Question: Do both Craig v. Boren and Marsh v. Chambers deal with the First Amendment?
Context: Clay Calvert is Brechner Eminent Scholar of Mass Communication and Director of the Marion B. Brechner First Amendment Project in the University of Florida College of Journalism and Communications, specializing in First Amendment Law.  He was previously a professor at the Pennsylvania State University where he co-directed the Pennsylvania Center for the First Amendment.  A member of the California State Bar Association, he has authored or co-authored more than 125 scholarly articles for law journals.  He has also written several books dealing with the First Amendment, the most noteworthy being "Voyeur Nation" (Westview, 2000). Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983), was a landmark court case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that government funding for chaplains was constitutional because of the "unique history" of the United States.  Three days before the ratification of the First Amendment in 1791, containing the Establishment clause, the federal legislature authorized hiring a chaplain for opening sessions with prayer. California Education Code 48907 (1977), also known as the California Student Free Expression Law, acts as a counter to the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) Supreme Court ruling, which limited the freedom of speech granted to public high school newspapers.  The Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier decision held that public school curricular student newspapers that have not been established as "forums for student expression" are subject to a lower level of First Amendment protection than independent student expression or newspapers established (by policy or practice) as forums for student expression.  Ed Code 48907 affirms the right of high school newspapers to publish whatever they choose, so long as the content is not explicitly obscene, libelous, or slanderous.  The newspaper content must also pass the minimal disruption test set forth in the Supreme Court ruling on Tinker v. Des Moines (1969).  In contrast with Hazelwood, which limited First Amendment Protection to only those high school newspapers that had, through practice or policy, been established as forums for student expression, Ed Code 48907 affirms the right of all newspapers to the freedom of expression. Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri, 564 U.S. 379 (2011) , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held the public concern test limits Petition Clause claims by public employees.  More specifically state and local government employees may not sue their employers for retaliation under the Petition Clause of the First Amendment when they petition the government on matters of private concern.  To show that an employer interfered with rights under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, an employee must show that his speech related to a matter of public concern.  The court held that this test also applies when the employee invokes the Petition Clause.  The case is significant under the Petition Clause because 1.)  it recognized that lawsuits are “Petitions” under the First Amendment and 2.)  it explains that the Petition Clause and Speech Clause are not always coextensive, and leaves open the possibility that here may be additional claims under the Petition Clause which plaintiffs may invoke consistent with the purpose of that Clause. The First Amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan (Urdu: آئین پاکستان میں پہلی ترمیم) is a part of the Constitution of Pakistan which came on effect on May 4 of 1974.  The official document of the First Amendment is called the Constitution (First Amendment), 1974.  The "I Amendment" redefined the international and provisional boundaries, federal treaties of Pakistan, and naval treaties of Pakistan.  The "I Amendment" eliminates and removed the references of East-Pakistan after the recognition of Bangladesh.  The "I Amendment" amended articles 1, 8, 17, 61, 101, 193, 199, 200, 209, 212, 250, 260 and 272, and the First Schedule of the Constitution of Pakistan. Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946) , was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which it ruled that a state trespassing statute could not be used to prevent the distribution of religious materials on a town's sidewalk, notwithstanding the fact that the sidewalk where the distribution was taking place was part of a privately owned company town.  The Court based its ruling on the provisions of the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment. Robert "Bob" Corn-Revere is an American First Amendment attorney.  Corn-Revere is currently a partner at Davis Wright Tremaine LLP in Washington, D.C. and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute.  Corn-Revere was named as one of "America's Leading Lawyers for Business" in Media & Entertainment by Chambers USA, 2005–2014 and “Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers,” Top in First Amendment/Media/Advertising, Law & Politics, 2008-2014 and in Communications 2011-2014, “Best Lawyers in America” in Communications, Entertainment, First Amendment, and Media Law, 2010-2014, and has been listed by Washingtonian Magazine as one of “Washington’s Top Lawyers” in Communications Law and First Amendment Law. In American jurisprudence, the overbreadth doctrine is primarily concerned with facial challenges to laws under the First Amendment.  American courts have recognized several exceptions to the speech protected by the First Amendment (for example, obscenity, fighting words, and libel or defamation), and states therefore have some latitude to regulate unprotected speech.  A statute doing so is overly broad (hence, overbreadth) if, in proscribing "unprotected" speech, it also proscribes "protected" speech.  Because an overly broad law may deter constitutionally protected speech, the overbreadth doctrine allows a party to whom the law may constitutionally be applied to challenge the statute on the ground that it violates the First Amendment rights of others.  See, e.g., "Board of Trustees of State Univ. of N.Y. v. Fox", 492 U.S. 469, 483 (1989), and "R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul", 505 U.S. 377 (1992).  Overbreadth is closely related to vagueness; if a prohibition is expressed in a way that is too unclear for a person to reasonably know whether or not their conduct falls within the law, then to avoid the risk of legal consequences they often stay far away from anything that could possibly fit the uncertain wording of the law.  The law's effects are thereby far broader than intended or than the U.S. Constitution permits, and hence the law is overbroad. Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976) , was the first case in which a majority of the United States Supreme Court determined that statutory or administrative sex classifications were subject to intermediate scrutiny under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment is a 2007 non-fiction book by journalist Anthony Lewis about freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of thought, and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.  The book starts by quoting the First Amendment, which prohibits the U.S. Congress from creating legislation which limits free speech or freedom of the press.  Lewis traces the evolution of civil liberties in the U.S. through key historical events.  He provides an overview of important free speech case law, including U.S. Supreme Court opinions in "Schenck v. United States" (1919), "Whitney v. California" (1927), "United States v. Schwimmer" (1929), "New York Times Co. v. Sullivan" (1964), and "New York Times Co. v. United States" (1971).
Answer: no