Question

100 POINTS!!!!! AP US Government and Politics

The State of Pennsylvania had passed a law requiring public schools to recite the Lord's Prayer and read Bible verses each morning. To comply with the legislative mandate, Abington School District directed schools to conduct the morning exercise via the public-address system. If a school did not have a public-address system, the homeroom teacher was to conduct the exercises with students. Students who did not want to participate could be excused from the room.

In Abington Township School District v. Schempp (1963), the US Supreme Court struck down the law as a violation of Constitution. The court stated that, since the school district's employees were agents of the State of Pennsylvania, they could not direct or encourage students to perform any religious activity.

The court stated the following:

Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment. But the exercises here do not fall into those categories. They are religious exercises, required by the States in violation of the command of the First Amendment.

(A) Identify the constitutional clause that is common to both Abington v. Schempp and Engel v. Vitale.

(B) Based on the constitutional clause identified in part A, explain why the facts of Engel v. Vitale and Abington v. Schempp led to a similar holding in both cases.

(C) Describe an action that members of the public could take to limit the impact of Abington v. Schempp if they disagreed with the court’s decision.

Answer 1

(A) The constitutional clause that is common to both Abington Township School District v. Schempp (1963) and Engel v. Vitale is the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Answer 2

The shared constitutional clause in Abington v. Schempp and Engel v. Vitale is the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The facts of each case involved government-endorsed religious activities in public schools, which led to the Supreme Court declaring those practices unconstitutional. To limit the impact of Abington v. Schempp, the public might pursue legislative changes or shift towards private or home-school education.

Step-by-step explanation:

The constitutional clause common to both Abington v. Schempp and Engel v. Vitale is the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. This clause prohibits the government from making any law respecting an establishment of religion, which includes policies or practices that promote or endorse religious practices within public institutions.

Because of the Establishment Clause, the facts of both Engel v. Vitale and Abington v. Schempp led to a similar holding, as both cases involved public schools promoting religious activities - prayer and Bible reading, respectively - which the Supreme Court ruled as unconstitutional. The mandatory nature of these religious activities in public schools represented a government endorsement of religion, thus violating the Establishment Clause.

Members of the public who disagree with the court's decision in Abington v. Schempp could engage in various actions to limit its impact, such as advocating for constitutional amendments, lobbying legislators to pass laws that test the boundaries of the Establishment Clause, or promoting private and home-school education where religious activities can be more freely incorporated.