Describe how you understand the “Establishment Clause” and the related “Lemon Test”.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from creating, endorsing, or favoring a religion, ensuring a clear separation between church and state. It requires government actions to remain neutral toward religion and protects against promoting one faith over another or religion over non-religion. To determine whether a law violates this clause, the Supreme Court established the Lemon Test in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). According to the test, a law is constitutional only if it has a secular purpose, neither advances nor inhibits religion, and does not result in excessive government entanglement with religious institutions. If a law fails any one of these three criteria, it is considered unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause.

Is burning the US flag protected by the First Amendment? Explain by referring to the relevant court case discussed in the reading.

Yes, burning the U.S. flag is protected by the First Amendment as a form of symbolic speech. In the case Texas v. Johnson 1989, the Supreme Court ruled that Gregory Lee Johnson’s act of burning the flag during a political protest was expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech. The Court emphasized that the government cannot prohibit expression simply because it is offensive or disagreeable, even when it involves national symbols like the flag. Despite public outrage, the Court held that flag desecration laws were unconstitutional when applied to suppress political expression.

What does it mean when someone says “I’m taking the Fifth”?

When someone says “I’m taking the Fifth,” they are invoking their Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and not incriminate themselves in a criminal case. This means they are choosing not to answer questions or testify, because doing so might reveal information that could be used against them in court. The Fifth Amendment protects individuals from being forced to provide evidence of their own guilt, and refusing to speak cannot legally be used as proof of guilt.