and

Shreya Ranjan- The Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses

Video

Written Component

The Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses

Created by James Madison as part of the First Amendment, the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses are now crucial parts of the American right to freedom. However, they weren’t always considered this way: America, since its founding, has been predicated on the concept of religious freedom. Indeed, many of the original colonies had been composed of immigrants who had fled from Europe to escape religious persecution, such as the Quakers in Pennsylvania.

The Establishment and Free Practice Clauses were created to ban the implementation of an official national religion (it’s important to note that under the Establishment Clause, states were still allowed to have official religions, and some continued to do so until the 1830s (1)), to prevent congress from unfairly favoring one religion over another, and to guarantee citizens the ability to practice their respective religions.

The founders included these clauses to prevent the tyranny which would inevitably form out of the union of church and state, as well as to guarantee what was considered the “inalienable right” of citizens to free religious practice. Interpretations of the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses have often been specific, especially within the rulings of the Supreme Court: the juxtaposition of cases such as Kennedy v Bremerton School District and Santa Fe School District v Doe makes these differences clear.

Interestingly enough, both cases involved similar pretenses; Kennedy sued the Bremerton School District for violating his Free Practice Clause rights after the District ordered him to stop praying before football games, whilst the Santa Fe School District was sued for organizing student led prayers over loudspeakers before football games and thus violating the Establishment Clause.

In the case of Kennedy, the Supreme Court sided with the plaintiffs, writing that since Kennedy’s prayers were non-mandatory and discreet, they did not violate the Establishment Clause. However, the court noted that the District’s order was in violation of the Free Exercise Clause. Nearly 20 years earlier, the court ruled against the Santa Fe School District, saying that prayers conducted over the loudspeaker were in violation of the Establishment Clause since they were organized and affiliated with the public school and, therefore, the government.

The distinction between government affiliated prayer and private prayer lends an interesting weight to these clauses, as the dilemma of separation between church and state has fascinated society for many years. Paralleling the Establishment Clause was the dechristianization of society during the French Revolution, wherein symbols of religion were removed throughout France. Interestingly enough, these sentiments continue today into modern French society— oftentimes, steps taken to eradicate the symbols of religion in public society have been targeted and Islamophobic (2).

This targeting raises the question of where the line should be drawn to separate government-affiliated and private religious symbolism: in the case of Doe, there were arguments that since the prayer was student-led, it did not violate the First Amendment. However, general consensus does seem to indicate that prayer conducted over a loudspeaker is considered public and, therefore, was in violation of the Establishment Clause.

 

Footnotes:

                      (1) Marc A. Clauson, “Religious freedom since the First Amendment and early state constitutions,” Constituting America, accessed June 1, 2023, https://constitutingamerica.org/religious-freedom-since-first-amendment-early-state-constitutions-guest-essayist-marc- clauson/#:~:text=Massachusetts%20was%20the%20last%20state,well%20as%20the%20national%20government.

                     (2)  Rachel Donadio, “Why Is France so Afraid of God?,” The Atlantic, November 22, 2021, accessed June 1, 2023, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/12/france-god-religion-secularism/620528/.

Jason Joseph – The Commerce Clause and Declare War Clause

Video

Written Component

Under the Articles of Confederation, states had the power to handle their commerce largely independently which hindered trade between states and hurt the overall economy. The Commerce Clause allowed Congress to centralize trade between nations, states, and Indian tribes. This increased trade and the movement of goods, bolstering the economy. In 1808, the first year it was authorized by the constitution to do so, Congress banned the importation of slaves because it fell under foreign commerce. This, as well as Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), provided a precedent for Congress to overrule state laws that pertained to interstate or foreign commerce. Katzenbach v. McClung (1964) was a case where McClung believed Congress had no power to integrate his restaurant. McClung was forced to integrate because his business fit the definition of interstate commerce and Congress therefore had authority over it. The Supreme Court ruled that segregation created limitations on African Americans who traveled to different states, falling under the Commerce Clause, allowing Congress to gain more authority over the states to end segregation. The definition of interstate commerce is highly contested with those wanting decreased government oversight pushing for the original definition of navigation and trade, and those wanting increased government oversight arguing for a broader interpretation. By leaving the meaning of interstate commerce broad it assures that as the circumstances in the United States change so too can the economic practices.

The Declare War clause gives Congress the sole power to wage war, commandeer citizens’ ships in times of war, and provide legislation over obtained territory. The framers intended the Declare War clause to serve as a check to the President’s military power. However, the framers also wanted The President to keep enough autonomy in order to respond to sudden attacks against the nation. In 1964, Congress authorized military support to defend the assets and allies the United States had in Southeast Asia. This led to the Vietnam War, an undeclared war,  where The President took actions that vastly expanded on Congress’ authorization, such as having a draft. When President Nixon approved a secret bombing in Cambodia during the war, Congress realized it needed increased power in foreign military conflicts. The War Powers Resolution of 1973, mandates that The President communicate with Congress before using force, and obtain approval from Congress for missions longer than 60 days. This is intended to allow Congress to control the military direction of the nation. On the contrary, this resolution gives The President 60 days of unauthorized action, which prior to the resolution The President did not have. As weapons’ capability for destruction grows, troops travel faster, and information is spread more rapidly, the devastation and lasting impact that can be accomplished in 60 days of conflict is increasing. Can military action that profoundly affects the entire United States and the well-being of other nations be entrusted to a single individual?

 

Bibliography

Barnett, Randy E. “Why Congress and the Courts Should Obey the Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause.” National Constitution Center. Accessed May 31, 2023. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-i/clauses/752.

 

Barnett, Randy E., and Andrew Koppelman. “The Commerce Clause.” National Constitution Center. Accessed May 31, 2023. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-i/clauses/752.

 

Denniston, Lyle. “Was the Vietnam War Unconstitutional?” National Constitution Center. Last modified September 20, 2017. Accessed May 30, 2023. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/was-the-vietnam-war-unconstitutional.

 

Oyez. “Gibbons v. Ogden.” Oyez. Accessed May 31, 2023. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/22us1.

 

———. “Katzenbach v. McClung.” Oyez. Accessed May 31, 2023. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1964/543.

 

Ramsay, Michael D., and Stephen I. Vladeck. “Declare War Clause.” National Constitution Center. Accessed May 31, 2023. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-i/clauses/753.

 

Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum. “War Powers Resolution of 1973.” Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum. Last modified July 27, 2021. Accessed May 31, 2023. https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/news/war-powers-resolution-1973#:~:text=The%20War%20Powers%20Resolution%20of,the%20executive%20branch’s%20power%20when.

 

Vladeck, Stephen I. “Congress’s Statutory Abdication of Its Declare War Power.” National Constitution Center. Accessed May 31, 2023. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-i/clauses/753.

 

Connor Smyth – The Election Clause and Suspension Clause

Video

Written Component

Election Clause: The Election Clause, located in Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, addresses the regulation and conduct of elections for Senators and Representatives. It says that the “Times, Places, and Manner” of holding elections shall be determined by state legislatures while still granting Congress the authority to make or alter regulations, except for the selection of Senators’ places. The content of the Election Clause reflects the framers’ intent to establish a federal system that respects the freedom of individual states while ensuring a degree of federal oversight. By granting primary authority to state legislatures, this allows each state to tailor its electoral system according to its unique circumstances and demographics. The significance of the Election Clause lies in its role in safeguarding the democratic principles of the United States. It allows states to administer elections and shape their own voting regulations. Simultaneously, the clause empowers Congress to intervene if necessary to protect the fairness of federal elections or ensure the fair treatment of voters. This authority enables Congress to pass laws that establish uniform standards, address discriminatory practices, and guarantee the protection of voting rights.The Election Clause has played a significant role in defining the limits of state and federal authority, particularly through landmark decisions such in the case of the Voters Act of 1965, which involved the protection of free voting rights for all. This provision remains a cornerstone of American democracy, ensuring the protection of voting rights and the integrity of the electoral system.

 

Suspension Clause: The Suspension Clause, found in Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, addresses the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. It states that the right to habeas corpus, the requirement that someone that is arrested must be brought before a judge or into court, may not be suspended or delayed unless in the case of rebellion, invasion, or if the public may be in danger. The Suspension Clause sets a high threshold for suspending this privilege, permitting it only in cases of rebellion or invasion when public safety is at risk. By requiring such exceptional circumstances, the clause ensures that the writ of habeas corpus is not casually or unjustly suspended, preserving the right to challenge one’s detention before a court. The clause acts as a check on executive authority, requiring a legitimate and urgent threat to public safety before the suspension of habeas corpus can occur. Throughout history, the Suspension Clause has been invoked during times of crisis, such as the Civil War and World War II, to address threats to national security. Legal interpretations and debates have revolved around the scope of the clause, including questions of its applicability to non-citizens, the extent of judicial review, and the duration of suspension. The Suspension Clause continues to be relevant today, as issues such as terrorism and national emergencies prompt discussions about the delicate balance between civil liberties and security. 

The Free Exercise Clause and Arguments for and against Religious Exemptions

Video

Written Component

The Free Exercise clause is a clause in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. This amendment was ratified alongside nine others. These first ten amendments are collectively known as the Bill of Rights. By providing the people with guaranteed natural rights in these amendments, the government hoped to appease opposition to the Constitution on the grounds that it would give the federal government far too much power. The Free Exercise clause is a section of the First Amendment that protects freedom of religion. Many early Americans viewed religious freedom as one of the most important and fundamental natural rights because several American colonies had been created by religious groups fleeing from persecution in Europe.

By using the specific phrasing of “free exercise of religion,” Congress, which wrote the Bill of Rights, made it clear that it was protecting not just religious convictions but also practices. Using this clause as their argument, many religious groups have sought to receive exemptions from laws on the grounds that they interfere with their religious convictions or practices. In different time periods, the Free Exercise clause has been interpreted differently in order to either permit or disallow religious exemptions. In 1972, the Supreme Court decided in the case Wisconsin v. Yoder that governments could not apply laws that go against religious beliefs to the holders of said beliefs unless they had a “compelling interest” to do so. This ruling allowed for religious exemptions to occur for many laws. However, in 1990, the Supreme Court ruled in Employment Division v. Smith that religious groups could not be exempted from religiously neutral laws that disallow religious practices or enforce doctrine contrary to religious classes.

One large reason for this ruling was the fear that by being exempt from laws just because of religious beliefs, people would be above the law. The argument of whether or not to grant religious exemptions is one of the greatest areas of dispute about the Free Exercise clause. To argue in favor of religious exemptions, it could be said that in most cases, awarding these exemptions results in practically no detriment to anyone and therefore it would only be a benefit to religious individuals who want to comply with their beliefs. On the other hand, James Madison, one of the most influential writers of the Bill of Rights and Constitution, wrote that while people should not be mistreated on account of their religion, no special privileges should be given for religious beliefs. Based on this information, an argument can be made that the intended meaning of the Free Exercise clause was not to permit religious exemptions, and therefore none should be given.

While it may be true that the Framers may not have intended for the Free Exercise clause to be interpreted in a way that allows for religious exemptions, the manner in which they wrote it seems to evoke the idea. Additionally, when a religious exemption does not cause any harm to other people, there is no reason not to support it. It is simply ridiculous to say that no one should get religious exemptions even when they cause no harm to anyone else. James Madison may have thought otherwise, but it is perfectly fair to give religious exemptions in cases where there are no adverse effects.