La Cour suprême des États-Unis dans le débat sur la séparation de l’Église et de l’État : les arrêts McCreary v. ACLU of Kentucky et Van Orden v. Perry du 27 juin 2005
Metadatas
October 27, 2011
- doi: 10.4000/lisa.4084
This document is linked to :
info:eu-repo/semantics/reference/issn/1762-6153
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ , info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Similar subjects
Society, High Fashionable society High society Upper classes Elites (Social sciences) Theology, Ecclesiastical Ecclesiastical theology Ecclesiology farmyard yard Ensayos de propiedades mecánicas Iglesia cristiana Iglesia universal Clases dirigentes Élite (Ciencias sociales) Light emitting diode TEN TETN N,N-diéthyléthanamine TEA Diéthyléthanamine, NN- RN 121-44-8. Spectateurs Public Auditoire Assistance (public) Visiteurs Fréquentation Audience Société, Haute Establishment Haute société Épreuves de tests Église (théologie) Chrétienté Église chrétienne Haute société Establishment Société, Haute Notables Élites (sciences sociales)Cite this document
Frédéric Heurtebize, « La Cour suprême des États-Unis dans le débat sur la séparation de l’Église et de l’État : les arrêts McCreary v. ACLU of Kentucky et Van Orden v. Perry du 27 juin 2005 », Revue LISA / LISA e-journal, ID : 10.4000/lisa.4084
Metrics
Share / Export
Abstract
This article discusses two US Supreme Court rulings issued on June 27, 2005, both dealing with the separation of Church and State. The Court was called to rule on whether the display of the Ten Commandments on public grounds violated the “establishment clause”. Beyond the purely legal question, the issue at hand tests some of America’s national foundations, i.e. its Constitution and its religious tradition. That the Supreme Court gave two seemingly contradictory decisions, and thus failed to “clarify the law”, by publishing two different decisions on such similar cases highlights that the issue remains a constitutionally delicate one. This study will seek to examine the arguments and ideological positions within the Court that led to this split ruling which will set an unclear legal precedent for the future.