翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ Stonefield (Charlottesville, Virginia) ・ Stonefield Beach State Recreation Site ・ Stonefield Castle ・ Stonefish (mine) ・ Stonefish Rebecchi ・ Stonefort Precinct, Williamson County, Illinois ・ Stonefort, Illinois ・ Stonefree ・ Stonefunkers ・ Stonega Historic District ・ Stonega, Virginia ・ Stonegard ・ Stone town of Kuklica ・ Stone triggerfish ・ Stone v. Chisolm ・ Stone v. Graham ・ Stone Valley Recreation Area ・ Stone veneer ・ Stone wall ・ Stone Wall (Australia) ・ Stone wall in Takanawa seashore ・ Stone wall trees in Hong Kong ・ Stone washing ・ Stone Wave ・ Stone Windmill ・ Stone wrist-guard ・ Stone Zoo ・ Stone'd Records ・ Stone's Been Rolled Away ・ Stone's Fall Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク Stone v. Graham ： ウィキペディア英語版 Stone v. Graham In ''Stone v. Graham'', , the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a Kentucky statute was unconstitutional and in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, because it lacked a nonreligious, legislative purpose. The statute required the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments on the wall of each public classroom in the state. While the copies of the Ten Commandments were purchased with private funding, the Court ruled that because they were being placed in public classrooms they were in violation of the First Amendment. ==Opinion of the Court== The Court held that the Kentucky's statute that required the Ten Commandments to be posted in school classrooms was in violation of the First Amendment. To interpret the First Amendment, the Court rested on the precedent established in ''Lemon v. Kurtzman'' and the three-part "Lemon test". The Court concluded that because "requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in public school rooms has no secular legislative purpose," it is unconstitutional. The Court approached the case through the lens created in ''Lemon v. Kurtzman''. They agreed that if Kentucky's statute broke any of the three guidelines outlined in the Lemon test, the statute would be in violation of the Establishment Clause. The majority voiced that The Commandments convey a religious undertone, because they concern "the religious duties of believers: worshipping the Lord God alone, avoiding idolatry, not using the Lord's name in vain, and observing the Sabbath Day." But since "the Commandments are () integrated into the school curriculum, where the Bible may constitutionally be used in an appropriate study of history," they have no secular purpose and a definite religious purpose. The Court concluded that even though The Commandments were paid for by a private institution and even though they were "merely posted on the wall ... the mere posting of the copies under the auspices of the legislature provides the 'official support of the State ... Government' that the Establishment Clause prohibits." Even though the Commandments were not used to indoctrinate or convert students but were quite passive, the Court maintained that, "it is no defense to urge that the religious practices here may be relatively minor encroachments on the First Amendment." Because it endorsed religion and had no secular purpose, the Court concluded that the Kentucky statute was unconstitutional. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Stone v. Graham」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.