Hypothetical Case Opinion
The law of any land should be respected at all costs. The law is what governs the people who live in that country. Every country has a legal process that has to be followed. These processes are very precise and require much attention to the specific details. Failure to follow the rules that are incorporated in these laws, then one can be prosecuted in front of a court of law. If one is proven guilty, then the appropriate charges will be sentenced to them. The purpose of these laws is so as to ensure that everybody in the country is treated in the same manner. In addition, these laws also work to protect the innocent citizens against people who are out con them or make unjust decisions about their well being. However, as time goes by, the laws are usually amended accordingly since they become outdated with time or irrelevant.
As a justice, I have reviewed the case that has been brought before me. When a case is being decided, it is important to first examine all the amendments that have been made to a particular law that is in question. After this is done, one can then look at the date at which the suit was filed in court. It should be before the amendment was made. Based on this case scenario, the Columbia Civil Liberties Union is petitioning the Columbia state for the erection of a cross behind Dr. King’s statue. With reference to the laws of this land, there is freedom of speech and expression. In addition, everybody is entitled to their own religion and at the same time, they are free to worship or believe in any religion that they wish to.
In the case between the Engel versus the Vitale, that took place in the year 1962, shows a resemblance in the case that we are having today. The case was filed by...
... middle of paper ...
...n which it was built on belongs to the state which means it belongs to the general public. This is the reason why, it is crucial for the area to be made in such a manner that it would be ideal for everybody who wishes to visit the place. After all, it is a recreational center for everybody. This is enough to make the lawsuit a good idea (Meyer, 30).
In my opinion on this matter is that the state of Columbia violated the first amendment in their original action. The opinions of the citizens must be listened to and upheld. These are just of the basic functions that the state is supposed to be doing. From my opinion, the cross should not be erected as this would benefit the people who are living in that state. People are supposed to stay comfortable in the place, which they live in. A comfortable life results in a happy life which is more enjoyable than any other kind.
Allowing students to object to reciting the prayer did not make it constitutional. The court decided that the nondenominational aspect of the prayer did not make it Constitutional either. The law was in fact in violation of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.
It is largely understood that laws are put in place for the good of the communities which they govern. Laws are meant to reflect the wishes of the people and the general consensus is that as a result, these laws should be followed without question. In reality this is not always the case. There are often laws worth questioning whether it be for convenience, personal gain, or deep personal or moral reasons. A historical connection to the latter would be the protection of Jews from the Nazis during WWII and the Holocaust. Hitler created a document outlining a death penalty for any and all persons who were caught aiding Jews in any way, small or large. Despite this law being enforced with dire consequences for infraction, there were still
This case was debating one’s rights to freedom of religion, as stated in the First Amendment. The religion whose rituals and customs were being questioned of its ethicality and religious rights was the Santeria religion. It is not one of the mainstream religions that are taught to us in school, but they too, have their own beliefs, rituals, customs, traditions, and rules. One of the rituals they practiced was the sacrifice of animals. This issue was brought to light when the Church of the Lukumi-Babalu Aye leased land and announced their plans to build a place of worship as well as other establishments in the town of Hialeah, in Florida. In response to the concern of many members of the town, they held a meeting, at which they looked into this religious group and was concerned about some of their practices, specifically the one concerning the act of animal sacrifice. They passed plans aimed to prevent religious animal sacrifice after that meeting. The local laws prohibited Santeria sacrifices, but there were exceptions, including kosher slaughter.
The religious aspect that this Supreme Court case has screaming right away is the actions of Mr. Philips decision in which "pits religious believers against the nonreligious". Mr. Philips denied making a cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins which caused controversy within the state of Colorado. This case as well is brining many other issues to light that are not being publicly mentioned as for this case is, yet nevertheless its stirring the melting pot in America that in not all cases should the government rules and regulations should be followed to the bullet points. Such as the findings founded in the "Lavender Scare" in which founded and called homosexuals in work settings publicly and shunned them. It was founded as well in President Carters staff
In 1993, one of the most important acts that has gone through Congress was passed (Religious Freedom, Map of the RFRA). This was the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993 (Religious Freedom, Map of the RFRA). This act was passed to answer the 1990 court case Employment Division v. Smith (Questions and Answers, Map of the RFRA). Employment Division v. Smith was a court case in which the issue was whether “Sacramental use of peyote by members of the Native American Church was protected under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, which provides that ‘Congress shall make no law.prohibiting the free exercise of religion'. ”(Questions and Answers, Map of the RFRA).
In 1995, a lawsuit was filed against the Santa Fe Independent School District. Students had been leading Christian prayers before football games. The case made it’s way up to the Supreme Court, claiming these prayers were a violation of the First Amendment. The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”. This means that US citizens are free to practice any religion they choose, as long as they respect public morals. The amendment also states that and that the government cannot endorse a particular religion, which was added to ensure that the government couldn’t have an established religion, like England had at a time, the Church of England. Another
In today’s society of “political correctness”, many issues arise between the interests of the many interests groups of the nation. One of the issues that continue to generate heated debate is the displaying of the Ten Commandments and other religious documents on government property. The issue of the Ten Commandments is one of the most heated discussions on the local and national stage today. Although there are many groups and individuals opposed to the displaying of the Ten Commandments and other religious objects as a violation against the separation of church and state and against the 1st amendment which is freedom of religion, the question asked by many others is; should religious objects including the Ten Commandments be permissible on government property? The answer is, yes, it should be. By law, according to history, and first amendment rights not being violated, the simple legality of the issue is without a doubt, a non-debatable issue.
In 1962 the Supreme Court outlawed school-mandated prayer in public schools, ruling that it was unconstitutional ("School Prayer”). The next year, it banned non compulsory religious readings. Over the next 30 years, the Court would continue to protect American students from the establishment of religion in public schools while protecting the equality of all beliefs. But in 2000 when Atheist Dr. Michael Newdow filed against the Broward County school board for the use of the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, stating that it encroached on his daughter’s right to be free from religious coercion from the government, local courts decided to deny to view the case. Newdow appealed and the case eventually got to the Supreme Court who, instead of serving its intended purpose
Starting with perspective one I would like to point out the key points. Laws are there to provide peace and avoid chaos, although we should follow the laws if there are things that people may disagree with. Instead of just keeping quiet they should have the right to speak out about it without necessarily breaking the law. Breaking the law wont make it change but discussion of why the law is unjust and why the law was put in place in the first place is bound to make more progress than breaking the law to prove a point. Perspective two, I don't completely agree with the statement that people have a moral obligation to break laws that are unjust, unfair, or immoral. I would more say the entirety of perspective two will get you no where but in trouble and in jail or in legal trouble with the law.
The Rule of Law lives in the hearts people in the nation everywhere. We all know deep inside that we are entitled to be treated equally by government and that no man or group of men should be given special favors or powe...
Thomas Jefferson wrote the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom to explain that each man has the right to practice any religion they please as long as it does not harm others. In addition, government cannot show favoritism when it comes to religion. After having the definition of “separation of church and state” laid out in front of you, it is surprising to realize what may have seemed normal growing up for most children, is in fact unconstitutional. In this paper, we will discuss the issue of the pledge of allegiance in public schools.
Law is a system of rules that has been set up by the legislative branch of our government. It is a must that every person in that country follow these laws, or severe consequences will be held against that person. In every court house legal systems are held. There are two common types of legal systems used, common law and civil law. Common law is used by countries that are from the British colonies, as this type of system was originated from England, when King Henry II wanted to combine the laws and customs together. Whereas, the countries that use civil law are from the European colonies (Common Law vs Civil Law,2009). Even though, both laws are commonly used, they differ in terms of the constitution, the jury’s opinion, the role of the
One of the problems faced with governments and leaders of states, is the problem of compliance and how to achieve it. The most simple answer would be for the government to implement rules and standards for the citizens to follow obediently. However this presents yet more issues, for it is conceivable that the citizens will not obey these laws, if it doesn 't fall in line with reasons to obey: As David Held writes, there are 7 reasons we obey; If a law is: 1. Coerced and there is no other choice; 2. out of tradition; 3. apathy; 4. 'pragmatic acquiescence ' (the 'shrug your shoulders
There simply is no alternate system of laws that can maintain the calm and peaceful environment for people of the world besides “law”. One can easily see the need for each and every nation to enforce its own set of rules. While all of the countries of the world have their own individuality – they all have one considerable feature which is a system of law. It has no significance what type of government is the command, the rules are all appropriate to the people in their community.
There are two types of laws. There are conventional laws and natural laws. Conventional laws are those laws arrived at through consensus between those governed and the government. Natural laws are those laws that are universal and are derived from the natural order of the world. In my opinion, natural law cannot work in our society, as they are not suitable for our environment and how we live together as a society. Natural laws can’t work without causing trouble and chaos between everyone, so why should we place them in our society? On the other hand, conventional laws are governed and are made to be just for the society. That is why we need conventional laws in our society, not natural laws. Also, since conventional laws are governed, they are made sure to be enforced, and breaking them will only ruin that one person for what they have done, not the society as a whole.