Opinion ID: 1741615
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Consideration of the Arguments

Text: As one can see from the arguments supporting the trial court's judgment and those opposing it, the principal issue in this case is whether the trial court correctly relied upon Lemon, and upon Constangy and Harvey, which followed Lemon, or whether the trial court should have applied Marsh and Anderson. [24] In examining the merits of this case, I did substantial research in an attempt to understand the current state of Establishment Clause jurisprudence. I quickly realized that the delineation of the constitutionally permissible relationship between religion and government is a most difficult and sensitive task, calling for the careful exercise of both judicial and public judgment and restraint. School Dist. of Abington Tp., Pa. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 305, 83 S.Ct. 1560, 1615, 10 L.Ed.2d 844 (1963) (Goldberg, J., concurring, joined by Harlan, J.). The dozens of cases decided by the Supreme Court since Schempp was released tend to show the truth of Justice Goldberg's concluding observation that the measure of constitutional adjudication is the ability and willingness to distinguish between real threat and mere shadow. Id. at 308, 83 S.Ct. at 1616 (emphasis added). [25]