Allen guelzo welcome once again to civil war era studies 205, introduction to the American Civil War era. We are now in our third week in this course, and my, what ground we have covered thus far. We have more to cover because we are coming up to the 1850s now. We are talking about the crises of the 1850s that really begin with the compromise of 1850 that move into the kansasnebraska act of 1854, and we are going to see still more earthquakes occurring. But as we do this, we have a character that we have to meet who is going to play a central role in this entire course, and that is Abraham Lincoln. Now we touched very briefly in our last session by way of introduction of lincoln, and just to go through some of the details once again, Abraham Lincoln is born in 1809, born the 12th of february. His parents were thomas and nancy hanks lincoln, and lincoln himself is born in hodginville, kentucky in a log cabin, yes, quite literally. He doesnt stay in kentucky because in 1818, his parents
Lets remind our viewers what gerrymandering is. Guest that is drawing legislative districts. You see these mass was funny looking district. The reason they are so funny looking is that the party in power draws the district that favor their own party. The question of whether the kind of political gerrymandering which has gotten very sophisticated is constitutional has never been addressed by the u. S. Supreme court. They had never struck down the legislative district, the fact that they are taking a fresh look at the question means that we might get next term a big case that could reshape american politics. Betweene difference political and racial gerrymandering. Guest they have fairly struck minoritydisadvantaging voters, racial gerrymandering. That is thought to be a problem under the Voting Rights act. Political will gerrymandering will not. The Supreme Court has never struck down a district for this. Someform may not be drawing maps for their local legislatures and also for the hous
This is from april. Its an hour. Case 15577. Trinity lutheran church. The state of new york excluded the Learning Center from a safer playground from children because it was operated by a Church Rather than a not for profit. Number one that the policy in this case is not neutral. Churches are not eligible for the benefit here. Assuming theres no serious risk of an establishment violation, thats off the table, are there ever instances in which status, religious status can be used to deny religion or religious believers, benefits from the state . Or are you saying that religious status can never be the basis for it. The question is why would it matter. The next question then i guess wasnt long ago now back in 1947 this court said in no uncertain terms, with tax money imposed to pay for building or maintaining churches or Church Property and doesnt that fit this case . And if so. I dont think it does. We have to be careful in not establishing a church not to deprive religious people or or
This is from april. Its an hour. Case 15577. Trinity lutheran church. The state of new york excluded the Learning Center from a safer playground from children because it was operated by a Church Rather than a not for profit. Number one that the policy in this case is not neutral. Churches are not eligible for the benefit here. Assuming theres no serious risk of an establishment violation, thats off the table, are there ever instances in which status, religious status can be used to deny religion or religious believers, benefits from the state . Or are you saying that religious status can never be the basis for it. The question is why would it matter. The next question then i guess wasnt long ago now back in 1947 this court said in no uncertain terms, with tax money imposed to pay for building or maintaining churches or Church Property and doesnt that fit this case . And if so. I dont think it does. We have to be careful in not establishing a church not to deprive religious people or or
Solely because of the preschool is operated by a Church Rather than a secular, not profit. The state has made several important concessions in this case. Number one that the policy in this case is not neutral and that number two based on the religious character churches are not eligible for the benefit here. This admitted discoloration against religion violates this court free exercise principles. First, as stated in mcdaniel and smith, free exercise clause prevents the government from imposing special disabilities on the basis of religion and used a religious status. And forcing a choice between the exercise of religion and receiving either a government benefit, right or privilege. Assuming that there is no serious risk of an establishment violation, thats off the table are there any instances in which status, religious status, can be used to deny religions or religious believers benefits from the state or are you saying that its absent in the establishment clause problem . The status