1. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution forbids the US government from establishing a national religion or preferring one religion over another. To determine whether a law or governmental action violates the above clause, the Supreme Court devised what has come to be known as the “Lemon Test” in its decision Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 US 602 (1971). It is three-pronged: it provides a test of a valid secular purpose of the law, a test of a primary effect that does not advance or inhibit religion, and a test of no excessive government entanglement with religion. Any one of these being violated may render an action unconstitutional, thus supporting the argument of separation of church and state.
  2. Yes, flag burning of the U.S. under the First Amendment was protected in the Supreme
    Court case Texas v. Johnson, 1989. The Court here ruled that the burning of the flag was
    a symbolic speech that was accorded full protection under the First Amendment. The Court reiterated that any prohibition of expression by the government can’t be because it is offensive or disagreeable. The ruling underlined the principle that the First Amendment protects not just popular speech but also forms of expression that might provoke strong reactions, thereby reinforcing the importance of free speech in a democratic society.
  3. The Fifth Amendment protects a person from having to answer any questions that might involve him or her in a crime. Hence, when anybody says, “I’m taking the Fifth,” he is invoking the right not to say or disclose anything that may incriminate him in court. The term is used primarily in a legal context but has passed into common usage to refer to a refusal to provide information.

One thought on “Cristian Mejia 9.1”

  1. Hello Cristian, your explanation of these amendments and the Supreme Court rulings that defend our rights is excellent! The Lemon Test from Lemon v. Kurtzman is a very straightforward method of ensuring that the government maintains its religious neutrality, highlighting the significance of keeping church and state distinct. Additionally, when someone “takes the Fifth,” they are protected by the Fifth Amendment, which prevents them from saying anything that could be used against them. These cases clearly demonstrate how the Constitution is intended to uphold individual rights, even in tough situations!

Leave a Reply