum the Supreme Court held that a municipality's acceptance and acquisition of a privately funded permanent monument erected in a public park while refusing to accept other privately funded permanent memorials is a valid expression of governmental speech. Justice Alito stated that “this does not mean that there are no restraints on government speech … [it] … must [also] comport with the Establishment Clause.” Summum likely litigated the Free Speech claim initially with the goal of having Pleasant Grove officially adopt the message of the Ten Commandments, thus laying the ground work for an Establishment Clause challenge. As Justice Souter, in his concurrence, sagaciously stated, “there is no doubt that this case … has been litigated … with one eye on the Establishment Clause.” An argument that the display in Pioneer Park does not violate the Establishment Clause will be made. First, the passive nature and the history of religious expression in America will show that the Ten Commandments monument in Pioneer Park passes constitutional muster. Second, the Supreme Court decisions following the incorporation of the Establishment Clause to the states have developed several tests. Analyzing each test in the context of the many displays in Pioneer Park will show that all the current tests would determine the Ten Commandments monument is not an impermissible state establishment of religion. Finally, the facts will show that the monument in Pioneer Park is similar to the permissive displays and distinguishable from the displays that have been held to violate the

More about Ten Commandments Monuments and the Establishment Clause

Open Document