amendment1

===**__Cla!r3 Cr!mand0-United States vs. Eichmen 1. Claire Crimando 2.United States vs. Eichmen (1990) 3.It violates the 1st amendment's freedom of speech, because burining the flag is a freedom of expression (speech), therefore, this is bieng violated. 4. Eichmen won in favor of the court. 5.Influenced country-to later burnings of the flag. No big impact.__**===

.Grace Grieco2.Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) 5. This decision meant that Connecticut violated Cantwell's rights and a case like this probable will not happen again because court have learned how to deal with these types of things. This impacted our country because now we have the constitutional law the "time, place, and manner" rule.**
 * 3.Cantwell was arguing that you need approval before soliciting door-to-door violates his first amendment right of freedom of religion.**
 * 4. The court unanimously decided that Connecticut violated Cantwell's first amendment right.

Vasil is doing Buckley v Valeo (1976)  1.Vasil Mico 2.Buckley v. Valeo (1976) 3.It violates the first amendment of freedom of expression because Valeo protested that he couldn't get more then a thousand dollars from his community when he was campaigning for government. But he was sued by the federal government because he didn't obey the federal election campaign act of 1971. 4.The supreme court upheld the decision (7-1) in favor of Buckley stating that there should be a restriction on contributions.(one judge did not participate) 5.It means that that you may not take a substantial amount of money from a public figure. The impact on our country is that political candidates will abide by and follow the rules.

1. Justine Collins 2. Brown v. Hartlage 465 U.S. 45 3. Petitioner, the challenger, in a general election, for respondent's office as a Commissioner of Jefferson County, Ky., committed himself, at a televised press conference, to lowering Commissioners' salaries if elected. After petitioner won the election, respondent filed suit in a Kentucky state court, alleging that petitioner had violated § 121.055 and seeking to have the election declared void. 4. Although finding that, under the reasoning of an earlier decision of the Kentucky Court of Appeals construing § 121.055, petitioner had violated the statute by promising to reduce his salary to less than that "fixed by law," the trial court concluded that petitioner had been "fairly elected," and refused to order a new election. The Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed. 5. That people should be fairly elected.

1.Jake Werkmeister 2.Elton Cox V. Louisiana(1961) 3.Elton gathered a big group of students and marched. The marched a anti-discrimination walk. It led to the highway and during lunch hour the group caused the police to come and tear gas the whole group. They arrested Elton the next day for "Disturbing thr Peace". But later on he said it was against the First amendment for freedom of Speech and Assembly. 4.The rulng was 7-2 decision. They saw that Singing, Clapping, and Cheering was not really Disturbing the Peace. 5.I defiinetly agree with the decision its not like it was an angry mob.Thay had a good reason to do what they did.

1. Tommy Cerene 2. Bong Hits for Jesus 2002 3. Joseph Frederick waved a banner across the street from his school. The banner said " Bong hits Jesus" hoping to get on camera when a news crew was coming to film the Winter Olympics torch passing by the school in Janurary of 2002. He said that the phrase was not intended to promote drug use. His principal disagreed with him claming the banner was to promote drug use. 4.The decision was made five and a half years after this happened. They ruled in the school districts favor 5-4 and Frederick was suspended from school for 10 days. 5.The banner did promote drug-related messages in school and the message was not protected by the First Amendment.

1Kristin stetzel 2 Mozert v. Hawkins county board of education(1987) 3 The district court had a requirement for public school to use certain textbooks, but when the parents and students found out they weren't happy.The books had religious objections in it and parents started to complain.This violated their freedom of religion.  4 The parents were awarded $50,000 damages. 5 The court decided to give the students a choice to be excused from reading the textbook, but instead they had to go to a different classroom and read the old textbook.

1.Jenniffer Molina 2.Respondent operators of two adult motion picture theaters brought this action against petitioner city officials for injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment of unconstitutionality regarding two 1972 Detroit zoning ordinances that amended an "Anti-Skid Row Ordinance" adopted 10 years earlier. The 1972 ordinances provide that an adult theater may not (apart from a special waiver) be located within 1,000 feet of any two other "regulated uses" or within 500 feet of a residential area. The term "regulated uses" applies to 10 different kinds of establishments in addition to adult theaters, including adult book stores, cabarets, bars, taxi dance halls, and hotels. If the theater is used to present material distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on matter depicting. . . "specified Sexual Activities" or "specified Anatomical Areas," it is an "adult" establishment. The District Court upheld the ordinances, and granted petitioners' motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the ordinances constituted a prior restraint on constitutionally protected communication and violated equal protection. Respondents, in addition to asserting the correctness of that court's ruling with respect to those constitutional issues, contend that the ordinances are void for vagueness. While not attacking the specificity of the definitions of sexual activities or anatomical areas, respondents maintain (1) that they cannot determine how much of the described activity may be permissible before an exhibition is "characterized by an emphasis" on such matter, and (2) that the ordinances do not specify adequate procedures or standards for obtaining a waiver of the 1,000-foot restriction. Held: 1

1. Eryk Banatt 2. New York Times Co. V. Sullivan (1964) 3. This case relates to the first amendment because Sullivan, an elected official, claimed that he was libeled against by new york times co. Sullivan claimed that the newspaper wrote an advertisement that claimed, falsely, that "Public officials allegedly directed against civil rights leaders and activists" 4. The court decided that there was insufficient information to declare "actual malice" or bad intent. 5. This decision means that if you ever are libelled against, there needs to be " actual malice" or bad intent, for the "libelee" to collect charges.

2.Island Trees School District vs Pico (1982) 3.Amendment 1 has been applied to this court case because the Board of Education of the Island Trees School District in New York ordered for the withdrawal of nine books from the libraries of the Island Trees senior and junior high schools. In the Board's opinion, the books were "anti­American, anti­Christian, anti­Semitic, and just plain filthy." Four high school students and one from the junior high school sued the school district, claiming that the removal of the books was a violation of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. 4.The Supreme Court ruled in the favor of the students, saying that the books were not required reading. 5.The decision means that although schools have a right to determine the content of their libraries, they may not interfere with a student's right to learn and read what they wish. This has had an impact on our country in which it made realized that schools may not control their libraries just because they do not agree with or like the ideas that a book contains.
 * 1.Alex Ashmore**

stevn penna is doing island tree school distict vs pico 



Dan Hawk is doing Tinker v. Des Moines [1969]

Matt D is doing __Gitlow v. New York -1925__

Garrett is doing Debs Vs. United States

1. Graham 2. Moore v. Glassroth (2003) 3. Whether placing a granite Ten Commandments Monument in the Rotunda of the Alabama Judicial Building violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. 4. The decision of this court case was that the monument was taken down. 5. The impact on the country is that people don't have freedom of Religion in the Judicial building.

Island Trees School District vs Pico (1982) Amendment 1 has been applied to this court case because the Board of Education of the Island Trees School District in New York ordered for the withdrawal of nine books from the libraries of the Island Trees senior and junior high schools. In the Board's opinion, the books were "anti­American, anti­Christian, anti­Semitic, and just plain filthy." Four high school students and one from the junior high school sued the school district, claiming that the removal of the books was a violation of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. The Supreme Court ruled in the favor of the students, saying that the books were not required reading. The decision means that although schools have a right to determine the content of their libraries, they may not interfere with a student's right to learn and read what they wish. This has had an impact on our country in which it made realized that schools may not control their libraries just because they do not agree with or like the ideas that a book contains.
 * Alex Ashmore**

stevn penna is doing island tree school distict vs pico

Dan Hawk is doing Tinker v. Des Moines [1969]

Matt D is doing __Gitlow v. New York -1925__

Garrett is doing Debs Vs. United States

1. Graham 2. Moore v. Glassroth (2003) 3. Whether placing a granite Ten Commandments Monument in the Rotunda of the Alabama Judicial Building violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. 4. The decision of this court case was that the monument was taken down. 5. The impact on the country is that people will now think that people can not show their reeligion in public places even though it says that you have the freedom to religion in the First Amendment.

Mariel is doing Buckley vs. Valeo

1. Juhie Patel 2. Chaplinsy v. New Hampshire (1942) 3.Walter Chaplinsky was using a public sidewalk and passing out pamphlets while calling organized religion a "racket". After causing a scene a polic officer removed Chplinsky from the sidewalk and took him to the police station. On the way back he met a town marshal for the second time and he attacked him verbally. He was then arrested forintetionally speaking offesively (a New Hampshire law). When he got fined Chaplinsky complained that it was his first amendment right to have freedom of speech. 4. The Supreme Court had decided that he was not protected under the first amaendment because they were fighting words which is not protected under freedom of speech. 5. American people know thier limits to their freedom of speech.

Board of Education, Island Trees schoold dostrict vs. Pico- Mandie Nick shane k. is doing //**Minersville School District v. Board of Education**//

1.Claire Romine 2. Faith Center Church v. Glover (2006) 3. Faith Center Church wanted to have a class in the Glover library. They did not approve of that because they thought it violated their 1st amendment right-freedom of religion. Also because the county made a rule that public places were not allowed to have Religious activities in their building. 4. Since the county had a rule that there were no Religious activities allowed the church could not have their afternoon class. 5. This impacted the country because if they let the church have their class then there could be problems. If somebody was a different religion then the one they were practicing they could have gotten affended and mad.

Chris West Stromberg v. California (1931) 1. Chris West 2. Stromberg v.California(1931) 3. Stromburg through a red frag in a public place which could mean a symbol to otrganize govenment. By the 1st amendment it was his freedom of expression. 4. The desission was that stromberg was guilty. 5. The dission meant that you can't go around throughing red flags everywhere.

Casey is doing Shelton vs. Tucker Jake is doing cox vs Louisiana 1. Mitchell Agostini v. Felton (1997) 2. Agostini v. Felton (1997) 3. This case was brought to supreme court because, the city could not have public school teachers provide supplemental instruction to disadvantaged students at religious schools during regular school hours. They said this was not letting students at religious schools express their religion this was not right for those students paying extra money. THey were getting a public scholl education but paying as if it was private school. 4. The ruling was a 5-4 decision, and the Supreme Court ruled that a privately-funded program cannot be given supplemental education from under payed and not as knowledgable teachers. 5. This shows the counrtry that you can pay for private and religious schools and deserve better education and a right to prayer.

Devin O is doing Schenck v. united states 1.Devin O'Sullivan. 2. Schenck v. United States 3. Schenck made and circulated a flyer protesting drafting in the first World War. He was arrested. 4. Schenk appealed to the supreme court, saying that he had a right to free speech. The Court, in an unanimous opinion, decided that his arrest was constitutional

1.Kristin Hart 2.Schact vs. United States 3. Daniel Jay Schact was involved in skits that were demonstrations of the Vietnam War. Schact wore a military uniform and performed his skit with two other people. The skit was performed sveral times between 6:30 and 8:30 on December 4th, 1967 in front of the Armed Forces Induction Center at Houston, Texas. Federal law banned wearing military uniforms without proper authority. Schactfought in trial and said that he wore the army uniform as an "actor" in a "theatrical production" 4. Schact was fined $250 and sentenced 6 months maximum in jail. The justices accepted that the government can limit use of military uniforms to only those who are authorized. It became clear that Congress has in effect made it a crime for an actor wearing a military uniform to say things during the performancet critical about the policies of the Armed Forces. 5. This case took away the priviledge of actors using military uniforms for anything critical in their performances.

1.Ryan Altieri //2.Epperson v. Arkansas// (1968) 3.An Arkansas statute forbade teachers in public schools from teaching the "theory that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals." A teacher determined that the law was in valid and lost her job for violating it. 4.The Supreme Court of the United States was called in to review this statute which made it unlawful for teachers in state schools to teach human evolution .At issue was whether the Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of evolution violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution because of its religious purpose.The Court held that the Arkansas statute forbidding the teaching of evolution in public schools was contrary to th the freedom of religion stated in the First Amendment, and was also in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court ruled that a state may not eliminate ideas from a school's curricula solely because the ideas come in conflict with the beliefs of certain religious groups.  5.Teachers are now aloud to teach the theroy that mankind ascended from a lower order of animals. 

1.Rachel Sanford 2.Marsh vs. Alabama (1949) 3.A man wrote religious thing all over a side walk in his town and he was instructed to take it off. He wrote the things on his property.  4.The town wanted to impose on criminal punishment. Marsh took this case to supreme court. This was is not allowing freedom og religion and freedom of speech.I think Marsh should be not guilty and he should just move on with his life.  5.I think that this case is going to afect the country because what was going on in this case was freedom of religion and people will now be afraid to express their religious believes. People will be scared to be religious and they will think that they don't have that right anymore. 

1. Samantha Mornhineway 2.Morse vs. Federick(2007) 3. Morse vs. Federick student free speech case in which the Supreme Court of the United States that held a school principal may, consistent restrict student speech at a school event when that speech is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use.  4.

Justine is doing Brown v. Hartloge!!! BAM!!! 

CHRISTIAN RUIZ IS DOIN Bethel School District v Fraser

=1.Tori Gonzalez= 2. __Wooley v. Maynard__ (1976) 3. A New hampshire law required all noncommercial vehicles to have the State motto "live free or die" on their license plate. Maynard covered the word die because he felt it was against his religion. Does this violate his 1st amendment right to freedom of speech? 4. People in New Hampshire are no longer required to display "Live free or die" on their license plate. 5. The State motto is no longer forced upn its residents. They are not forced to use their personal property as billboards for the state motto.

1.Tanya Townsend 2.Tinker vs. Des Moines, 1969 3.John and Mary Beth Tinker wore wrist bands that non-verbally expressed their feelings about the Vietnam war. The two were suspended for wearing the bands.  4.They decided that wearing wristbands in a public place was a right protected under the first amendment.  5.If they had not sued the school district students would not be allowed to wear such items today. Now student can freely express their feelings in a non-verbal way.

Kevin is doing Stanley vs. Georgia 1969

Maria is doing Davenport, Gary, et al. & Washington v. Washington Education Assn. 1-10-07

Maya: **Smith vs. Novato School District**

Vasil is doing Buckley v. Valeo 1976

Mark D is doing Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins 1980 here for website info

Tayler B is doing Herndon v lowry ( 1937)

Grace is doing Joesph Burstyn Inc. v. Wilson

Marki is doing Texas v. Johnson

Lauren f is doing //Cantwell v. Connecticut// **(1940)**

1. Victoria Bustamante 2. Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow 10/14/03 3. Petitioner school district requires each elementary school class to recite daily the Pledge of Allegiance. Newdow’s daughter participates in this exercise. Newdow, an atheist, filed suit alleging that, because the Pledge contains the words “under God,” it constitutes religious indoctrination of his child in violation of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses. 4. The Magistrate Judge concluded that the Pledge is constitutional, and the District Court agreed and dismissed the complaint. 5. How this impacted the country was that it would encourage more people to stand up for what they believe in.

1. Niko Salvatoriello 2. Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) 3 The school newspaper of Hazlewood East High School, was written and edited by students. In May 1983, Robert Reynolds, the school principal, received the May 13th issue. He found two articles in the issue to be inappropriate, and ordered that they be removed from that issue. The question was if the deletion of the articles violated the students' rights under the first amendment. 4. In a 5-3 decision the court said that the deletion of the articles did not violate the students' 1st amendment rights. 5. It means that students that write the school newspaper cannot just right whatever they want. They have certain limits as to what they can write.

1. Tommy Cerene 2. Bong hits for jesus

1: Devin Hogan 2: Cohen vs. California 1971 3: The defendent wore a shirt bearing the words f* the draft to civil court. He was arrested. He said this was violating his 1st amendment rights.  4: They ruled in favor of the defendent 5-4.  5: People now are allowed to wear clothing expressing their feelings about what the government is doing.  Bianca is doing Hazlewood School District v. Kuhlmeir 1988 ric Smuda is doing Sherbert vs. Verner ET. AL. Members of South Carolina Employment Security Comission jack cubberly doing clark V. community for creativity (1984)

Claireee c. is doing : United States vs. Eichman

1. David Manno 2. Debs v. United States (1919) 3.Debs gave a speech about the growth of socialism and contained statement that were intended to interferewith disloyalty and mutiny in the armed forces. Whether the United States violated the right of Freedom of Speech givin to Debs in the first Amendment of the Constitution 4. Debs was arrested and charged with violating the Espionage Act of 1917. The surpreme court of the United states favored the United States.  5. This meant that Debs was arrested. Our country knew to not give public speeches interfering with disloyalty or munity in the armed forces.

Billy is doing Virginia vs. Black JUHIE is doin Caplinsky vs. New Hampshire (1942)

1.Brad Pettigrew 2.Joseph Burstyn, inc. v. Wilson (1952) 3.Burstyn wanted to show his film "the miracle" but was not allowed because it was sacrilegious. He argued that he could because of the first amendment. 4.The court did not agree with him because the film was for his profit. 5.The decision meant that the first amendment does not apply to films. Film makers could not make sacrilegious films. 

Chrissy is doing: TEXAS VS. JOHNSON Colleen is doing New York Times Company vs. United States Tayler is doing Schenck v. United States, 1919

1. Kate Lennox 2. Morse v. Frederick (2007) 3. The principal read her sign that stated 'BONG HITS 4 JESUS' she thought it was promoting illegal drug use. The principal violated his first amendment rights in two ways of freedom of expression and freedom of speech. 4. What was concluded was that the school officials did not violate the First Amendment by confiscating the pro-drug banner and suspending the student responsible for it. 5. The First Amendment rights of students in school are not as broad as those of adults in other settings.

= =
 * Grace is doing Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940)**

hiba rahman is doing swift and company vs. united states Eryk is doing New york times co v.Sullivan Ky is doing Globe Newspaper co. vs. Superior court Matt Brewer is doing Buckley v. Valeo nom nom nom nom MUNCH 2. Broadrick v. Oklahoma June 25, 1973 3. In the state of Oklamhoma federal employees should not be involved in a polital parties. 4.** Matthew l is doing Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) Marki is doing Feiner v. New York jess b is doing LEE v. WEISMAN (1992) Cameron K is doing Epperson vs. Arkansas (1968) Lindsay M. is doing Engle vs. Vitale Kristina is doing Abington School District v. Schempp 1963
 * 1.Scott Brady

1. Ali Surdoval 2. Wallace v. Jaffree 1985 3. A law was created in Alabama making teachers conduct religious and prayer sevices in the classroom during the school day in public schools. Does the First Amendment stop schools from having religious services? 4. The Court decided that the Alabama law did violate the First Amendment. The Court questioned whether the purpose of Alabama's law was to encourage or disapprove religion. They came to the decision that the state did not have a specific reason to establish religion in public schools. 5. The impact was that now schools cannot have religion in public schools.

Sasha J. Pruneyard Shopping Center vs. Robins. 1980 This amendment was applied because because Robins was asking people to sign his petition against a decison of the United Nations In front of a privately owned mall and was asked to leave because he was inconveincing the shoppers from what they had to do. Robins sued them because they denied him from petitioning there. The decision was in Robins favor but before the S.C. the Federal Court said that according to the California Constitution he had no right on public property but the S.C. overturned that decision and said that his First Amendment Freedom of Speech trumps the California Constitution. This was important to our country because it showed that your rights in the Constitution are more powerful than a state Constitutional right.

Ryan odom is doing dennis v. U.S.

Jenn M is doing Zemel V. Rusk (1965)

Kayla W. is doing Debs v. United States

Kate Ryan is doing: Garcetti, et al. v. Ceballos

Alex Ashmore Island Trees School District vs Pico (1982) Amendment 1 has been applied to this court case because the Board of Education of the Island Trees School District in New York ordered for the withdrawal of nine books from the libraries of the Island Trees senior and junior high schools. In the Board's opinion, the books were "anti­American, anti­Christian, anti­Semitic, and just plain filthy." Four students from the high school and one from the junior high school sued the school district, claiming that the removal of the books was a violation of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. The Supreme Court ruled in the favor of the students, saying that the books were not required reading. The decision means that although schools have a right to determine the content of their libraries, they may not interfere with a student's right to learn and read what they wish. This has had an impact on our country in which it made realized that schools may not control their libraries just because they do not agree with or like the ideas that a book contains. 

Matt B is doing Ashcroft v. ACLU

1. Austin Giardullo 2. United States v. O'Brien 1968 3. O'Brien was sent to court for burning a military draft card in front of a court house to show he was against the war. He said it was freedom of speech and that he did it publicly to persuade others to oppose the war.  4. The Supreme Court decided in a 7-1 decision that the 1st amendment didn't protect him from being drafted to the army and his sentence was reinstated it didn't say for how long it was.  5. Now many people use that as a sign of war protest along with wearing black armbands and burning our flag. 

Matt D is doing Gitlow v. New York

tori is doing cantwell vs connecticut

sarah rhodes is doing BRANDENBURG V. OHIO

Mark D is doing Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins 1980 here for website info. 

Maya: Smith vs. Navato Unified School District

alex cervino is doing DeWeese v. ACLU of Ohio, (2004)

Christy S. is doing Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights Inc.

CHRISTIAN RUIZ IS DOIN Schenck v United States (1919)

Jenn is doing National Association for the Advancement of color people V Button (1963)

Jenn is doing Rosenberg V. Rector and Visitors of the University of virgina U.S (1995)

Jenn is doing Yates V. United States (1957)

Jenn is doing Young V. American Mini Thetres Inc. 427 U.S (1976)

Danny D. is doing Connick vs. Myers. 

1. Sam Margalotti 2. Brown vs. Hartlage-1982 3 The amendment was challenged because it was harder for candidates to get elected when they are prevented from promising benefits to the voters, of monetary value. The violation of the first amendment right to free speech is of concern in this situation. If a candidate wants to take just one dollar for office, it was a concern that only wealthy people would run, however, this thought was over-ruled in favor of free speech. 4. The decision was that the first amendment law stands,and that a candidate should not be prevented from promising any material benifits to their voters. 5. This meant that canidates can not say they will raise your pay check if you vote for them because they can't have that authorty. Ana is doing U.S. v. Haggerty

Sean L is doing Counts v.s Cedarville school district

Tara Sanders 1. Dennis vs. United States 2. Arrested for violation of section 3 in the "smith act." 1951 3. The court thought that his speeches were a threat to national security.  4. The supreme court decided that he did not violate the right to free speech.  5. American people will be more careful about what they say even though they have the freedom of speech.

1.Alex Scotland 2. NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS et al. v. LOPEZ TORRES et al (2007-2008) 3.Violates the First Amendment of NYS's rights of challengers running against candidates favored by party leaders and an injunction mandating a direct primary election to select Supreme Court nominees.  4.Lopez Torres ended losing the case because it was later decided that NYS Board of Elections was not crossing the 1st amendment.  5.The decision ment that people living under NY's election law has required parties to select their nominees by a convention composed of delegates elected by party members and no person may run unless meeting thies requirements. This didn't really affect the country but mostly affected the sate of New York's voting and running rights. 

1. Alex Cervino 2. DeWeese v. ACLU of Ohio, (2004) 3. Teacher had a poster of the ten commandments in the classroom 4. it was claimed unconstitutional 5. It meant that they were saying that you have to separate government and religion. th

1.Kevin Schoenfeld 2.Stanley vs. Georgia 1969 3.Stanley owned obscene films in his bedroom, and it was found by an officer searching under a search warrant. This violates Georgia state law, and was sent to jail. 4.Stanley was let out of jail, due to the fact that the constitution the right to receive information and ideas, regardless of their social worth, and to be generally free from governmental intrusions into one's privacy and control of one's thoughts. Even though Stanley did violate freedom of speech/the press due to the fact he obscenity is not in that area. 5.The impact on the country was Georgia may not prohibit mere possession of obscene matter on the ground that it may lead to antisocial conduct, distinguished, or proscribe such possession on the ground that it is a necessary incident to a statutory scheme prohibiting distribution.

1. Lindsay Muhs 2. Engle vs.Vitale, 1962 3. The separation of church and state requires that government stay out of the business of religious activities. If the students don't believe in god they couldn't refuse to say the prayer. They had to. 4. They found it unconstitutional and they would rather have a church and school separation. 5. This protected your religious right from being dictated by your schools.


 * 1) Maria Nocerino
 * 2) Davenport, Gary & Washington vs. Washington Education Association-January 10, 2007
 * 3) Washington Education Association needed money from the 5% that weren’t on the bargaining unit to help pay for political activities.
 * 4)  The union is obligated to let the non-members know what portion of their agency fee went to political activity and then the non-member has the responsibility to ask for the money back. Opt-in laws require the union to ask non-members if they would like to contribute.
 * 5)   WEA won and we as people and members of our community have the option of supporting political activities and knowing what our money is going towards along with being able to get our money back if it isn’t used the right way.