Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Poll

Should Judge Gossett go back to law school?

Yes
 3 (33.3%)
No
 6 (66.7%)
Yes, but not to an ivy league
 0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: May 22, 2008, 09:19:11 AM

Author Topic: Judge Goes Back To Law School?  (Read 1259 times)

$Bill

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 995
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Judge Goes Back To Law School?
« Reply #10 on: May 20, 2008, 12:49:18 PM »
Clearly I havent been keeping up on my polygamy. :P

philibusters

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1076
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Judge Goes Back To Law School?
« Reply #11 on: May 20, 2008, 01:14:25 PM »
“That doesn’t give me a lot of confidence,” Judge Gossett said, staring down from the bench at Ms. Jeffs, who was dressed in a pale-blue prairie dress. “Your right to your religious belief ends when it violates the law.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/us/20raid.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

First Amendment, U.S. Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Tee-Hee ;D

First Amendment is not as clear as you make it out to be.  If a religion required murder certainly, that would not be allowed under the law.  How about if they want to serve wine as part of the sacrament in a town where alcohol is prohibited or home school their own children which puts them at odds with compulsory schooling statutes in some jurisdictions?  Its a tough line drawing, but the judge was essentially correct.  The Smith case which you will learn about in Con Law is the leading case and it essentially saids if a statute is not targeted at a religion but only indirectly affects it, the statute can be enforced even though it prohibits religious acts...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith  In other words the judge was essentially correct.  The speech clauses also have a ton of limitations and cannot be taken at face value.
2008 graduate of William and Mary Law School

dissident

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
Re: Judge Goes Back To Law School?
« Reply #12 on: May 20, 2008, 03:40:08 PM »
“That doesn’t give me a lot of confidence,” Judge Gossett said, staring down from the bench at Ms. Jeffs, who was dressed in a pale-blue prairie dress. “Your right to your religious belief ends when it violates the law.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/us/20raid.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

First Amendment, U.S. Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Tee-Hee ;D

First Amendment is not as clear as you make it out to be.  If a religion required murder certainly, that would not be allowed under the law.  How about if they want to serve wine as part of the sacrament in a town where alcohol is prohibited or home school their own children which puts them at odds with compulsory schooling statutes in some jurisdictions?  Its a tough line drawing, but the judge was essentially correct.  The Smith case which you will learn about in Con Law is the leading case and it essentially saids if a statute is not targeted at a religion but only indirectly affects it, the statute can be enforced even though it prohibits religious acts...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith  In other words the judge was essentially correct.  The speech clauses also have a ton of limitations and cannot be taken at face value.

You are presnting an argument that religious freedom must conform to the law.

Therefore, do you then conclude that the First Amendment is being violated, or that it is no longer in effect?


philibusters

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1076
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Judge Goes Back To Law School?
« Reply #13 on: May 20, 2008, 11:51:09 PM »
Dude I just gave you the law and linked to the wikipedia article on the leading case, I am not trying to make a profound argument, I am just telling you have taken Con Law and First Amendment classes in law school, things are never as simple as they seem.  I am not saying there is no merit to your argument, but you are talking in such extremes.  If you do that in law school you will get crushed.

But since you want to play lawyer/law student, I am happy to play the part of judge/law professor.

So Mr. Dissident, explain how they First Amendment's free exercise clause is being violated?

Make sure to consider:

First and most fundamentally to your case Mr. Dissident the Federal Constitution which says "Congress can make no law" yet the article only deals with a law passed by the Texas state legislature.  Why in god's name would the Free Exercise clause be applicable? 

Second what do you mean by religion.  I don't think this cult is a religion.  This was a cult and social practices were breaking the law.  Maybe the cult shared some religious beliefs, but fundamentally this was a cult not a religious institute.  Religious institutes have many followers across the country, this group all lived in one housing area and followed the commands of one crazy guy.

Third what does free exercise mean?  The state is not prohibiting a religion.  They are merely applying a neutral rule.  Prohibiting a religion is saying if you go to a catholic mass you have violated the law.  Here the legislature is not saying you can't have these religious beliefs they are merely saying you must follow the law that everybody else follows.  Are you saying if some religion advocated human sacrifice the state would not have the power to stop them?  I don't think this violates their free exercise right, explain to me what free exercise is and why its been violated here.
2008 graduate of William and Mary Law School