preview

First Amendment Vs Fourth Amendment

Decent Essays

What exactly is the First Amendment? Its gives the people of the United States of America the right of freedom of religion, assembly, speech, and right to petition. The First Amendment is applied to the entire Federal Government, although its only applicable to Congress. In addition the Fourth Amendment protects the First Amendment because of the due process clause, and protects the rights from intervention by the state governments. Two clauses in the first amendment assure freedom of religion, which forbid the government to establish one religion or preferring one religion over another. According to Justia “the free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a person's practice of their religion” (Justia. …show more content…

The two got denied from benefits by the government because of work related misconduct. They took it to the state court and lost the fight, but the U.S Supreme Court overthrow the Oregon Supreme Court’s judgment in opposition to the petulant employees and returned the case to Oregon courts. The Oregon court was going to resolve the issue in “whether or not sacramental use of illegal drugs violated Oregon’s state drug laws( 485 U.S 660(1988)”(Oyez. Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith). Prolonged, the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that during the time the Oregon drug law banned the utilization of drugs for religious purposes. This violated the free exercise clause, returning it back to the Supreme Court in a new perspective. Furthermore “The free exercise of religion means, first and foremost, the right to believe and profess whatever religious doctrine one desires. Thus, the First Amendment obviously excludes all "governmental regulation of religious beliefs as such." Sherbert v. Verner, supra, 374 U.S. at 374 U. S. 402” (Justia. U.S Supreme …show more content…

A game changer was that the court infringed their First Amendment rights. Which in the First Amendment it states that people have the right to practice their religion. The case was at a whole new stage, and now was viewed at a different point. According to Justia “The Oregon Supreme Court held that respondents' religiously inspired use of peyote fell within the prohibition of the Oregon statute, which "makes no exception for the sacramental use" of the drug. 307 Or. 68, 72-73, 763 (1988)” (Justia. U.S Supreme Court). In which later the court later concluded that both men could not be denied unemployment benefits just because they were practicing their religion. Stated in a Gale Article “Prior to this ruling, in a line of cases going back thirty years, the Court had consistently declared that governments could not, without "compelling reason," infringe on the free exercise of religion. Those rulings upheld the rights of individuals who, for religious reasons, would not work on the Sabbath or, in the most famous of these cases, of the old-order Amish who refused to send their children to state-run schools”(Court, U.S Supreme. Employment Division v.

Get Access