|
''Pleasant Grove City v. Summum'', , is a United States legal case relating to the intersection of government speech and the Constitution's prohibition on a government "establishment" of a religion for the country, specifically with respect to monuments (e.g., statues) on public land. ==Issue== In this case, the United States Supreme Court considered whether the municipality of Pleasant Grove, Utah, which allows privately donated monuments, including one of the Ten Commandments, to be displayed on public property, must also let the Summum church put up its own statue, similar in size to the one of the Ten Commandments. According to the New York Times: "In 2003, the president of the Summum church wrote to the mayor here with a proposal: the church wanted to erect a monument inscribed with the Seven Aphorisms in the city park, “similar in size and nature” to the one devoted to the Ten Commandments. The city declined, a lawsuit followed and a federal appeals court ruled that the First Amendment required the city to display the Summum monument." The Supreme Court's decision was expected to be the most important establishment clause decision of the term. Some court-watchers believed the Court would rule that the United States Constitution does not allow government to favor one religion over another. Arguing for the petitioner (the City of Pleasant Grove) was Jay Alan Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), and for the Summum, attorney Pamela Harris of the firm O’Melveny & Myers. The ACLJ argued that there should be a distinction between government speech and private speech and though the government should have the right to display the 10 Commandments, it should not have to endorse all private speech. 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「Pleasant Grove City v. Summum」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|