| 翻訳と辞書 |
| Mueller v. Allen ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Mueller v. Allen
''Mueller v. Allen'', was a United States Supreme Court case examining the constitutionality of a state tax deduction granted to taxpaying parents for school related expenses, including expenses incurring from private sectarian and nonsectarian education. The plaintiffs claimed a Minnesota statute allowing tax deductions for public and private school expenses alike had the effect of subsidizing religious instruction because parents paying tuition to religious schools received a larger deduction than parents of public school students who incur no tuition expenses. In a 5-4 decision, the Court upheld the statute. The majority affirmed that the benefit was religiously neutral because the deduction applied to sectarian and nonsectarian tuition equally and that the choice of religious or non-religious instruction was made by individual parents, not the state. The dissenting justices' opinion argued that the tax deduction was not permissible because it was an indirect government subsidy of religion and provided a financial incentive to parents to send their children to religious schools.
==Background==
The First Amendment in the federal constitution prohibits laws which advance the establishment of any religion, thus barring any government sponsored religious instruction. Prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution in 1868, the Supreme Court's reviews of First Amendment disputes were minimal because the court only maintained jurisdiction to consider challenges against laws passed at the federal level. ''Everson v. Board of Education'' (1947) was the first case decided by the Court to apply the Establishment Clause prohibition to non-federal legislation. The decision in ''Everson'' established two criteria by which to judge any governmental legislation enacted anywhere within the United States: the action must have a secular purpose and that purpose must be the primary effect of the action. Following a 1971 decision by the Supreme Court, a third condition was incorporated. The resulting three pronged test-the so-called Lemon test- prescribes that for any governmental policy or legislation to satisfy the Establishment Clause, it must have a secular purpose, its primary effect must not the advancement or inhibition of religion, and it must not create an excessive entanglement between religion and government. In ''Mueller'' the plaintiff claimed that the primary effect of the Minnesota law was the advancement of religion because the majority of taxpayers benefiting from the legislation were parents paying their children's tuition to private religious schools.
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「Mueller v. Allen」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.
|
|