first-amendment

Kieran Constitution Project

Video

Written Component

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the fundamental right to free speech: a key to American democracy. The First Amendment was primarily created to protect American citizens from a totalitarian government. As disagreements heightened between Great Britain and the colonies, Jefferson became one of the key American revolutionaries fighting for the representation of those being silenced in governmental decisions. Even before the formation of the United States Constitution, Jefferson was no stranger to directly advocating for free speech.. Free speech was a huge priority to Jefferson as he began to design the framework for the United States, thus, leading to the First Amendment. 

However, in a modern democracy, there are incidents where the First Amendment can come into question. The events of January 6th, 2021, at the United States Capitol have ignited a heated debate about whether former President Donald Trump can be held accountable for his role in inciting the storm on Capitol Hall. Essentially, the First Amendment’s Freedom of Speech Clause protects people’s rights to express their opinions, ideas, and beliefs without fear of government censorship. It covers various forms of expression, such as speech, press, assembly, and petition. This timeless right ensures that citizens can engage in public discourse, challenge authority, and freely express differing opinions. However, there are instances where the first amendment’s protection can be taken away. For example, there’s an Incitement exception which states  that if speech is used to incite violence it would no longer be protected by the first amendment. This clause plays heavily into the ongoing debate of the accountability of Donald Trump. His actions leading up to the January 6th incident have been a subject of intense debate. There are two main perspectives each utilizing the first amendment to aid their argument, here are the two sides:              

Incitement and Responsibility:

One viewpoint states that Trump’s accusation of election fraud, his  “Stop the Steal” rally before the storming of capital hall, and his refusal to accept the election results created the atmosphere that led to five people being killed during the violence and many more being injured. People that believe Trump should be held accountable argue that his words and actions broke the incitement exception and therefore were no longer protected by the first amendment, as he  encouraged his followers to engage in unlawful behavior. They argue that Trump, as a public figure and the President at the time, had a responsibility to use his platform responsibly and promote peaceful resolutions.

Protected Political Speech:

Others argue that Trump’s claims, although controversial and provocative, could be classified under protected political speech. They strongly emphasize that the First Amendment holds the right to express strong opinions and engage in heated political discourse. Supporters of this perspective claim that holding Trump accountable would set a dangerous model for restricting free speech. They strongly emphasize the importance of protecting political discourse, even if it includes statements that some may find objectionable. On top of this they argue that no direct statements asking for his supporters to storm capitol hill, were made by Trump. I believe that Trump should be held accountable for his actions because although he did not directly state that his supporters should attack, he did imply it by saying that this was a “test of strength.” In conclusion, the debate surrounding the accountability of Donald Trump for the events of January 6th reflects the complexities of applying the First Amendment’s Freedom of Speech Clause.

 

Analysis of the Free Exercise Clause in the First Amendment

Video

Written Component

The Free Exercise Clause states that Congress cannot make laws “prohibiting the free exercise” of religious beliefs. The clause is part of the Bill of Rights, ten constitutional amendments that listed rights the federal government must protect. It was a natural outgrowth of a long debate about religious freedom in the Thirteen Colonies, where some colonies restricted religion while others, such as Virginia, enabled religious freedom. Founding Fathers like Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson advocated for religious freedom, which was eventually instated in the First Amendment. 

The plain English interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause is that Congress may not pass laws that stop citizens from practicing their religion. However, the Supreme Court has interpreted this clause to allow some limitations. The central question for interpreting the clause is to what extent it protects religious actions considered harmful to society. In the case Reynolds v. United States, the Supreme Court decided that, while a law may not regulate religious beliefs, it can regulate actions that result from those beliefs. The Supreme Court revised the rules in Wisconsin v. Yoder to limit laws that regulate religion to situations where the public interest is “compelling,” meaning it must be absolutely necessary to protect the state or citizens. Further laws and cases have added that regulations on religious actions must use the “least restrictive means,” limiting religious expression as little as possible even if that makes enforcing laws harder. The result of these interpretations is a compromise between total adherence and disregard for the Free Exercise Clause

The debate surrounding the Free Exercise Clause reflects multiple themes from our class and throughout history. The American Constitution, including    a vision of religious tolerance developed by European Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke and Voltaire demonstrates history’s  interconnectedness. The clause also shows how laws reveal values, similar to how the Manden Charter in Mali provided a lens into that society. Finally, the Free Exercise Clause demonstrates the complexities of dealing with  the “Other,” protecting minority rights in the Constitution but allowing old white men with power to limit those protections through court cases.

Personally, when it comes to the Free Exercise Clause, I think both abolishment or literal interpretation would be dangerous. Without the clause, the majority could dictate the expression of beliefs of minority groups. A literal interpretation, however, would let people use religion as an excuse and make it impossible to protect society. The only solution is a compromise as the court has attempted to achieve, but it is challenging to find the perfect balance. This difficulty leads to the Supreme Court occasionally allowing unjust violations, like upholding President Trump’s “Muslim Ban” against many majority Muslim countries. It also sometimes allows religious practices that harm people, such as making it legal for employers to deny full healthcare due to religious beliefs in the case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores. While compromises may be complicated and lead to some bad decisions, finding a balance is necessary to create a functioning democracy.

Jack Korngold — 1st Amendment: Freedom of Speech Clause

Video

Written Component

First Amendment — Freedom of Speech Clause 

“Congress shall make no law . . .  abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” 

The concept of free speech per the First Amendment is a critical principle introduced in the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. The historical context for this clause is rooted in the American experience with the oppressive government of the British Empire. Indeed, the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to satisfy the concerns of the Anti-Federalists to protect the rights of individuals from the power of the central government. Even before the Revolution, journalist John Peter Zenger was prosecuted by the colonial government of Massachusetts for printing unpopular truths about the Governor.

This prosecution reflected a suppression of free speech, which the colonists believed violated their inalienable rights. The common interpretation of free speech rights has been the duty to protect both an individual’s and groups’ ability to express themselves from government intervention across various mediums, including speech, print and online forums. This protection is quite broad and encompasses a variety of beliefs, and includes the protection of opinions that many Americans might find distasteful or offensive.

Even the burning of the American Flag as a form of political speech was protected by the Supreme Court as demonstrated in the ruling of the Texas vs. Johnson case in 1989. The broad interpretation of free speech rights is seen as necessary for the preservation of our democracy. A central debate about this Constitutional right is how restrictive our interpretation should be in its protection. One view is that free speech should be limited for national security purposes — in the Schenck v. United States case, the Supreme Court read the First Amendment in a restricted way so that people could not criticize the government in a time of war and argued that if there was “clear and present danger” to the country, then the speech could be restricted. In contrast, in the 1969 Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District case, the court was less restrictive and ruled that high school students could protest the Vietnam War and that teachers could not stop the students from showing their opposition.

This concept of free speech in the First Amendment is clearly an example of an “inalienable right” that earlier thinkers, such as John Locke, thought must be guaranteed by a government based on the Social Contract. This right also reflects Rousseau’s view of the General Will as expressed in his conception of the Social Contract. With respect to how restrictive our interpretation should be, it would be necessary to have high standards for what constitutes a “clear and present danger” to the country as highlighted by the Schenck case.

The standards for enforcement must be strict, otherwise governments could unjustly suppress opposing points of view that represent no real threat to the country, but that interfere with an Administration’s political agenda. Some have also argued for the possibility of amending the language of this clause to remove the protections for “hate speech.” My proposal is that hate speech be more narrowly defined in the Amendment by words or images that incite or provoke violence or harm against a particular group purely because of their identity. Regardless of differences of opinion, the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment is a foundational element of American society, even though we might not always agree on how it is to be interpreted.

 

Bibliography

Vile, John R. “John Peter Zenger.” In The First Amendment Encyclopedia, edited by Middle Tennessee State University. Middle Tennessee State University, 2009. Last modified 2009. Accessed June 2, 2023. https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1235/john-peter-zenger.

 

There was no information on John Peter Zenger in the Oyez Archive, and so, I cited an outside source. All of the other cases however, are from the Oyez Archive.

First Amendment

Video

Written Component

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition, was shaped by several historical forces. One significant influence was the colonial experience of religious persecution and the desire for religious freedom among early settlers. The Founding Fathers, drawing upon Enlightenment ideals, emphasized the importance of individual liberties and limited government power. They sought to establish a system that prevented the government from infringing upon the fundamental rights of its citizens.

The Supreme Court has established that restrictions on speech based on its content, where the government targets the message, are generally unconstitutional. Laws that prohibit criticizing a war, opposing abortion, or advocating high taxes are examples of content-based restrictions that violate the First Amendment. Such laws distort public debate and undermine the principle of self-governance by allowing the government to control what ideas or information the people can access.

However, there are situations where the government can impose restrictions on speech under a less demanding standard. Certain types of speech have been deemed of “low” First Amendment value and are subject to restrictions, such as defamation, true threats, “fighting words” likely to incite immediate violence, obscenity, child pornography, and commercial advertising. Special relationships to the government, such as government employees or students in public schools, can be subject to content-based restrictions if their speech conflicts with their roles as public officials or students. Content-neutral restrictions, such as those related to noise, traffic, or signage, can be imposed as long as they are “reasonable” and apply to all speakers equally, without favoring specific ideas or messages.

The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the First Amendment has become increasingly protective of free expression over time. In the past, blasphemy could be punished, and during World War I, speech promoting crime or condemning the military draft was deemed punishable. However, since the 1920s, the Court has broadened the scope of the First Amendment, providing stronger legal protection for free speech and press rights.

In the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), the Supreme Court made a landmark decision regarding campaign finance regulations. The Court ruled that political spending by corporations and unions is protected as free speech under the First Amendment. The decision overturned restrictions on independent expenditures by corporations and unions, allowing them to spend unlimited amounts of money to support or oppose political candidates. The ruling was highly controversial, with critics arguing that it opened the door for excessive influence of money in politics and undermined the integrity of the electoral process. Proponents, on the other hand, viewed it as a victory for free speech rights and the ability of individuals, including corporations and unions, to express their political views. The Citizens United decision continues to shape the landscape of campaign finance laws and remains a topic of ongoing debate and discussion.

The significance of the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) case lies in its impact on campaign finance regulations and the notion of corporate personhood in American politics. The Supreme Court’s ruling, in this case, held that political spending by corporations and unions is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, thereby overturning restrictions on corporate campaign expenditures. This decision paved the way for the rise of super PACs (Political Action Committees) and increased the influence of money in politics.

The First Amendment: Free Speech and Freedom of Speech

Video

Written Component

In the constitution, the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights protects Americans freedom of speech. When the Bill of Rights was written in 1789, the American colonies had recently revolted against British rule. Previously, the British Monarchy had controlled the press and saying bad things about the British crown was a crime one that could be punished by imprisonment or death. However, in writing the Constitution, and adapting it with the Bill of Rights, the founding fathers attempted to enshrine important ideals of democracy — that people should be free to say what they wish and the press should be able to criticize public officials — with the First Amendment.

It is important to note that this does not apply to private companies, employers, or landowners. While the amendment refers only that Congress may not restrict freedom of speech, the Supreme Court has ruled that this applies to the entire Federal government. Moreover, in the case of Gitlow v. New York (1925) the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment also restricts the power of states and local governments. The protections of the First Amendment are not unilateral, however, and there are a few hotly debated exceptions of when free speech is, or is not, protected. Government officials, for example public school teachers, can be punished for certain kinds of speech not endorsed by the government.

Filters not based on the content of a message but rather can be based on some other quality such as noise or other kinds of disruption are sometimes not restricted, like in the case of Turner Broadcasting Inc. v. FCC (1994) but this is on a varying case by case basis. Finally, the Supreme Court has ruled that the government can restrict “low” speech. Defamation, threats, obscenities, and misleading advertising all constitute “low” speech that the government regulates.

The Supreme Court is extremely loath to use “low” speech. For example, the 1978 case of National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie was one of the most controversial decisions in the history of the United States Supreme Court, wherein the judges defended the freedom of a neo-Nazi group that aimed to demonstrate in Skokie, Illinois. The NSPA argued that the Illinois Supreme Court violated the free speech clause of the First Amendment by restricting their right to protest. Today, the First Amendment is still a matter of hot debate.

An example of an important issue regarding the modern day application of the First Amendment arises from campaign donations in politics. The Supreme Court has held that political contributions are “speech” and are thus protected by the First Amendment. That said, the Supreme Court has ruled the government is allowed to regulate contributions if there is a risk of undue influence in Buckley v. Valeo (1976) and in McConnell v. The Federal Election Commission (2003) the Court ruled that the government could regulate corporation’s spending on political expenditure. All in all, these issues of free speech and the questions of what kinds of expression the government should, and should not, restrict extend into the present day and can have serious ramifications on everyday life, elections, and more. 

The Free Exercise Clause

Video

Written Component

The Free Exercise Clause in the Constitution stems from freedom sought by early American colonists who left religious persecution in Europe for a place where they would be free to practice their faith without interference from the government or established churches. The Massachusetts Bay Colony, founded by the Puritans, is one such example. The Founding Fathers recognized the importance of religious freedom and codified the right of individuals to freely express their beliefs, worship as they wished, and organize religious communities without government interference in the Constitution. In 1791, the “Free Exercise Clause” was included in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights and its intent was to ensure that the government would not establish a national religion or impede the exercise of religious freedom by its citizens. 

The Free Exercise Clause protects citizens’ rights to: practice religious beliefs without government interference, follow their religious convictions, participate in religious rituals, attend religious services, and express their faith without fear of persecution or discrimination. What the clause does not specify is when the government may limit the exercise of religious freedom and thus leaves room for interpretation. The Supreme Court established a precedent that the government may impose restrictions on religious practices if they serve a compelling governmental interest and are applied in a neutral manner.

In Reynolds v United States (1878), the Supreme Court ruled against the practice of bigamy and found that free exercise protects belief but not all conduct. “Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices.” In Cantwell vs Connecticut (1940), the Supreme Court found that state law requiring a permit for religious solicitation violated the Free Exercise Clause. Cantwell established that the government must generally allow individuals to freely exercise their religious beliefs without unnecessary restrictions. Citing Reynolds, the Court emphasized that “[c]onduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society.”

In Employment Division v. Smith (1990), the Court found that free exercise did not relieve people of the obligation to comply with a “valid and neutral law of general applicability.”  Reacting to that decision, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in 1993, providing religious exemptions from laws that place a “substantial burden” on religious exercise unless the government demonstrated a “compelling interest.” Relying on RFRA, the Supreme Court ruled in Burwell v Hobby Lobby (2014), that Hobby Lobby was exempt from a law that required health insurance plans to cover abortion-inducing medications.

In many ways, the Constitution’s Free Exercise Clause was the culmination of the successful struggle for religious and personal freedom that compelled people to emigrate from Europe and found the thirteen colonies. Ideals such as the freedom of religion and the individual being entitled to natural rights, even when governed by a social contract, are exemplified in this clause and served as catalysts for the drafting of the United States Constitution.  

 

Maddy Kim’s Constitution Project

Video

Written Component

According to the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses in Amendment I: the federal government will not have a state religion, or support or restrict any religion or religious practice. In the original articles, Article 6, Section 3 provides the only reference to religion and prohibition of a religious test for holding office.

 

The Establishment Clause sought to address the religious tyranny of the British. During England’s reign over the colonies, the Church of England legally required southern colonists to pay religious taxes and often attend church services. Some scholars interpret the clause as a check on religious tyranny. Additionally, due to most of the framers being Deists, the meaning of the clause based on the intentions of the framers indicates that the Establishment Clause aims to avoid persecution. Other scholars assert that the clause is a co-guarantor of religious freedom, designed to reduce the role of religion in American life, and promote the free practice of a variety of religions. These interpretations are two of a variety that have been used in some of the Supreme Court’s best-known Establishment Clause based decisions. In Engel v. Vitale (1962), the Court deemed it unconstitutional for public school children to be led in prayer or read from the bible as the government had no business drafting any formal prayers for any part of its population. 

 

The Free Exercise Clause states that Congress will not prohibit the free exercise of a religion. The clause was responding to the fact that much of the population of colonial America consisted of immigrants and oppressed peoples who sought to escape religious persecution and regarded the protection of religious exercise an inalienable right. The freedom to worship in accordance with an individual’s belief was widely supported by many of the American population. The Free Exercise Clause has been interpreted as a claim that religious liberty is equal liberty, and also that free exercise provides necessary protection for diversity and freedom. As explained by Frederik Gediks, a professor of law, the guarantee of free religious exercise was to prevent government discrimination or abuse on the basis of religion. Others maintain that this clause protects human diversity. Though the clause may seem very short and simple, there have been a variety of supreme court cases involving the Free Speech Clause that contradict each other. When discussing religious exemptions including Amish and Jewish practices, the Supreme Court has changed its perspective multiple times (as explained in my video!).

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/.

First Amendment – Freedom of Speech Clause

Video

Written Component

The Freedom of Speech Clause is found in the First Amendment and has been highly important since it was ratified in 1791, and continues to be relevant in the present day. The first amendment was created with the original intent to protect each individual’s values and their right to expression. The Freedom of Speech clause prevents the government from ridding the people of their own opinions and from having total control over the way the people are able to interact with others.

It is primarily to state the allowance for people to criticize their own government without retribution. In many countries people face severe repercussions for presenting judgment to their government but this clause enforces the people’s abilities to speak their mind. This amendment was first put in place because the people wanted a written document stating their rights. The Freedom of Speech Clause is commonly understood as the law that gives all people the right to express any idea or opinion they possess openly without any risk of punishment, no matter what the view may be.

Additionally, that they can display these thoughts freely in any manner of expression. But, what a lot of people don’t realize, is the specificity of the amendment and the limitations within it that it holds. This clause presents the right for all people to publicly share their ideas freely without the fear of being punished by the government.  However, the Freedom of Speech Clause does not just give all people the right to say whatever they please to whomever.

The limitation is that people are solely protected from consequences being given from the government, and not others. For example, people can still legally be fired from a job as a result of expressing an opinion unless they are government employees. Freedom of Speech is highly debated as it is disagreeable among many whether or not any ideas should be acceptable to be expressed. This clause has been and continues to be controversial with the argument over making exceptions for what cannot be said publicly.

Most can agree that hate speech and words evoking violence shouldn’t be presented. But it gets difficult to incorporate that message into a law as it is difficult to create the limitation as all people have different views and different definitions of what they find offensive or politically correct. With this clause, the speech that gets the strongest protection is political speech. Praise or criticism of any political happenings are almost always protected by the First Amendment.

It has what is classified as ‘Preferred Position’ which is that all regulations, laws, and executive acts that will limit political speech are almost always shut down by the courts. A very impactful court case on the freedom of speech was Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1968. A Ku Klux Klan leader was delivering speeches that were extremely offensive and could be considered threatening to many people. Since it was political, the court ruled that it was protected by the First Amendment.

Something we also studied this year that can relate to the Freedom of Speech Clause is John Locke and his enlightenment ideas. Both were formed with the intention of giving more rights to the people. John Locke argued that people have the right to life, liberty, and property. The first amendment and John Locke’s enlightenment ideas share similar roots as they both allow people to have more agency and ability to express themselves. The Freedom of Speech Clause has impacted history greatly and continues to be relevant in the present day. 

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.