Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Employment Division v. Smith (Summary and Analysis)
. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
This 3 page paper provides a summary of the case and names which justices on the Supreme Court agreed with the decision, and which ones dissented. Implications of the case are duly noted.
Bibliography lists 2 sources.
Page Count:
3 pages (~225 words per page)
File: RT13_SA540law.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
undisputed fact of the cases is that the employee was using peyote as part of a religious ceremony ("Employment Division, Ore. Dept.," 1990). In fact, this hearing involved two employees
who ironically were substance abuse counselors ("Employment Division, Ore. Dept.," 1990). To complicate matters, Smith filed for unemployment compensation which was denied because it was decided that the employee was
fired for just cause ("Employment Division, Ore. Dept.," 1990). Yet, on appeal, the decision was reversed ("Employment Division, Ore. Dept.," 1990). This case would eventually make its way
to the Supreme Court. The opinion favoring the Employment Division was not surprising, although it is true that it was not a unanimous vote. The opinion clung to the idea
that people are not excused from obeying the laws of the nation because of a religious precept. Justice Scalia delivered the majority opinion with a vote of six to three,
as it was noted that " the denial of unemployment benefits was permissible" ("Employment Division, Department of Human Resources," 2005). While Scalia delivered the opinion, Rehnquist, Stevens and White would
agree. OConnor also filed a concurring opinion ("Employment Division, Department of Human Resources," 2005). Brennan, Marshall and Blackmum agreed with parts one and two only ("Employment Division, Ore. Dept.,"
1990). They did not concur with the judgment and Blackmum as a result filed a dissenting opinion with which the other two joined ("Employment Division, Ore. Dept.," 1990). The opinion
of the court is clear. Just as certain things cannot be allowed for the sake of religion-human and animal sacrifice, not paying taxes, unlawful assembly-neither can drug use be excused.
What if a religious sect decided to use heroin or crack and claim an entitlement to that? The idea that people in religious groups have no special rights becomes abundantly
...