APUSA Case Study
Midterm 1
APUSA V STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Arguments for APUSA
In the case for APUSA V STATE OF CALIFORNIA, All People of United States argue that tax funds are being distribute to non-profit religious organizations, which violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The First Amendment states
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The Establishment clause for the First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”, meaning that Congress cannot endorse any …show more content…
A requirement that they must fulfill, as members of the church is they must eschewal from public schools since what they teach in public schools aren’t the same values taught in the church. Calbert and his wife have been homeschooling their two children and have requested to be provided with mental health counseling at home for their two children. Their application was denied due to their children not being part of a public school. Their denial of application violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. It is violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment since the government is prohibiting the free exercise of their religion. They are expressing their religion and standing within their values by keeping there two children in homeschool. In Thomas v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Division (1981) Eddie Thomas who was a Jehovah’s quit his job on religious grounds and he filed for unemployment. He was able to receive unemployment benefits since his new job duties violated his religious beliefs. If Eddie Thomas was able to receive benefits regardless of his religious beliefs, then Calbert’s two children should be able to receive mental health counseling. Benefits were not denied to Mr. Thomas nor should they be denied to these two children. Although they do not attend a public school, they are still within the district without actually being inside a building. Their homeschooling is recognized from the public school
APUSA V STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Arguments for APUSA
In the case for APUSA V STATE OF CALIFORNIA, All People of United States argue that tax funds are being distribute to non-profit religious organizations, which violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The First Amendment states
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The Establishment clause for the First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”, meaning that Congress cannot endorse any …show more content…
A requirement that they must fulfill, as members of the church is they must eschewal from public schools since what they teach in public schools aren’t the same values taught in the church. Calbert and his wife have been homeschooling their two children and have requested to be provided with mental health counseling at home for their two children. Their application was denied due to their children not being part of a public school. Their denial of application violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. It is violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment since the government is prohibiting the free exercise of their religion. They are expressing their religion and standing within their values by keeping there two children in homeschool. In Thomas v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Division (1981) Eddie Thomas who was a Jehovah’s quit his job on religious grounds and he filed for unemployment. He was able to receive unemployment benefits since his new job duties violated his religious beliefs. If Eddie Thomas was able to receive benefits regardless of his religious beliefs, then Calbert’s two children should be able to receive mental health counseling. Benefits were not denied to Mr. Thomas nor should they be denied to these two children. Although they do not attend a public school, they are still within the district without actually being inside a building. Their homeschooling is recognized from the public school