Minorities and Religious Freedom in the United States

2003 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-76
Author(s):  
David M. O’Brien
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
The United States ◽  
Orthodox Jews ◽  
Latter Day Saints ◽  
Religious Minorities ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Church

The modem libertarian conception of religious freedom did not emerge in the United States until the early twentieth century. It was the result of the straggles of religious minorities like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons), the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Orthodox Jews, the Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, among others. It took decades and a series of (not always successful) lawsuits to persuade the Supreme Court and the country of the value of protecting individuals’ free exercise of religion.

All Things in Proportion? The United States

2019 ◽  
pp. 96-126
Author(s):  
Alec Stone Sweet ◽  
Jud Mathews
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Current Approach ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Rational Basis ◽  
State Laws ◽  
Strict Scrutiny ◽  
The Supreme Court

This chapter considers constitutional rights doctrines of the United States in light of the global spread of proportionality. It challenges the view that proportionality is alien to the American constitutional experience, showing that American courts have developed approaches to rights that closely resemble proportionality. In particular, the Supreme Court’s test for state laws that burdened interstate commerce, developed in the nineteenth century, resembled proportionality, and so did “strict scrutiny” review as it was initially applied by the Supreme Court in the mid-twentieth century. The Supreme Court’s current approach to constitutional rights, relying heavily on separate tiers of review, is characterized by three pathologies: (i) judicial abdication, in the form of rational basis review; (ii) analytical incompleteness, when an explicit balancing stage is omitted; and (iii) instability, leading to reclassification and doctrinal incoherence. The chapter argues that proportionality can protect rights more consistently and coherently than the current American approach, and concludes by showing how courts courts could give proportionality greater expression in constitutional doctrine.

scholarly journals Why Congress Cannot Unilaterally Repeal Puerto Rico's Constitution

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam W. McCall
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Puerto Rico ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Overseas Territories

102 Cornell L. Rev. 1367 (2017)Reckoning with the constitutional status of the United States’ overseas territories has been a tricky business for the Supreme Court. Saddled with anachronistic doctrines left over from the turn of the twentieth century, the Court has attempted to avoid the significant constitutional problems raised by the vestiges of colonialism. These problems are particularly acute in regard to Puerto Rico, an island of 3.4 million people that is formally organized as a commonwealth of the United States with its own democratically elected government. Unsurprisingly, the Court again dodged the issue of deciding Puerto Rico’s constitutional status in two cases in the October 2015 term, Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle and Puerto Rico v. Franklin California Tax-Free Trust. The Court’s failure to clarify Puerto Rico’s status in those cases has further contributed to the ongoing uncertainty caused by Puerto Rico’s shaky economy. Basic questions about the nature of Puerto Rico’s authority to govern itself remain unanswered.

In the Supreme Court of the United States: Clara Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust..

1988 ◽  
Vol 43 (12) ◽  
pp. 1019-1028 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald N. Bersoff ◽  
Laurel P. Malson ◽  
Donald B. Verrilli
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Fort Worth ◽  
The Supreme Court
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document