About Michael Troy Expertise I will answer general questions regarding freedom of speech, petition, or religion. I specialize in cases involving public employment or education, as well as issues related to campaign finance. But I can`t give specific legal advice involving specific cases you might have.
Experience As an attorney for the Center for Individual Rights, I worked on a number of free speech cases, including Rosenberger v. Univ. of Virginia, in which the Supreme Court upheld my clients' right to run a student newspaper without discrimination because of its religious conent. I also worked on White v. Julian, which protected the right of people to protest against a homeless shelter in their neighborhood.
I also worked for the Federal Election Commission on several cases regarding the right to participate in the election process.
Organizations Former Attorney for Center for Individual Rights.
Publications Washington Post
Washington Times
Education/Credentials J.D. from Univ. of Michigan Law School
Jack wrote at 2006-11-28 06:00:06
There is, of course, another belief system in all of this. Mike is looking at it from a very literal or narrow interpretation of the Establishment Clause. He fails to note that the reason the Free Excercise Clause came into conflict with the Establishment Clause is because majorities were starting to infringe upon the rights of minorities. For example, prayer in school. While a majority of students may practice a certain religion, the Court ruled that it is the duty of the government to protect the rights of minorities, and that forced prayer in school is a violation of this right.
Also, SCOTUS did not "suddenly decide" anything about the First Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment specifically incorporates the fundamental rights in the Bill of Rights to the states ("fundamental" refers to several of the rights in the Bill of Rights, but not all of them. For example, speech, press, religion, assembly, petition, and due process are fundamental, but housing and quartering of troops is not...not that that has ever been used, but that's a different story).
The author also fails to mention that the Court uses one prong of the Lemon Test: the Neutrality Test, to determine if government is supporting religion. For example, there was a case (the name escapes me, ask your teacher, he/she will know) in which the Court ruled that government bussing of students to religious educational institutions did NOT violate the Constitution because it was supporting education, not an establishment of religion.
