Treść książki
Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
ThisCourtfrequentlyhasupheldunderinclusiveclassifications
onthesoundtheorythatalegislaturemaydealwithonepartof
aproblemwithoutaddressingallofit.Thispresumptionofstatutory
validity,however,haslessforcewhenaclassificationturnsonthe
subjectmatterofexpression.Applyingthisstandardtothefacts
ofthiscase,theordinanceispatentlyunconstitutional.Renton
hasnotshownthatlocatingadultmovietheatersinproximityto
itschurches,schools,parks,andresidenceswillnecessarilyresult
inundesirable”secondaryeffects,”orthattheseproblemscould
notbeeffectivelyaddressedbylessintrusiverestrictions.
NationalEndowmentforArts
v.Finley,
524U.S.569,118S.Ct.2168(1998)
JusticeO’CONNORdeliveredtheopinionoftheCourt.
TheNationalFoundationontheArtsandHumanitiesAct,asamended
in1990,requirestheChairpersonoftheNationalEndowmentfor
theArts(NEA)toensurethatKartisticexcellenceandartisticmerit
arethecriteriabywhich[grant]applicationsarejudged,taking
intoconsiderationgeneralstandardsofdecencyandrespectforthe
diversebeliefsandvaluesoftheAmericanpublic.”20U.S.C.§954(d)
(1).Inthiscase,wereviewtheCourtofAppeals’determination
that§954(d)(1),onitsface,impermissiblydiscriminatesonthe
basisofviewpointandisvoidforvaguenessundertheFirstand
FifthAmendments.Weconcludethat§954(d)(1)isfaciallyvalid,as
itneitherinherentlyinterfereswithFirstAmendmentrightsnor
violatesconstitutionalvaguenessprinciples.
I
A
WiththeestablishmentoftheNEAin1965,Congressembarkedon
aKbroadlyconceivednationalpolicyofsupportfortheartsinthe
UnitedStates,”pledgingfederalfundstoKhelpcreateandsustain
notonlyaclimateencouragingfreedomofthought,imagination,
57
