Should Congress pass legislation restoring the broader interpretation of free exercise of religion?
Article Abstract:
The Supreme Court's rejection of the compelling-interest test in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources v Smith should be overturned by Congress. A broader interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause is supported by Constitution's language and by historical evidence. The broader interpretation provides more of a limit on governmental power and also protects minority religions. Both the separation of powers doctrine and Section Five of the 14th Amendment suggest that Congress does have the power to enact legislation protecting religious liberty.
Publication Name: Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy
Subject: Political science
ISSN: 0193-4872
Year: 1992
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Blaine's wake: school choice, the First Amendment, and state constitutional law
Article Abstract:
Separation of church and state, school choice, and state sovereignty are connected issues which ultimately will be determined by the US Supreme Court's interpretation of the 1st Amendment and its evolving position on federalism. The Court's session which ended in June 1997 contained many decisions which rejected prior Court's positions on these issues. Blaine Amendment provisions in state constitutions, which more stringently protect the separation between church and state than does the Court, may be the focus of future controversy.
Publication Name: Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy
Subject: Political science
ISSN: 0193-4872
Year: 1998
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Congress as partner/Congress as adversary
Article Abstract:
Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in Employment Division v. Smith dealing with religious liberty. However, the Court invalidated RFRA in City of Boerne v. Flores in 1997 on grounds that Congress exceeded its powers under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment. Boerne should be applauded as correctly marking out the boundary between Congress' and the Court's authority in the area of religious liberty.
Publication Name: Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy
Subject: Political science
ISSN: 0193-4872
Year: 1998
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: Non-governmental organizations and the original international trade regime. The right to retaliate under the WTO agreement: the sequencing problem
- Abstracts: WTO negotiations on the harmonization of rules of origin: a first critical appraisal. China's economic reforms and integration into the world trading system
- Abstracts: Three levels of human decisionmaking and the protection of fundamental rights. What constitutes full protection of fundamental freedoms?
- Abstracts: Women: an uncertain fit for the multicultural movement? Representative democracy. On Madison and majoritarianism: a response to Professor Amar
- Abstracts: An interpretivist agenda. Liberty and constitutional architecture. Constitutional architecture