150 likes | 435 Views
F irs t Amendment C i vil Lib e rti e s H o w ha s t h e Firs t A m endment' s f r eedo m of r e lig io n been in c o r po r a t ed as a ri g h t o f all Am eri c an ci t i z ens?. Copy to notes. Objective:
E N D
FirstAmendment CivilLiberties HowhastheFirstAmendment'sfreedomofreligionbeenincorporatedasarightofallAmericancitizens?
Objective: Explain the extent to which the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the First Amendment reflects a commitment to individual liberty. (religion) BIG IDEA: The interpretation and application of the First Amendments Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause reflects the ongoing debate over balancing majoritarian religious practice and free exercise.
ThomasJefferson:a"wall ofseparation betweenChurchandState" exists, forbiddinganygovernmentsupportforreligion. • Somearguethatthereisno“wall” andthat thegovernmenthaseveryabilitytoaidandsupportreligiousinstitutions,charities,andschoolsandtoallowpublicreligiousdisplaysandschoolprayer.
“Congressshallmake nolawrespecting an establishmentof religion…”
WARRENCOURT CONSTITUTIONALQUESTION Doesthereadingofanondenominationalprayeratthestartoftheschooldayviolatethe"establishmentofreligion"clauseoftheFirstAmendment? THEDECISION (6-1decision)Yes.Neithertheprayer'snondenominationalcharacternoritsvoluntarycharactersavesitfromunconstitutionality.Byprovidingtheprayer,NewYorkofficiallyapprovedreligion. SOURCE THECASE TheBoardofRegentsfortheStateofNewYorkauthorizedashort,voluntaryprayerforrecitationatthestartofeachschoolday.Thiswasanattempttodefusethepoliticallypotentissuebytakingitoutofthehandsoflocalcommunities.Theblandestofinvocationsreadasfollows:"AlmightyGod,weacknowledgeourdependenceuponThee,andbegThyblessingsuponus,ourteachers,andourcountry." Allinformationquotedfromhttp://www.oyez.org
WARRENCOURT CONSTITUTIONALQUESTION DidthePennsylvanialawandAbington'spolicy,requiringpublicschoolstudentstoparticipateinclassroomreligiousexercises,violatethereligiousfreedomofstudentsasprotectedbytheFirstandFourteenthAmendments? THEDECISION (8-1decision)Yes.TherequiredactivitiesencroachedonboththeFreeExerciseClauseandtheEstablishmentClauseoftheFirstAmendmentsincethereadingsandrecitationswereessentiallyreligiousceremoniesandwere"intendedbytheStatetobeso." SOURCE THECASE Atthebeginningoftheschoolday,studentswhoattendedpublicschoolsinthestateofPennsylvaniawererequiredtoreadatleasttenversesfromtheBible.Aftercompletingthesereadings,schoolauthoritiesrequiredallAbingtonTownshipstudentstorecitetheLord'sPrayer.Studentscouldbeexcludedfromtheseexercisesbyawrittennotefromtheirparentstotheschool. Allinformationquotedfromhttp://www.oyez.org
BURGERCOURT CONSTITUTIONALQUESTION DidtheRhodeIslandandPennsylvaniastatutesviolatetheFirstAmendment'sEstablishmentClausebymakingstatefinancialaidavailableto"church-relatededucationalinstitutions"? THECASE Thiscasewasheardconcurrentlywithtwoothers,Earleyv.DiCenso(1971)andRobinsonv.DiCenso(1971).ThecasesinvolvedcontroversiesoverlawsinPennsylvaniaandRhodeIsland.InPennsylvania,astatuteprovidedfinancialsupportforteachersalaries,textbooks,andinstructionalmaterialsforsecularsubjectstonon-publicschools.TheRhodeIslandstatuteprovideddirectsupplementalsalarypaymentstoteachersinnon-publicelementaryschools.Eachstatutemadeaidavailableto"church-related THEDECISION (8-0decision)Yes.TheCourtfoundthatthesubsidizationofparochialschoolsfurtheredaprocessofreligiousinculcation,andthatthe"continuingstatesurveillance"necessarytoenforcethespecificprovisionsofthelawswould inevitablyentanglethestateinreligiousaffairs. SOURCE educationalinstitutions." Allinformationquotedfromhttp://www.oyez.org
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) cont… • Todeterminewhetheralawviolatesthefreedomofreligion,theCourtusestheLemontest(fromLemonv.Kurtzman): • Doesthelawhaveasecularratherthanreligiouspurpose? • Doesthelawneitherpromotenordiscouragereligion? • Doesthelawavoid “Excessiveentanglements” ofthe • governmentandreligiousinstitutions?
CONSTITUTIONALQUESTION THECASE Doesthefederalanti-bigamystatuteviolatetheFirstAmendment'sfreeexerciseclausebecausepluralmarriageispartofreligiouspractice? THEDECISION (9-0decision)No.Thestatutecanpunishcriminalactivitywithoutregardtoreligiousbelief.TheFirstAmendmentprotectedreligiousbelief,butitdidnotprotectreligiouspracticesthatwerejudgedtobecriminalsuchasbigamy.Thosewhopracticepolygamycouldnomorebeexemptfromthelawthanthosewhomaywishtopracticehumansacrificeaspartoftheirreligiousbelief. GeorgeReynolds,secretarytoMormonChurchleaderBrighamYoung,challengedthefederalanti-bigamystatute.ReynoldswasconvictedinaUtahterritorialdistrictcourt.HisconvictionwasaffirmedbytheUtahterritorialsupremecourt. SOURCE Allinformationquotedfromhttp://www.oyez.org
BURGERCOURT CONSTITUTIONALQUESTION DidWisconsin'srequirementthatallparentssendtheirchildrentoschoolatleastuntilage16violatetheFirstAmendmentbycriminalizingtheconductofparentswhorefusedtosendtheirchildrentoschoolforreligiousreasons? THEDECISION (7-0decision)Yes.Theindividual'sinterestsinthefreeexerciseofreligionundertheFirstAmendmentoutweighedtheState'sinterestsincompellingschoolattendancebeyondtheeighthgrade. SOURCE THECASE JonasYoderandWallaceMiller,bothmembersoftheOldOrderAmishreligion,andAdinYutzy,amemberoftheConservativeAmishMennoniteChurch,wereprosecutedunderaWisconsinlawthatrequiredallchildrentoattendpublicschoolsuntilage16.Thethreeparentsrefusedtosendtheirchildrentosuchschoolsaftertheeighthgrade,arguingthathighschoolattendancewascontrarytotheirreligiousbeliefs. Allinformationquotedfromhttp://www.oyez.org
REHNQUISTCOURT CONSTITUTIONALQUESTION Canastatedenyunemploymentbenefitstoaworkerfiredforusingprohibiteddrugsforreligiouspurposes? THECASE AlfredSmithandGalenBlackworkedataprivatedrugrehabilitationclinic.TheclinicfiredthembecausetheyusedahallucinogenicdrugcalledpeyoteforreligiouspurposeswhileworshippingattheirNativeAmericanChurch.TheOregonEmploymentDivisiondeniedthemunemploymentcompensationbecauseitdeemedtheywerefiredforwork-related"misconduct."TheOregonCourtofAppealsruledthatthisviolatedtheirreligiousfreeexerciserightsprovidedbytheFirstAmendment.TheOregonSupremeCourtreversed. THEDECISION (5-3decision)Yes.JusticeJohnPaulStevensdeliveredtheopinionfora5-3court.TheCourtinstructedtheOregonSupremeCourttodeterminewhetherpeyoteusageforreligiouspurposesisprohibitedunderOregonlaw,oronlybytheemployer.ThattheOregonlawwasinfactviolatedmeansthatthefiringwasconstitutional. SOURCE Allinformationquotedfromhttp://www.oyez.org
Freedomofreligionisandhasbeenadeeply • divisiveissueontheCourt. • TheCourthastriedtoweightherightsof • individualsagainsttheneedsofsociety. • Todeterminewhetheralawviolatesthefreedomofreligion,theCourtusestheLemontest(fromLemonv.Kurtzman): • Doesthelawhaveasecularratherthanreligiouspurpose? • Doesthelawneitherpromotenordiscouragereligion? • Doesthelawavoid “Excessiveentanglements” ofthe • governmentandreligiousinstitutions?
EXAMPREP:Studyyourtestpreparationbook,vocabulary,andourunitmaterialsforUNIT1:ConstitutionalUnderpinningsandFederalism.EXAMPREP:Studyyourtestpreparationbook,vocabulary,andourunitmaterialsforUNIT1:ConstitutionalUnderpinningsandFederalism.