I know I haven't posted in a while, but I am far from giving up on this blog. Recently I went camping in Tennessee. Upon my return, I found my hard drive had crashed and I just received my computer from the apple store yesterday night. In regards to my work involving the Supreme Court, I have been reading "All The Laws But One" by William Rhenquist. The book covers the state of civil rights/liberties during the Civil War and World War Two. I have less than 100 pages remaining and I am quite pleased with what I've read so far. I imagine a person could pick up the book on Amazon for a decent price. Talk to you later.
Eric
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Battling over the Constitution
I have not posted for a while now, but for good reason. Recently, my free time has been taken up with a book by Richard Charques, "The Twilight of Imperial Russia." The book, originally published in 1958, recounts the decline of the Romanov dynasty and the monarchy in Russia. The book begins with the ascension of Nicholas II to the throne and ends with the rise of the Bolsheviks in 1917.
I don't want to get really preachy about this subject, but as I've been reading I came to the conclusion that we as Americans take the concept of a Constitution and limited power for granted. In the late 1890s and early 1900s, strikes and even revolution plagued Russia in an attempt to get Tsar Nicholas II to release any amount of power to a representative branch of government. On more than one occasion, these attempts were met with the shutting down of the duma by the tsar, arrests, and multiple attempts by the conservative members of society to rig the elections of the duma to produce a less rambunctious group of representatives. Needless to say, the tsar still exercised a pretty much unlimited amount of power within the country.
Meanwhile, the United States had been enjoying a government with limitations and separation of powers around one-hundred years. This is not to say that we didn't have any issues (Lincoln repealed habeas corpus in large areas during the Civil War). In any case, it is important to remember how lucky we are as citizens to have the rights that we do. If we don't like something the executive is doing, we have two other branches that we can complain to without worry about being exiled. I'm almost finished with this book. After that I'll pick up on some more religion cases. Thanks.
Eric
I don't want to get really preachy about this subject, but as I've been reading I came to the conclusion that we as Americans take the concept of a Constitution and limited power for granted. In the late 1890s and early 1900s, strikes and even revolution plagued Russia in an attempt to get Tsar Nicholas II to release any amount of power to a representative branch of government. On more than one occasion, these attempts were met with the shutting down of the duma by the tsar, arrests, and multiple attempts by the conservative members of society to rig the elections of the duma to produce a less rambunctious group of representatives. Needless to say, the tsar still exercised a pretty much unlimited amount of power within the country.
Meanwhile, the United States had been enjoying a government with limitations and separation of powers around one-hundred years. This is not to say that we didn't have any issues (Lincoln repealed habeas corpus in large areas during the Civil War). In any case, it is important to remember how lucky we are as citizens to have the rights that we do. If we don't like something the executive is doing, we have two other branches that we can complain to without worry about being exiled. I'm almost finished with this book. After that I'll pick up on some more religion cases. Thanks.
Eric
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Reynolds v. United States 98 U.S. 145 (1878)
Reynolds is a very important case in the history of religious freedom. While the standards it set down have certainly seen revision over the past years, it was the first Supreme Court case that officially ruled that the free exercise of religion is not unlimited.
Case Facts
A Mormon follower, George Reynolds, married his second wife and was charged with violating a Congressional law applied to the Utah territory. Reynolds argued that he was following his faith and he was therefore protected under the free exercise clause.
Legal Question
Does the free exercise clause in the First Amendment protect polygamy?
Ruling
No. In a unanimous decision the Court ruled that while Congress may not legislate a person's opinion, Congress may legislate action.
Chief Justice Waite wrote the majority opinion and emphasized that the Constitution does not define religion. However, the Court suggests that we must look at the "history of the times in the midst of when the provision was adopted." Waite argues that when the First Amendment was passed, it was based on the notion that religion was a relationship solely between man and god. Legislative action reaches action, not opinion. "Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order."
The Court then proceeds to demonize the practice of polygamy. Waite writes that it has always been seen as an unclean practice in the United States and the second marriage has always been void in the earliest recorded cases of English common law. In either case, the practice has been considered an offense against society. Furthermore, Waite calls attention to the fact that no state in the union has ever sanctioned polygamy, and therefore there is no way that the Constitution could possibly protect this behavior. He essentially established that if it was not an accepted religious practice when the Constitution was ratified, it does not enjoy the protection of the Constitution.
Ultimately, the Court states that the law passed by Congress is designed to maintain civility in the United States. "Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?" In the end, the law is not subservient to religious belief.
Case Facts
A Mormon follower, George Reynolds, married his second wife and was charged with violating a Congressional law applied to the Utah territory. Reynolds argued that he was following his faith and he was therefore protected under the free exercise clause.
Legal Question
Does the free exercise clause in the First Amendment protect polygamy?
Ruling
No. In a unanimous decision the Court ruled that while Congress may not legislate a person's opinion, Congress may legislate action.
Chief Justice Waite wrote the majority opinion and emphasized that the Constitution does not define religion. However, the Court suggests that we must look at the "history of the times in the midst of when the provision was adopted." Waite argues that when the First Amendment was passed, it was based on the notion that religion was a relationship solely between man and god. Legislative action reaches action, not opinion. "Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order."
The Court then proceeds to demonize the practice of polygamy. Waite writes that it has always been seen as an unclean practice in the United States and the second marriage has always been void in the earliest recorded cases of English common law. In either case, the practice has been considered an offense against society. Furthermore, Waite calls attention to the fact that no state in the union has ever sanctioned polygamy, and therefore there is no way that the Constitution could possibly protect this behavior. He essentially established that if it was not an accepted religious practice when the Constitution was ratified, it does not enjoy the protection of the Constitution.
Ultimately, the Court states that the law passed by Congress is designed to maintain civility in the United States. "Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?" In the end, the law is not subservient to religious belief.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)