Which of the following is relevant in determining whether a particular government statute violates the Establishment Clause?a. W
hether the statute has a secular legislative purposeb. Whether the statute's principal or primary effect either advances or inhibits religionc. Whether the statute fosters an excessive government entanglement with religiond. Whether the statute has a secular legislative purpose; whether the statute's principal or primary effect either advances or inhibits religion; and also whether the statute fosters an excessive government entanglement with religione. Whether the statute has a secular legislative purpose and whether the statute's principal or primary effect either advances or inhibits religion; but not whether the statute fosters an excessive government entanglement with religion
d. Whether the statute has a secular legislative purpose and whether the statute's principal or primary effect either advances or inhibits religion; and also whether the statute fosters an excessive government entanglement with religion
Explanation:
The establishment clause is related to the first amendment of the US constitution. This clause refers to the freedom of religion that should be allowed in the country, as it states that the government is prohibited from establishing and imposing a single religion on all citizens of the country, as well as preventing citizens from following the religion they desire. .
Accordingly, whether the statute has a secular legislative objective and whether the primary or primary effect of the statute promotes or inhibits religion; and also if the statute promotes excessive government involvement with religion means that the government statute is violating the Establishment Clause.
A forensic scientist's day-to-day activities will vary throughout the week. The majority of their time is spent in the office writing reports and preparing for laboratory visits. Other days, however, they may be carrying out a laboratory visit or attending court as an expert witness (Brightside, 2003).
At trial, Gideon appeared in court without an attorney. In open court, he asked the judge to appoint counsel for him because he could not afford an attorney. The trial judge denied Gideon’s request because Florida law only permitted appointment of counsel for poor defendants charged with capital offenses.
