{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

POL 353 Final Exam Study Guide

POL 353 Final Exam Study Guide - POL 353 Final Exam Study...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
POL 353 Final Exam Study Guide West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette-(pledge/salute) Facts: Virginia schools required a flag salute and Pledge as a part of regular public school activity. Students who refused to participate were expelled with readmission denied until compliance. Jehovah’s witness Barnette brought a suit contending that it required his children to violate the religious commandment not to worship graven images and was therefore a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment Opinion: This requirement is unconstitutional. The flag salute and pledge requires affirmation of a belief and attitude of mind. In the constitution, only when the expression presents a “clear and present danger’ of action can the state is empowered to prevent and punish. In our constitution it states that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by words or act their faith therein. Dissent : We owe equal attachment to the constitution and are equally bound by our judicial obligations whether we derive our citizenship from the earliest or latest immigrants to these shores. He cannot believe that “liberty” secured by the Due Process Clause gives them the right to end a regulation that simply promotes good citizenship. This is a general law that is not targeted at anyone. Sherbert v. Verner-(Saturday work) Facts : The South Carolina unemployment compensation act says a worker is considered eligible for benefits if he “failed without good cause to accept available suitable work when offered him by the employment office or employer. Sherbert was a Seventh-Day Adventist and was fired, she then refused other jobs because they required her to work on Saturday, which was her Sabbath. She sued the SC unemployment security commission contending that denial of benefits infringed upon the free exercise clause. Opinion : Does the disqualification for benefits impose any burden on the free exercise of the appellants religion—Yes. SC courts cannot hold that compensation benefits are not an appellant’s right but merely a privilege. In looking at whether or not the state had a compelling interest, in this highly sensitive constitutional area, only the “gravest abuses endangering paramount interests give occasion for permissible limitation” and no such abuse has been shown in this case. The burden is on the state and they offered no proof. Concurring : Problems with the Establishment Clause—religious vs. other reasons? Doesn’t believe that the court has correctly interpreted the establishment clause. Previous establishment clause cases would not agree with this decision.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.
  • Fall '11
  • Dameron
  • opinion, First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 12

POL 353 Final Exam Study Guide - POL 353 Final Exam Study...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon bookmark
Ask a homework question - tutors are online