Why Is The Religious Freedom Restoration Act Unconstitutional?
The city of Boerne v. Flores case was ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court in the basis that the religious freedom restoration act (RFRA) surpass the powers of the congress on June 25, 1997. The religious freedom restoration act (RFRA) had been enacted in 1993. The claims appraised in the case could not be applied in the states although they were constitutional in regard to the federal actions.
The case started in 1993 after archbishop of San Antonio was denied the permit to expand the local Catholic Church at Texas. Denial of the permit to expand the church resulted from the need to conserve the historic district. However, Flores saw this as violation of the religious freedom restoration act thus filling a suit. Filling a suit entailed that the …show more content…
Therefore, there was a confusion either to rule that the government burdened the person’s religious freedom or not. The reason why the RFRA was declared unconstitutional is that “the act was a considerable congressional intrusion into the states” and had no general authority.
In this case, the religious freedom restoration act serves as a remedial measure than serving as a preventive rule. Therefore, it is essential to have a congruence between the ends sought to be achieved and the means to be used. The evil presented must be in place to determine the remedial measures to be considered. Although the church was denied the permit to expand the church building and having in place the provisions of the RFRA, the authority of the congress to enact RFRA needs to be questioned. From the city of Boerne v. Flores case, there is a lot of tension in between the representative politicians and the courts in regard to the interpretation of the constitution. It is evident that the congress passed the religious freedom restoration act due to the pressure exerted by the constituents to strengthen the constitution powers. However, from the case there is a clear indication that the congress has went ahead violating the constitution since it had limited powers to do
The case started in 1993 after archbishop of San Antonio was denied the permit to expand the local Catholic Church at Texas. Denial of the permit to expand the church resulted from the need to conserve the historic district. However, Flores saw this as violation of the religious freedom restoration act thus filling a suit. Filling a suit entailed that the …show more content…
Therefore, there was a confusion either to rule that the government burdened the person’s religious freedom or not. The reason why the RFRA was declared unconstitutional is that “the act was a considerable congressional intrusion into the states” and had no general authority.
In this case, the religious freedom restoration act serves as a remedial measure than serving as a preventive rule. Therefore, it is essential to have a congruence between the ends sought to be achieved and the means to be used. The evil presented must be in place to determine the remedial measures to be considered. Although the church was denied the permit to expand the church building and having in place the provisions of the RFRA, the authority of the congress to enact RFRA needs to be questioned. From the city of Boerne v. Flores case, there is a lot of tension in between the representative politicians and the courts in regard to the interpretation of the constitution. It is evident that the congress passed the religious freedom restoration act due to the pressure exerted by the constituents to strengthen the constitution powers. However, from the case there is a clear indication that the congress has went ahead violating the constitution since it had limited powers to do