For GOVT 2305:
This week we will discuss federalism and civil liberties. Our discussion of civil liberties will include a detailed look at the two ways freedom of religion is covered in the First Amendment. The first prevents government from establishing a national church, the second prevents it from restricting the free exercise of religious belief.
As we will see as we dig into this subject more deeply, the Supreme Court regularly hears cases that allow for exceptions. Some things done to exercise religious belief can create harms that government might have the right to prevent - cases of parents who refuse to take their children to hospitals for religious reasons for example.
The court ruled - controversially - in 1990 that members of an American Indian tribe who used peyote in a religious ceremony were not protected by the First Amendment if they were fired for testing positive for the drug.
- see Employment Division v Smith.
In response, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which attempted to enhance free exercise protections, but the court also ruled - partially - against the bill.
- see RFRA.
- see City of Bourne v Flores.
The court has generally ruled that a law that is neutral towards religion - and seeks to impose a public benefit - then the freedom of religious exercise is not violated when the law is implemented.
Now the court has an opportunity to revisit this issue. The Affordable Care Act - among other things - makes it mandatory that contraception coverage be included in insurance plan, though some exceptions are made for religious institutions. Hobby Lobby, among other stores, have filed suit arguing that the religious views of the company's ownership is violated by the requirement that they provide contraceptive coverage to their employees. They argue that RFRA protects this right, but the Justice Department - following the argument in Employment Division v. Smith argues that they must provide coverage, and that this case is similar in spirit to the Smith case.
- see Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby.
I want you to outline the arguments made on either side and predict how the court might rule on this dispute. As with other assignments, you will be evaluated on how well you can objectively analyze the competing sides of the argument. Personal opinions on this case are easy - but unhelpful. The point is trying to determine how the Supreme Court might rule on this case.
For GOVT 2306:
In a post just below this one I link to Houston First - a small single purpose governing organization that collects hotel occupancy tax revenues and uses them to make Houston a more attractive destination.
- click here for the post.
Since we are starting to look more closely at the nature of local governments, it might be useful to look at this group as indicative of what groups in Houston are especially influential in setting public policy for the city.
Houston is very pro growth and has an aggressive strategy to achieve it, which includes getting Super Bowls and making the changes that attract the best and brightest to move here.
In this exercise I want you to look at the backgrounds of the people who are members of Houston First's Board of Directors and try figure out which groups have a stake in pushing Houston's pro growth strategy.
- click here for the list.
Let's assume these people indicate what the nature of Houston's power structure is. What can we tell about the city based on this list?
This is an open ended assignment, so take it wherever you'd like to take it.
