917
Lectures Watched
Since January 1, 2014
Hundreds of free, self-paced university courses available:
my recommendations here
Peruse my collection of 275
influential people of the past.
View My Class Notes via:
Receive My Class Notes via E-Mail:

VIEW ARCHIVE


Contact Me via E-Mail:
edward [at] tanguay.info
Notes on video lecture:
The Supreme Court and the Free Exercise of Religion Clause
Choose from these words to fill the blanks below:
minority, alcohol, religion, overrule, majority, motivation, struck, unusual, congress, refuse, follow, states, constitutional, Oregon, mixture, prohibits, supported, prevent, alcoholic, burden, communion, surprising, assert, actor, cactus, whole, exemption, RFRA, generations, federal, secular, wine, stake, 1990, targeting, rituals, complex
suppose a city decides to make a laws prohibiting the consumption of               
would this be                             ?
suppose Christians want to celebrate communion or Jews who want to observe Passover with         
under this law they could not
the free exercise clause
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of                 , or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
you have free exercise rights against every government           , who this law apply against:
the Constitution says                 
however, the Supreme Court has ruled that it applies to the            federal government
because of the 14th Amendment, it applies to the              as well
what does it mean to prohibit free exercise
distinction between law that:
1. targets free exercise, which                    something because it is religious exercise
e.g. nobody can practice                    or passover
2. law that prohibits something for some other reason
e.g. no one may consume                    beverages
this will                people from being able to celebrate communion or passover
would
protections
law against religious                   
protects you only from laws explicitly prohibiting religious practices
law which gives you an                    in order to practice a religious freedom
"preferred freedom" view
Supreme Court supported the preferred freedom view until the          Employment Division v. Smith case
             banned peyote use
Native Americans wanted to use it in religious               
peyote is a              which is a psychedelic drug which produces hallucinations
certain American Native tribes have been using it for                       
Oregon ruled that regardless of this, it could not be used
Supreme Court                    this view
ruled that free exercise was just a law against laws which targeted religion
it's hard to figure out who is right here
it is easier to figure out what is at           
1.                  religions will suffer more
"preferred freedom" gives more protect to minority religions, or religions that engage in                rituals
the Smith case was about peyote
wine, on the other hand, is used by many people in general and by                  religions
2. people will lose the ability to say that religion is the supreme authority in their lives
most will end up following federal law or state law if it conflicts with the laws of their religion
what is at stake is where we draw the line between                and religious authority
to what extent do we say that people who live in our society must              our laws, even if their religion says otherwise
in the Smith case, the Supreme Court ruled that neutral laws must be followed
religious                      doesn't entitle people to exemptions
yet congress disliked the Smith decision so much that they set out to                  it
enacted law: "Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993" (        )
"Governments should not substantially              religious exercise without compelling justification..."
tried to reinstate the decisions before Smith
Supreme Court              this down
this was not too                     
what is surprising is that RFRA still exists with respect to                law
now we have a                of both approaches:
state laws, if they are neutral, must be followed
as far as federal laws are concerned, religious exercise is a preferred freedom
there are many other                issues regarding the protection of religious beliefs
can employers              to provide health insurance which provides medical procedures they object to on religious grounds?
can for-profit corporations              religious free-exercise rights?

Spelling Corrections:

psychodelicpsychedelic
Why We Needed a Constitution
Creating the Constitution
Structural, Backward-Looking, and Forward-Looking Provisions
Article I: The Legislative Branch
Article II: The Executive Branch
Article III: The Judicial Branch
The Bill of Rights
The Progressive Amendments: 16, 17, 18, and 19
Freedom of Speech
The Supreme Court and the Free Exercise of Religion Clause
The Establishment Clause
The Fourth Amendment: Protection from Unreasonable Search and Seizure
The Fifth Amendment and the Miranda Warning
The Sixth Amendment