First Amendment Law

First Amendment of the Constitution (First Amendment) of the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of expression, of violating freedom of the press, and interference with the right of assembly or prohibit requests to government compensation complaints alone. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, one of the ten amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights.

He proposed the Bill of Rights originally as a measure to appease opponents of the federal constitutional opposition to ratification. At first, only the first amendment of the laws passed by Congress will be applied, and many of its provisions were interpreted by little more than it is today. From Gitlow v. New York (1925), the Supreme Court applied the First Amendment to the states, a process known as mainstreaming through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Court ordered the correspondence of Thomas Jefferson to call a "separation of church and state wall", although the exact boundaries of this chapter remains controversial. Largely they have expanded the rights of expression in a series of resolutions 20 and the court in the 21st century, which protects the various forms of political discourse, speaking on condition of anonymity, campaign finance, pornography, schools speech ; definition of these provisions are also a number of exceptions to the protection of the First Amendment. Supreme Court annulled the English common law precedent to increase the burden of proof in matters of defamation and libel, particularly in the New York Times v. Sullivan (1964). commercial speech, however, is less protected by the First Amendment of political discourse, and therefore is subject to greater regulation.

freedom of the press clause protects the dissemination of information and opinions, and applies to a wide range of media. In the fifth place nearby. Minnesota (1931) and The New York Times v. United States (1971), the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protects against pre-set control pre-launch in almost all cases. Petition clause protects the right of petition to all branches and government agencies to work. And the right of assembly guaranteed under this condition, the Court has also ruled that the amendment protects freedom of association implies.

In 1776, the second year of the American Revolutionary War, the colony of Virginia Palestinian Legislative Council and the Universal Declaration of Human approved includes the phrase "Freedom of the press is one of the greatest strengths of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic governments. " Eight in ten other states have made similar promises. However, these statements are generally regarded as "mere exhortation to the legislatures of the states," instead of the applicable provisions.

After several years of relatively weak government under the Statute of the Union, to hold a constitutional convention in Philadelphia in the proposed new constitution on September 17, 1787 featuring among others CEO stronger changes. George Mason, a delegate of the Constitutional Convention and the drafting of the declaration of the state of Virginia for the rights, it was suggested that the Constitution contains a bill of rights inclusion and ensure that civil liberties. The delegates, including one in the future Bill of Rights Drafting James Madison-not agreed, arguing that the state will allocate sufficient list of civil liberties, and any attempt to enumerate individual rights implies that threaten others rights, nameless and were not protected. After a brief discussion, the proposal was defeated Mason unanimous vote of the state delegations.

The Constitution was ratified, however, there is a need for nine of the thirteen states for approval at the state convention. The opposition to ratification ( "anti-federalism") based in part on the absence of adequate safeguards for establishment of civil liberties. Supporters of the proposed Constitution that was popular sentiment against ratification (including the state of Virginia, Massachusetts and New York) successfully that state conventions, both the ratification of the Constitution and the call to add a bill of rights. Ratification of the United States Constitution in the final by all thirteen states. In the United States Congress 1ST after a request by the state legislatures, James Madison proposed twenty proposed amendments to the Constitution and read it from the first amendment to the draft as follows:

Should detract from the civil rights of nothing at the expense of religious belief or worship, nor shall the establishment of any national religion, and can not be full and equal rights of conscience be in any form or under any pretext, infringed. It shall not be denied or restricted by persons of their right to speak, write or publish their feelings. And freedom of the press, as one of the great strengths of liberty, shall be inviolable. Not be restricted of people gather in peace and ask for the common good. Or the application of the legislature due to petitions or protests, to raise their complaints.

This language has intensified greatly by Congress and approved by the House of Representatives and the Senate with almost no record of debate, which was held to discuss the future intentions of the amendment. First Amendment of the Constitution, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, submitted to the states for ratification on September 25, 1789, which was approved on December 15, 1791.

Thomas Jefferson wrote about the first amendment to the Constitution and restrict the legislative branch of the federal government in a speech in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists (religious minority concern about the dominant position of the parish church in Connecticut) mode:

They believe with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate government up all the procedures, and not opinions, I think with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that the legislature power to "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," and after the construction of the separation of church and state of the wall. The commitment to this supreme expression of the will of the nation in favor of the rights of conscience, and see with satisfaction the progress of these sincere feelings which tend to restore to man all natural rights, convinced no natural right in opposition to the social rights .

In Reynolds v. United States (1878) used the Supreme Court these words the statement that "could almost be accepted as a formal statement of the scope and effect of the amendment thus assured. Private Congress of all legislative power over mere opinion, but it was free to reach actions which were in violation or social functions subversive of good order "Citing the Virginia Statute for religious Freedom Jefferson Court indicated, as well as Reynolds .:

In the preamble of this law is the definition of religious freedom; and after the recitation of "suffering of the civilian judge to interfere with his authority in the field of view, and restrict the profession or publish the principles on the assumption that the trend is sick, it is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious freedom and declared that "it is sufficient for the purposes of the legitimate civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break open actions against the peace and order time. "In these two phrases they have been found in the real distinction between what properly belongs to the church and state.

Originally, only the application of the First Amendment federal government, some states continued the official state religion after approval. Massachusetts, for example, was officially Congregationalist until the 1830s. In Everson v Board of Education (1947), the Supreme Court of the United States included the requirement of the Foundation (ie, to be applied against countries):

"Religious establishment" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: no state nor the federal government can establish a church. You can not pass laws that help one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another. . . In the words of Jefferson, the intent of the First Amendment clause against establishment of religion by law for the establishment of the "separation of church and state wall" it is had. . . This wall must be kept high and impregnable. We can not agree with a misdemeanor.

In Torcaso v. Watkins (1961), the Supreme Court that the Constitution prohibits states and the federal government to require any kind of religious test for public office rule. The Board of Education Kiraas Joel, village school district of New York against Gromit (1994), the court concluded that "the government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to disbelief." In a number of cases in the first decade of the 2000s- Van Sam against Perry (2005), McCreary County v. ACLU (2005), and Salazar v. Buono (2010) is considered tribunal G theme of religious monuments on federal lands without reaching the logic of the majority on this issue.

Iverson uses the metaphor of separation between church and state of the wall, drawn from the correspondence of President Thomas Jefferson. It has been shown much in the decisions of the Supreme Court from Reynolds v. United States in 1879, when the court reviewed the history of the early republic, when deciding the degree of freedom of the Mormons. Chief Justice Morrison Waite, who consulted a historian George Bancroft, who was also discussed during a time of memory and protest against the imposition of religious tax by James Madison, who put the first amendment of the Constitution. Madison uses the metaphor of "a large barrier."

In Iverson, the Court adopted the words of Jefferson. The Court has confirmed that, in many cases, with most, but not unanimous, support. Warren Nord, in which God makes a difference ?, which is characterized by the general trend of objections to weaker than the first amendment of the Constitution read. And the objections tend to be "less concerned about the risks of creating and less attention to the protection of the free exercise of rights, especially religious minorities".

Iverson starting, allowing school boards in New Jersey to pay the price of transportation to parochial schools, the court used different tests to determine when the separation wall has been breached. Iverson left the test found that when the establishment was to provide aid to religion, but the measure was justified because it was a benefit for children is more important. In school prayer cases from the 1960s, (.. Engel v. Vitale and Abington School District v. Schempp), and it seems that the aid is not irrelevant. The court ruled on the basis that the project work thus serves a secular purpose, did not help in the first place of religion. . In Wales against Tax Commission (1970), the Court ruled that a company can not entangle government with religion. . . In Lemon v Kurtzman (1971), was the combination of these points in the lemon test, stating that this work has been created if:

Statute (or practice) lacked a secular purpose.

The director of elementary school or effect advanced or inhibited religion. or

This contributed to an increase in excessive government entanglement with religion.

Lemon test has been criticized by judges and lawyers, but remains the principal means by which the court imposes a requirement of the institution. In Agostini v. Felton (1997), was demoted lemon proof locking notch only be a factor in determining the effect of the law or appellate practice. . . In Zelman v Simmons-Harris (2002), and the opinion of the Court considered a secular purpose and lack of primary effect; declared follower of the opinion of the two cases as entanglement treated as part of the main test purpose. Other tests, such as testing the support and testing of coercion, have been developed to determine whether the act of government that violates paragraph institution.

In the lemon Court stated that this separation of church and state can not be absolute: "our previous positions do not require a complete separation of church and state, total separation is not possible absolute sense something of the relationship between government and religious institutions is inevitable. "he wrote the court. "Judicial precautions against getting involved should be aware that dividing line, and far from being a" wall "is a clear impediment, of course, and variable depending on all the circumstances of a special relationship."

"Religious freedom means freedom to express an opinion or belief, but not to act in violation of social rights or subversive good condition." In Reynolds v. United States (1878), the Supreme Court found that while the law can not interfere with religious beliefs and opinions, and can make laws to regulate some religious practices (eg, human sacrifices, the Hindu practice of a widow) . The court stated that the rule otherwise "would do the doctrines declared superior to the law of the land religious beliefs, and indeed all citizens a declaration becomes law itself. He said the current government only name under these conditions. " Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940), the Court held that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment's free exercise clause states applies. While the right to religious belief is absolute, and freedom to act on those beliefs are not at all.

In Cherbert against Werner (1963), he requested the Supreme Court set to meet the "strict scrutiny" standard when it refused to accommodate the behavior motivated by religion. This means that the government must have a "strong interest" in such denial. Cherbert question concerns Adele, who was denied unemployment benefits in South Carolina because he refused to work on Saturdays, which is prohibited by a Seventh-day Adventist faith. In Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), the Court ruled that the law that "excessive burden religious practice" without a compelling interest, although it can be "neutral on their face," would be unconstitutional.

Has reduced the need for unity in employment against Smith department government department (1990), held was wanted any of these benefits under the condition free exercise of a neutral law of general application, which happens to affect the practice of religious rites, as opposed to the law that addresses the particular religious practice (that does not require the union) government department. Paul Lukumi in any particular church against the city of Hialeah (1993), the Supreme Court may Hialeah pass a law prohibiting ruled slaughter, which is fundamental to the practice of the religion of Santeria, while providing exemptions for certain practices such as kosher slaughter. Since Decree no "general application", the court ruled that it must have a strong interest, which has not been found, and so declared unconstitutional.

In 1993, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), is trying to regain interest in convincing the requirement applied Cherbert and Yoder. Boerne City against Flores (1997), the Supreme Court struck down provisions of RFRA that state and local governments were forced to provide protection beyond those required by the First Amendment of the Constitution, on the basis that while the Congress may impose the interpretation of the Supreme Court is a constitutional right for, and Congress can not impose its own interpretation of countries and regions. According to the court ruling in Gonzales v. UDV (2006), RFRA still applies to federal laws, and so should those laws still have a "strong interest".