From March 3rd 2005 to June 27th 2005, several litigations with a supreme court order were placed between McCreary County (Kentucky) and the ACLU deciding if the depiction of a monument was considered constitutional or unconstitutional based around the first amendment. This court case turned into McCreary v ACLU which questioned displays outside of the school that were religious and what essence displays had on the town. It also questioned the lemon test for religious displays and if the supreme court fully held up to the test. For almost 200 years since the birth of America, the supreme court was confused on religious freedom for schools and what broke the law. The Lemon test, a stare decisis which was invented in the case Lemon v Kurtzman (1972) was used as a guide to help officials understand how schools constitute as violation of the 1st amendment. It asked three prompts that the defendant must argue on: - Does the accused have a secular purpose? - Does the accused advances or inhibits religion? - Does the accused have excessive entanglement between church and state.? However, the test was meant for schools since it's easier to see school actively promote religion as it used the staff. A object by itself doesn’t demonstrate its purpose activity. This case arose when McCreary courthouse (as well as a school district and Pulaski County) had a sign that listed as “the ten commandments” and placed inside the building by a war veteran in 1999. However, the ACLU sued McCreary County and insisted that the sign be taken down. Insted, McCreary listed new signs in addition to the ten commandments that were US documents and supported the monotheistic god within the government. Once again, the ACLU sued and McCreary changed the presentation to have several other important US documents that included footnotes for each one. The ten commandments were one of the documents and was labeled the “King James” documents. The ACLU brought it up into the 6th circuit district and through appet jurigustion was brought to the supreme court. The plaintiff was David Freedman who used the historical context of the piece to show that it was unconstitutional. He argued that the reaction and memory of the people was the most important factor rather than anything in the physical world and must be taken up to consideration. Furthermore, he also argued over indestrectructable memory and how the memory of the citizens will still show a religious display unless the piece it taken down. The defendant of McCreary county, Matthew Saver, used a strict anti-essentialist point of view. He argued that the two pieces before the latest version doesn’t exist within the material world and therefore don’t matter. He then argues that because the existing piece was the only piece, it could only be understood as a historical document based around the other physical documents surrounding it. In the end, the court decided to stand with David Freedman and the ACLU with a 5-4 vote. They stated that the “[t]he eyes that look to purpose belong to an objective observer who takes account of the traditional and external that show up in the ‘text, legislative history, and ...implication of the… official act.’”- the Supreme Court. To the 5/9 of the supreme court, they believed the history did rain significance and the new piece couldn’t have a secular value. Making the piece violate the first amendment. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..,”
Although the ACLU won and restored the first amendment, both Freedman and Saver’s argument had multiple flaws. Saver idea on a document only demonstrating the text it states contradicts the whole idea of the supreme court as the constitution isn’t only a historical document. If Saver’s augment were to rain true, it would belittle the reason why the judicial branch even existence and the law present within the US. Not only that, it also makes other religious text unclear on whether or not it breaks the constitution if text doesn’t have meaning and shows what’s literally there. Meanwhile, Freedman’s argument fails because it brings up a question on where the display stops with meaning. Within Freedman’s logic, even if the piece was destroyed completely, there would still be a reminder of the piece due to its absence. Even if the wall was destroyed, the piece would stay, in Freedman’s eyes, forever-engraved. Unless the whole town with residents were separated, the meaning would still live on through the reminders of what the piece once was. I do believe this story will be remembered, but it would becomes so distorted and so insignificant in the future that it would have the same understanding as a greek or Aztec myth for future residents. When it comes to the constitution, the removal of the Ten Commandments perfectly sides with the law since it was clear from the second version of the display that it was meant to be religiously. On the exact same day where the court disapproved of McCreary, a virtually identical case in Texas known as Van Orden vs Perry was put up to the supreme court and the Texas court were allowed to keep their display of the ten commandments in their court. This question to multiple states around the US the legitimacy of the lemon test and if it should really be used for events outside of an educational system. The contradictions of both case also lead to a strong resurgence of religious pieces against the US court with varying results. Several cases such as Pleasant Grove City v Summum and Green v haskell county board of commissioners existed with high amount of protest for each monument and the religious context it holds. As for the citizens, McCreary only strengthen their belief against the supreme court and also gave the citizens this information: “The Court has acknowledged that the fears and political problems that gave rise to the Religion Clauses in the 18th century are of far less concern today”... There is a framed photo that acknowledges the court case and the memory of the first three displays, forever known as McCreary v ACLU.
Thomson Reuters “ AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF KENTUCKY v. McCREARY COUNTY KENTUCKY” findlaw.com, FindLaw's Legal Blogs, Web, 2019
Benzine Craig “Freedom of Religion: Crash Course Government and Politics #24” youtube, PBS digital studios, Web, 2015, 2019 Big Joel “The Supreme Court and the Ten Commandments: A Close Look at One Weird Case | Big Joel” youtube.com, Youtube, Web 2019 Benzine Craig “Freedom of Religion: Crash Course Government and Politics #24” youtube, PBS digital studios, Web, 2015, 2019 GOVT 2305 “20 Allegheny County v ACLU” youtube.com, Youtube, Web, June 19, 2015, June 5, 2019 Ravitch Frank “McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union (2005)” mtsu.edu, 1 for All , Web, June 2017, 2019 Reuters Thomson “ Green v 182” findlaw.com, FindLaw's Legal Blogs, Web, 2019 Skelton Chris “McCreary County v. American Civil Liber…” supreme.justia.com, Justia, Web, 2019 “Stone v. Graham” .law.cornell.edu, Legal Information Institute, Web, 2019 Thomas J. “Liberty Counsel McCreary v. ACLU” youtube.com, Youtube, Web, April 11, 2019, June 5, 2019