re: Supreme Court ponders the right to pray on the 50-yard line

quote:

---

I don't think there is any question that the Establishment Clause does put certain limitations on the expression of religion within the government.

---

Is it the Establishment Clause itself that has put those limitations on the expression of religion within the government, or is it our continually evolving interpretations about what exactly is an expression of religion, or what exactly it means to be "within the government." My elementary school rationale tells me that the Establishment Clause was written to prevent Congress from enacting any laws that establish a religion.

A public school football coach saying a prayer on the sideline, demonstrative or not, doesn't seem to be the same thing.

quote:

---

we could work back from there to find their personal line.

---

I get this - everyone's line is different. But the Constitution itself hasn't changed. I don't see any text in the Constitution itself that seems to be written for the purpose of determining what a public sector employee can and cannot do.

quote:

---

Separate from the constitutional issues the only concerns I personally have with the coach's conduct is any pressure players might feel to join and any public disturbance it might cause at the games like it did the last three games he coached which becomes a Pickering issue.

---

I agree with that.

quote:

---

Garcetti et al. v. Ceballos 547 U.S. 410 (2006)

---

I'm no constitutional scholar nor have I read all the facts of the particular case, but I do not think the act of praying on the field after a game is within the official duty of the coach as a public employee according to Garcetti.

quote:

---

The controlling factor in Ceballos’ case is that his expressions were made pursuant to his duties as a calendar deputy. See Brief for Respondent 4 (“Ceballos does not dispute that he prepared the memorandum ‘pursuant to his duties as a prosecutor’”). That consideration—the fact that Ceballos spoke as a prosecutor fulfilling a responsibility to advise his supervisor about how best to proceed with a pending case—distinguishes Ceballos’ case from those in which the First Amendment provides protection against discipline. We hold that when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline.

---

Ceballos performed an action (writing the memo) in line with his job as a calendar deputy. The coach's job is presumably to coach football. The act of praying is not entailed by the profession of coaching football. Justice Kennedy further states:

quote:

---

Ceballos wrote his disposition memo because that is part of what he, as a calendar deputy, was employed to do.

---

And further explains

quote:

---

Ceballos did not act as a citizen when he went about conducting his daily professional activities, such as supervising attorneys, investigating charges, and preparing filings. In the same way he did not speak as a citizen by writing a memo that addressed the proper disposition of a pending criminal case. When he went to work and performed the tasks he was paid to perform, Ceballos acted as a government employee. The fact that his duties sometimes required him to speak or write does not mean his supervisors were prohibited from evaluating his performance.

---

Ceballos' act of writing the memo was part of his official duties because the writing of a memo advising his supervisor about how best to proceed with a pending case was part of the job he was paid to do. The act of praying is of a different nature given that the coach is certainly not being paid to pray on a football field.

quote:

---

 or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

---

Seems so simple.

Let them pray or you are violating the constitution.

quote:

---

Is it the Establishment Clause itself that has put those limitations on the expression of religion within the government, or is it our continually evolving interpretations about what exactly is an expression of religion, or what exactly it means to be "within the government."

---

The Constitution requires interpretation and that has been accepted since at least Marbury v Madison in 1803. The reality is there are multiple ways to read any sentence, especially one meant to be very broad. Everyone has a different interpretation of what the words mean. Even texualists and hypertextualists don't always agree. If we can't all agree, because everyone thinks their interpretation is correct, then we have to have an arbiter and that is why we have SCOTUS and the Title III courts.

quote:

---

My elementary school rationale tells me that the Establishment Clause was written to prevent Congress from enacting any laws that establish a religion.

---

If we assume that the Establishment clause only applies to Congress then are we to assume it only applies to the next phrase: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"? If that is the case why can't a school district make a policy prohibiting the exercise of religion?

quote:

---

I get this - everyone's line is different. But the Constitution itself hasn't changed. I don't see any text in the Constitution itself that seems to be written for the purpose of determining what a public sector employee can and cannot do.

---

I think we have to realize the government is actually the people who work for it. Just like then a contract or law says "the corporation" it means the people working for the corporation cannot so something or are required to do something the corporation just like the government can't act without people. Take as an example the 4A. It applies to the people that work for the government since the "government" itself is incapable of search or seizure. The Constitution has to be able to control the actions of the government's employees within some scope.

The point about someone's "line" refers to the fact that everyone has their own interpretation of the words in the Constitution but in the end, SCOTUS is the arbiter, if they say what the words mean then that is what the words mean. Someone has to have that power.

The Constitution was left intentionally broad. The founders knew there was no possible way they could predict and account for every possible fact pattern over the history of the country they manifested.

I think most people agree that had the coach required his players to pray with him or not receive playing time then those actions should be prohibited. I think most would also agree that had he returned to his office shut the door and prior short of screaming then that action should be allowed. The question is where is the line in the middle. There are 9 people empowered to decide where that line is and will likely do so if they rule basically using Garcetti. They could rule using Pickering et al and avoid determining where the line is.

There are times when I can predict the court at an 80% or better rate but I can't do that here for two reasons. One I haven't read the briefs, haven't listened to the orals, and haven't done independent research on the specific issue at bar. Second, the court has gone through major changes in the last 6 years and the new justices are just finding their voice and they are constantly surprising me. I also have the least grasp on the idea of hypertextuality as an ideology. I can predict a textualist like Scalia but those farther away on that spectrum tend to perplex me as I find it rather silly.

quote:

---

Seems so simple.

---

If it was they would have never bothered with the Judiciary Act of 1789 or George wouldn't have signed it. They could have avoided having a Title III and supreme courts.

quote:

---

Establishment Clause

---

The Establishment clause forbids the government from creating an "official" religion (see: Church of England) and prohibits government from proponing one religion over another. The problem is that the interpretation of the latter part has been taken to the extreme of "government and religion cannot co-exist". We've gone from the government enforcing freedom of religion to the segregation away from religion. We know this was never meant to be as there have been Congressional chaplains ever since the Second Continental Congress (after the establishment of Congress, each chamber got their own). To this day, pursuant to Senate Rule IV and House Rule II, the Senate and House chaplains open the daily sessions in their respective chambers with a prayer. LINK

quote:

---

quote:
Seems so simple.

Let them pray or you are violating the constitution.



I'm sure when the founding fathers wrote it up there were a lot of people praying on football fields. We should look at what they said about it at that time... ?

---

Im sure they intended for people to pray anywhere they wanted. They were kinda into personal freedoms. They were also dead set against the government telling you how to practice religion.