Cases of Government Interference in A Citizen´s Free Exercise of Freedom

Is anyone’s private information contained in their cell phone actually private? Are appointments, bank information, conversations, the user’s location or other sensitive personal information truly confidential? Is there a Big Brother watching? There is no definitive answer to any of these questions. From the beginning of time to now, privacy has become more and more scarce. Through new developments in technology, it is hard to believe that someone is not watching your move at any given moment. The government’s job is to keep Americans safe, but where is the line drawn? Where is the difference between having a reasonable doubt and accessing information solely because these government officials have the power to do so? The government has infringed upon the rights of the American people when it comes to this topic.

Freedom of religion means that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” (Jacobus 93). “Free exercise” does not always mean “free exercise”. The Supreme Court has been forced to put certain limitations on the practice of religion. (Wilson, Dilulio, & Bose, 95). For instance people are not allowed to

Another case in regards to the first amendment was the Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith. This case was related to the first amendments freedom of religion. In the case two Native Americans were fired from their jobs because they took peyote for sacramental purposes. Peyote is the common name for a small, turnip-shaped cactus native to Mexico. The active hallucinogenic material in peyote is mescaline. Peyote alters perceptions, producing vivid hallucinations, inaccurate estimations of

The respondents in Smith were fired from their jobs as counselors at a drug rehabilitation clinic when they tested positive for peyote, an illegal drug in the state of Oregon. As members of the Native American Church ingesting peyote is a sacramental ritual. The respondents filed claims for unemployment benefits and were denied due to their illegal behavior. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed the decision and the state appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the state could withhold

          ?Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise

Considering economic policies and the balance of power between national and local government, how did Whigs and Democrats differ in their definitions of American freedom and its relationship to government authority?

This refusal being based on their strongly held religious beliefs and the 1st Amendment’s [Free Exercise Clause - Or Prohibiting the free exercise thereof] they now stand in direct conflict with the 14th Amendment’s [Equal Protection Clause.]

Massachusetts: “The right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose the community or the child to communicable disease or the latter to ill health or death.”

Native Americas seem to have many recreational drugs and seem to have a great time using them. Every tribe uses different drugs and smokes different plants. The main few are Tobacco, Peyote, Coca Leaf, and Salvia. In the article 7 Crazy Native American Drugs , "This drug was apparently so powerful that many tribes saw it as a portal into the world of the Gods.While traditionally used in ceremonies, peyote saw a spike in popularity during the Native American Church movement in the 1800’s." On the other hand the Coca Leaf was not a powerful recreational dug and was used with tea and other drinks on the daily. When we look at modern times we see the use of Marijuana and it has become approved by the US government for recreational use.

The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment has represented a test to those courts looked with clashes amongst religion and the legislature. The proviso, which ensures the free exercise of religion, neglects to characterize religion, leaves its defensive parameters indistinct, and welcomes an extensive variety of understandings. Deciphering free exercise turns out to be particularly dubious - and particularly vital - in a socially various country, for example, the United States, when individuals from a religious minority look for

The U.S government allows the protection of religious belief, which means people have the right to believe in anyone they chose. The government cannot not deny or interfere with a person's religious belief. People think that since they have the right to religious belief than they have the right to perform religious practices that can be against the law. The U.S government has the right to interfere because certain religious actions can disturb the peace or harm people. When looking at the Reynold vs. U.S case. Reynold had the right to

While hemp was a serious problem for the Tuscarora people, the use of peyote was and still is a very controversial platform. Grown in central and northern parts of Mexico, peyote has been a part of native life even before the colonial days. Peyote is used as a part of spiritual ceremonies, and it is usually held in a tepee by the tribe’s medicine man. Currently, the use of peyote is now only to be used for rituals and ceremonies performed within the Native American Church (Hopkins). Although the traditional use of peyote had been legalized through the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, “the transportation, possession, and use of peyote by unauthorized parties for use other than bona fide traditional ceremonial purposes is strictly prohibited” (Hopkins).

In 1983 & 1984, Galen Black and Al Smith lost their jobs for violating ADAPT’s (Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Treatment) abstinence-only policy. They used the drug peyote as part of their religious ceremonies as members of the Native American Church. They filed a claim for unemployment benefits, but they were denied because the reason for their dismissal was viewed as work-related misconduct (2/8). They filed a lawsuit saying this denial violated their First Amendment rights (8). Smith and his lawyer maintained that the state had no compelling interest strong enough to override the right of members of the Native American Church to practice religion. The state initially argued that its compelling interest lay in protecting the integrity

Legal Issue: Does the Free Exercise Clause require an accommodation for religious motivated behavior in the face of a law that is burdening that behavior, unless there is a compelling state interest for the law and the law is the least restrictive means of advancing the CSI?

The debate on religion in the public school is complicated by the fact that there are two clauses dealing with religion in the First Amendment (Warnick, 2012). The Establishment Clause, which disallows the establishment by the government of any particular religion, and the Free Exercise Clause, which prohibits the state from proscribing the practice of religion, are a source of