religious restoration act

Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993

a. Summary of Law:
The Framers of the Constitution realized the importance of the freedom of religion. Therefore, the right to express religion freely became one of the unalienable rights that are listed under the 1st Amendment. All laws passed by Congress are not supposed to be restrictive to the practices of any religion, but sometimes, laws that were meant to be “neutral” restrict religious practices just as much as laws that were meant to work against religious practiced.
Native American descendants refused to leave sacred land so a road could be built. This would have restricted their religious practice because ceremonies could only take place on sacred land. In Employment Division V. Smith case, it was ruled that a road could be built over sacred land because the Native Americans were not being punished for their practices. This ruling caused outrage. Both Conservative groups like the Traditional Values Coalition, and Liberal groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union joined forces with religious groups to reinstate the Sherbert Test, which would overturn laws if they were a burden to religion.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was introduced on November 26, 1991, and it simply states that the Government cannot substantially burden a person’s religious practices even if the burden is a result of a rule of general applicability. The government can only restrict the practice of a religion if the law is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
In 1993, the bill was passed and it became the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.

http://cwx.prenhall.com/bookbind/pubbooks/dye4/medialib/docs/rfra.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act

b. Create a timeline/Flowchart

c. Reflection The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 did not have much trouble passing through Congress. One reason was that the Democrats were a majority party and a Democrat, Chuck E. Schumer, proposed the bill. Another reason why this law passed so easily was that there was a strong desire within both parties to protect the First Amendment, which includes the Freedom of Religion. Time in Committee was very fast. In the House Committee of the Judiciary, no changes were made. This was probably because this bill did not concern money, and so it was not as important of a bill. There was really no battle for passage. A voice vote in the House of Representatives showed that the Representatives were clearly in favor of the bill, and only three Senators out of a hundred opposed the bill. This could be considered a relatively fast process because bills could take up to years to get passed, and many never become laws. It took nine months for the bill to get passed. One obstacle that the bill couldn’t overcome is that the Supreme Court ruled part of it unconstitutional. In City of Borne v. Flores, a Roman Catholic Church of San Antonio wanted to enlarge a church in Borne, Texas, but Borne ordinance protected the building as a historic landmark and therefore it could not be torn down. The Church sued and used the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 to help their case, but the Supreme Court ruled that the act had given Congress too much power over the enforcement of the Fourteenth Amendment. Our legislative process has proven to be stable, but not effective. It is a stable system because if there is disagreement, the government won’t collapse like it would in Parliament. It is also somewhat ineffective because it takes a long time for the bills to be passed. Even though there was not much opposition to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, it took nine months to pass the bill because the bill waited on the calendar for about five months before I was brought to discuss in the Senate. The time the bill stayed on the calendar waiting for discussion was more than the time that the bill was worked on. I would have voted for this bill because it protects one of the most important rights, the Freedom of Expression. If a law was created that dramatically prevented religious practice, it would be in violation of the First Amendment. When America was first colonized, many people came for the freedom to practice their religion freely, and so I believe that religious freedom should be a primary concern. If a law is created that does not purposefully restrict a religious practice, citizens who are being limited should be exempted from the law so that they could continue practicing their religion comfortably.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/42C21B.txt http://thomas.loc.gov/cgibin/bdquery/z?d103:HR01308:@@@D&summ2=1&