Read this: Subsequent to this decision, the Supreme Court has applied a three-pronged test to determine whether government action comports with the Establishment Clause, known as the "Lemon Test". First, the law or policy must have been adopted with a neutral or non-religious purpose. Second, the principle or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion. Third, the statute or policy must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of government with religion. (The decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman hinged upon the conclusion that the government benefits were flowing disproportionately to Catholic schools, and that Catholic schools were an integral component of the Catholic Church's religious mission, thus the policy involved the state in an "excessive entanglement" with religion.) Failure to meet any of these criteria is a proof that the statute or policy in question violates the Establishment Clause.

 What much the primary effect of a law both advance and inhibit?
What is the answer? (If it cannot be answered, return "unanswerable")
unanswerable
Läs detta: Efter detta beslut har Högsta domstolen tillämpat ett trestegstest för att avgöra om statliga åtgärder överensstämmer med etableringsklausulen, som kallas "Lemontestet". För det första måste lagen eller politiken ha antagits med ett neutralt eller icke-religiöst syfte. För det andra måste principen eller den primära effekten vara en som varken främjar eller hämmar religionen. För det tredje får inte stadgan eller politiken leda till ett "överdrivet snärjande" av regeringen med religionen. (Beslutet i Lemon mot Kurtzman var beroende av slutsatsen att de statliga förmånerna flödade oproportionerligt till katolska skolor, och att katolska skolor var en integrerad del av den katolska kyrkans religiösa mission, vilket innebar att staten var inblandad i ett "överdrivet trassel" med religionen.) Att inte uppfylla något av dessa kriterier är ett bevis på att stadgan eller policyn i fråga strider mot etableringsklausulen. Vad är den främsta effekten av en lag både framskrider och hämmar? Vad är svaret? (Om det inte kan besvaras, återgälda "osvarbart")
Read this: Following this decision, the Supreme Court has applied a three-step test to determine whether state measures comply with the establishment clause, called the "Lemon Test". Firstly, the law or policy must have been adopted with a neutral or non-religious purpose. Secondly, the principle or primary effect must be one that neither promotes nor inhibits religion. Thirdly, the Charter or politics must not lead to an "excessive entrapment" of the government with religion. (The decision in Lemon v Kurtzman depended on the conclusion that the state benefits flowed disproportionately to Catholic schools, and that Catholic schools were an integral part of the Catholic Church's religious mission, meaning that the state was involved in an "excessive tangle" with religion.) Failure to comply with any of these criteria is proof that the Charter or policy in question is contrary to the establishment clause. What is the main effect of a law both progresses and inhibits? What's the answer? (If it cannot be answered, repay "unresponsible")
Osvarsbart
Unanswerable