| http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#value | - In view of the statute's legislative history, the majority for the Supreme Court said that the teaching that the Louisiana legislature intended to protect by the first part of the statute -- creationism -- was the same sort of unconstitutionally religious teaching barred by the second, which made the law facially invalid, devoid of any lawful application or use, since both parts of the statute cou
|
