Changes

:Justice Holmes' aphorism that "a page of history is worth a volume of logic," New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U.S. 345, 349, 65 L. Ed. 963, 41 S. Ct. 506 (1921), applies with particular force to our Establishment Clause jurisprudence. As we have recognized, our interpretation of the Establishment Clause should "comport with what history reveals was the contemporaneous understanding of its guarantees." Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 673, 79 L. Ed. 2d 604, 104 S. Ct. 1355 (1984). "The line we must draw between the permissible and the impermissible is one which accords with history and faithfully reflects the understanding of the Founding Fathers." School Dist. of Abington v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 294, 10 L. Ed. 2d 844, 83 S. Ct. 1560 (1963) (Brennan, J., concurring). "Historical evidence sheds light not only on what the draftsmen intended the Establishment Clause to mean, but also on how they thought that Clause applied" to contemporaneous practices. [[Marsh v. Chambers]], 463 U.S. 783, 790, 77 L. Ed. 2d 1019, 103 S. Ct. 3330 (1983). Thus, "the existence from the beginning of the Nation's life of a practice, [while] not conclusive of its constitutionality ...[,] is a fact of considerable import in the interpretation" of the Establishment Clause. [[Walz v. Tax Comm'n]] of New York City, 397 U.S. 664, 681, 25 L. Ed. 2d 697, 90 S. Ct. 1409 (1970) (Brennan, J., concurring).

:Justice Holmes' aphorism that "a page of history is worth a volume of logic," New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U.S. 345, 349, 65 L. Ed. 963, 41 S. Ct. 506 (1921), applies with particular force to our Establishment Clause jurisprudence. As we have recognized, our interpretation of the Establishment Clause should "comport with what history reveals was the contemporaneous understanding of its guarantees." Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 673, 79 L. Ed. 2d 604, 104 S. Ct. 1355 (1984). "The line we must draw between the permissible and the impermissible is one which accords with history and faithfully reflects the understanding of the Founding Fathers." School Dist. of Abington v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 294, 10 L. Ed. 2d 844, 83 S. Ct. 1560 (1963) (Brennan, J., concurring). "Historical evidence sheds light not only on what the draftsmen intended the Establishment Clause to mean, but also on how they thought that Clause applied" to contemporaneous practices. [[Marsh v. Chambers]], 463 U.S. 783, 790, 77 L. Ed. 2d 1019, 103 S. Ct. 3330 (1983). Thus, "the existence from the beginning of the Nation's life of a practice, [while] not conclusive of its constitutionality ...[,] is a fact of considerable import in the interpretation" of the Establishment Clause. [[Walz v. Tax Comm'n]] of New York City, 397 U.S. 664, 681, 25 L. Ed. 2d 697, 90 S. Ct. 1409 (1970) (Brennan, J., concurring).

[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]

[[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]