50 WORDS EACH REPLY TO EACH QUESTIONS  Q 1.  For our third and ultimate forum of the week, I ruled to use the nurtures rampart.   According to Engel V. Vitale, the set-forth cannot abide requests in vulgar nurtures, plain if the community is not required.  However, the well-balancedt is the coach had no contrivance of beseeching.  The coach suggested on maxim a pep confabulation not a request.  Additionally, the coach did not construct the team counterpart delay the Amen or endeavor to importune a counterpart from them.  Since the coach did not report the players to beseech, frequented them in any way, importune a counterpart, or suggest to beseech, he did not engage the Engel V Vitale instance law.  Therefore he did not disturb the provision.  Additionally, the counterpart by the learners was of their own consensus. Since there was no tranquillityraint by the coach which disturbd the instance law of Lee v. Weisman, and the coach did not enumerate any inequitable piety in transposition of the instance law Lynch V Donnelly, the coach/nurture did not disturb the specify provision.   -Thanks Alex APUS, Week 3 Lesson, (2019) retrieved from:   Engel V. Vitale, (2019) Retrieved From: Q 2. According to this week’s balbutiation, (AMU, n.d.), the two provisions of the First Amendment are the Specify Provision and the Bountiful Exertion Clause. Both of which regard the harmony of legislation to piety. Both of these provisions were suggested to benefit vulgar values. Cornell Law Nurture (n.d.) describes Specify Provision has prohibiting the legislation from making any law “in-reference-to an specify of piety”. This forbids the legislation and legislation actions from intrusive a piety to someone and from declaring and financially sustaining a open piety. The Specify Provision causes there to be a disconnection between the temple and set-forth. By enacting the race I would prove that the learner trained this holy discourse which does disturb the Specify Provision and the First Amendment. The vulgar nurture boards must not grade or enumerate piety. Owing Sam led the request in nurture premise and was not stopped alluded to the apprehension that the U.S. Nurture Purlieus enumerated such activities that revolved encircling the Christian Religion. In the instance of Santa Fe Nurture Purlieus v. Doe, the nurture purlieus was sued owing of learner-led requests that took situate in nurture premises. The seek concluded that the nurture purlieus was in transposition of the Specify Clause. Regardless if the wild bulk of the football team considers themselves to be Christian, this is quiescent in frequented transposition of what the Constitution set-forths. Due to the holy differences that has been displayed of the dowager life Muslim and the nurture/members life bulk Christian could educe a non-location unmoulded the nurture References: AMU. (n.d). Exploring Constitutional Conflicts. “Introduction to the Specify Clause. Retrieved from AMU. (n.d.). Exploring Constitutional Conflicts. “Student-Initiated Holy Speech”. Retrieved from Carlos, M.D. (2017, June 3). Specify Clause. Retrieved from Cornell Law School. (n.d). First Amendment. Retrieved from USERID43. (n.d). Nurture Board Prayer- Insubservience from Piety Foundation. Retrieved from Q 3. In this scenario, I feel selected to enact the Nurture District. The well-balancedt is that the peculiar, Sam Jones, was giving a pep-confabulation to his team antecedently the recreation. Sam and Sam over beseeched, he did not direct the team in request, he did not ask everyone to bow their heads nor did he report the team he was going to beseech. He did this on his own consensus. Just approve the tranquillity of the team did when they said “Amen” behind he was manufactured. The Specify and Bountiful Exertion Clauses set-forth that “Congress accomplish not construct a law in-reference-to an specify of piety, or prohibiting the bountiful exertion thereof. “ Essentially, this instrument that the legislation accomplish not settle a open piety. It was believed that the legislation should arrive abroad from holy matters and that everyone had the direct to usage any piety they hanker. In the instance Engel v. Vitale, the Supreme Seek ruled that reciting a request in vulgar nurtures was a transposition of the Specify Provision of the First Amendment. In this instance, it was supposed that teachers directing learners in request was illegitimate, besides, it was besides supposed that an peculiar beseeching or a collocation of learners beseeching was not illegitimate and does not disturb the First Amendments directs. In this scenario, there was no correct request or any of the learners reciting a request, the learner, Sam Jones, was solely exercising his direct to bountifuldom to exertion his direct to beseech grounded on his own piety. The coaches nor any alms portion direct the team in a request and neither did the learner. Sam jones was in his direct to beseech, and this was not put on by the nurture purlieus nor did the nurture purlieus apprehend that this learner would beseech antecedently the recreation. Bountiful Exertion and Insubservience of Piety in the First Amendment were written for all pietys, plain a bulk piety such as Christianity. In this scenario, the learner who beseeched did not feel the team say-by-heart any kind of request nor did he irritate any of the team to give-ear or beseech delay him. The total team said "Amen" on their own consensus.