Amendment I paper.CLJ4064
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Florida Gulf Coast University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
4064
Subject
Political Science
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
6
Uploaded by DeanFire687
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution
Rakisha L. Everett
CJL 4064 Constitutional Crim. Procedure
Professor Pamella Seay Esq.
February 27, 2021
Intro
The United States forefathers were no stranger to tyranny and oppression from either the church, or the monarchy. History has shown the continual power struggle between the legitimacy
of the authority and the dominion these individuals have over their subjects. What personal liberties do these subjects beings have. Dreams of freedom and happiness were often juxtaposed with law and order. One would often ask what rights and universal liberties individuals have and how to define them. The founders of the United States had different concepts on defining freedom. In their mind’s human beings can grant freedom to other fellow human beings but liberty came from a higher authority (M.T.S.U., 2020). Every individual has natural rights and the freedom to exercise those rights. This is true characterization of liberty. The founding fathers kept this in mind when designing the constitution. Such documents such as the Magna Carta, the Petition of Rights, and the American Liberties established by the Massachusetts General Court were the framework for our Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights (M.T.S.U., 2020). In 1791 the Bill of Rights were incorporated into our United States Constitution (History, 2019). Among those rights is the 1
st
Amendment. The 1
st
Amendment protects United States citizens freedoms to speech, religion, press, assembly, and the right to petition the government (C.L.S., 2020). Over the years landmark Supreme Court cases have dealt with interpretation and dispute over those rights.
The Courts History with the Freedom to Exercise Clause
The attitude we have today on religious liberties have been upheld by four major religious communities. The Puritans, Evangelicals, the Enlightenment period, and the Civic Republicans have moved and shaped the mindsets and laws the country has currently
(
Jr., W. J., & Nichols, J. A., 2016). These communities have commonly held the liberty of conscious and the freedom to exercise religion
(
Jr., W. J., & Nichols, J. A., 2016). Religion equality and the separation of church and state is the core of the 1st amendment. Religious pluralism is the essential foundation
for freedom of religion. Freedom of religion is the most widely recognized immutable right and it is protected by the Bill of Rights and judicial system.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
It is an established protection and freedom to exercise one’s religion. This phrase speaks for itself it protects the actions as well as the beliefs of those in connection to their religion. However, the courts have always struggled to find a balance between religious liberties and the right to be excused or exempt from laws that interfere with religious practice. The Supreme Court has made decisions in favor of these liberties or the law or statue it interfered with. There have been numerous cases over the years that defined the Freedom to Exercise Clause. Mormon Church v. United States
136 U.S. 1. (1890) the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the free exercise challenge in relation to the religious beliefs based on the conduct of members of the Church of latter-day saints practicing polygamy
(
M.T.S.U., 2020). The Court held that the government may not interfere with your religious beliefs, but they may interfere with the practices. In 1940 Cantwell v. Connecticut
, 310 U.S. 296 (1940), the Supreme Court applied the free exercise clause to the states for the first time. The court also recognized that peaceful expression of an individual’s beliefs is protected by the first amendment and the federal government, and the state government could not infringe on that expression
(
O.Y.E.Z.,1940). By 1971 the courts had established a three-prong test to determine the constitutionality of a statue. The Lemon test is administered to a state or local statute to see if violated the Establishment Clause. This test was implemented for the first time in Lemon v. Kurtzman
,
403 US 602 (1971). Chief warren burger stated a “statute must have an irreligious legislative purpose, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither promotes nor inhibits religion, and it must not foster “excessive government entanglement with religion.”
(O.Y.E.Z.,1971). Over the years this three-
prong test was applied to numerous cases to determine infringement or the freedom to exercise one's religion. The Supreme Court has strengthened and expanded the protection for religious conduct and the right of the religious believer.
The effects Covid-19 have on the Freedom to Exercise Overtime the state Executive Branch has grown in size and authority. With their newfound powers these agencies have implemented policies on the American people to curb our social, political, and economic activities during COVID-19. Mandatory curfews, shutdowns, traveling ban, and mask wearing are policies that were implemented by the governor using his or her
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
executive powers. There is a thin line the governor must walk between the state and federal government policies. Many states were making up their own rules and guides on how they will handle the disease instead of recognizing the constitutionality of their polices and with respect to the world health organization (WHO).
The Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo is a recent case about COVID-19-related restrictions on religious gatherings. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo implemented and designated specific areas throughout the state of New York during the outbreak of COVID-19. These areas were known as red, orange, and yellow zones (5-4., 2020). Red zones were areas where COVID-19 cases were the highest, and within those zones, the Executive Order restricted attendance (5-4., 2020). However, Businesses that were deemed essential were not ordered to have the same minimal capacity limits as others. Depending on what zone an individual resided in effected non-essential industries. Since churches, and religious gatherings were not considered
essential this affected the attendance and limited the number of individuals who could gather together. The Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and two Orthodox Jewish synagogues sued the executive order claiming the order violated their First Amendment right
(
O.Y.E.Z., 2020). Citing the freedom to exercise one’s religion is guaranteed by the First Amendment, especially if
a business in the same area remained open. The Supreme Court struck down Cuomo’s capacity caps on religious gatherings in high-risk areas. The Court held that using verbiage in their mandate such as religious entities and categorizing businesses as “essential” reflected non-
neutrality (O.Y.E.Z., 2020). The court also noted that losing the first amendment freedoms even for a minimal period is unquestionably unconstitutional and an irreparable injury to the American people (O.Y.E.Z., 2020). This case has initiated more challenges to pandemic-related restrictions on religious gatherings and will likely expand more legal exemptions for religious communities.
Which brings me to my conclusion on the accountability the federal government and the state had to the American citizens concerning covid-19. President Trump and his administration took a
very long time to respond to the pandemic and Congress did not pass the cares act until late March. This had a tremendous effect on all the states. The federal government took little action on implementing a plan and refuse to listen to the world health organization this caused the administration to scramble at the last minute once the virus got out of control. The only mandates
that were put in place where the governor's executive actions for each state at the time. No national plan was implemented. This issue is not a left- or right-wing problem it is an accountability to the general welfare of the American citizens. The actions of the Trump administration and State government shows the truth of our democracy and how it doesn’t want to be responsible for the American people.
Reference
M.T.S.U. (2020). First Amendment Timeline | The Free Speech Center. Middle Tennessee State University. https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/page/first-amendment-timeline
C.L.S. (2020). First Amendment. LII / Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment
History.com Editors. (2019, September 25). First Amendment. HISTORY. https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/first-amendment
Jr., W. J., & Nichols, J. A. (2016). Religion and the American Constitutional Experiment (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
5-4. (2020, December 8). Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo. Apple Podcasts. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/freedom-is-contagious/id1497785843?i=1000501704401
O.Y.E.Z. (2020, November 25). Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York. Oyez.Com. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2020/20A87
Lemon v. Kurtzman, Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1970/89 (last visited Feb 27, 2021).
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help