Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 68 views

    Constitutional Law

    Uploaded by

    pthav
    The document discusses a hypothetical state law passed in Texas directing courts to display a cross and begin proceedings with a prayer, and analyzes whether this law is constitutional. It uses the IRAC method to examine the issue. The analysis finds that the law violates the Establishment Clause by promoting a particular religion. As judges must remain impartial, a state cannot require them to engage in specific religious practices while performing official duties. Therefore, the document concludes the Texas state law is unconstitutional.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Constitutional Law

    Uploaded by

    pthav
    68 views5 pages
    The document discusses a hypothetical state law passed in Texas directing courts to display a cross and begin proceedings with a prayer, and analyzes whether this law is constitutional. It uses the IRAC method to examine the issue. The analysis finds that the law violates the Establishment Clause by promoting a particular religion. As judges must remain impartial, a state cannot require them to engage in specific religious practices while performing official duties. Therefore, the document concludes the Texas state law is unconstitutional.

    Original Description:

    This is for your own personal viewing.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses a hypothetical state law passed in Texas directing courts to display a cross and begin proceedings with a prayer, and analyzes whether this law is constitutional. It uses the IRAC method to examine the issue. The analysis finds that the law violates the Establishment Clause by promoting a particular religion. As judges must remain impartial, a state cannot require them to engage in specific religious practices while performing official duties. Therefore, the document concludes the Texas state law is unconstitutional.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    68 views5 pages

    Constitutional Law

    Uploaded by

    pthav
    The document discusses a hypothetical state law passed in Texas directing courts to display a cross and begin proceedings with a prayer, and analyzes whether this law is constitutional. It uses the IRAC method to examine the issue. The analysis finds that the law violates the Establishment Clause by promoting a particular religion. As judges must remain impartial, a state cannot require them to engage in specific religious practices while performing official duties. Therefore, the document concludes the Texas state law is unconstitutional.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 5

    Preedee Thaveeapiradeesak

    Student’s Name:

    Professor’s Name:

    Course Name:

    Date of Submission: April 8th, 2021

    The State and Constitutional Laws

    Introduction

    State law in the United States is the law that is practiced by individual states in the United

    States. The state is allowed to make laws that guide its practices. However, some of the state

    laws may be unconstitutional. The study describes an issue on Constitutional Law using the

    IRAC form.

    Issue

    In Texas, there was a district judge who was notorious for his devotion as a Roman

    Catholic. Every day, he would attend mass and would pray countless times a day. He is also

    often seen wearing a rosary around his neck. Driven by his faith, one day, this judge urged a

    friend in the legislature to pass a state law directing courts to erect a cross at the front of the sala,

    just behind where the judge sits so that the Lord may guide him while he hears cases. Moreover,

    it was also dictated that a short prayer precedes every court hearing to invoke God's guidance

    during the proceedings. Is the state law constitutional?

    Rule

    The state law is unconstitutional.


    Preedee Thaveeapiradeesak

    Analysis

    The U.S constitution prohibits the state from making laws concerning the establishment

    of religion or, in any case, endorsing its practice (Carl 18). Therefore, the law is fundamentally

    unconstitutional. Additionally, the United States constitution allows for religious diversification,

    and every person has the right to practice their religion. According to (Chapman 39), there are

    several religious practices in the U.S. Some of these religions include Christianity, Islam, and

    Judaism. In this regard, every religion has its practices. While the state law directed that a cross

    should be elected at the front of the sala for God's guidance before hearing the case, it may be

    against other religious practices. In this regard, state law should not influence the judges’

    decision to enforce a particular faith or belief during court proceedings. The law demanded by

    the judge from the state of Texas is quite unconstitutional. It is noteworthy that considering the

    judge is personally devoted to serve the Roman Catholic faith, he has a personal obligation to

    demonstrate his stewardship with God. This simply means that a personal issue cannot be

    elevated to serve a public function, as it may not be perceived to have a consistent impact by

    other people, as it is assumed by the person being affected directly. The case of a judge in the

    state of Texas is private, and thus, quite challenging for the legislators to approve a law that

    would only benefit a specific constituency, and perhaps even cause conflict or confusion with

    other members of society.

    The rule of law says that in order to enact new laws, the Board of Legislators must be

    adequately involved, and the law must be expressed and communicated with clarity across the

    concerned parties to determine its impact. It is also required that in the process of making a new

    law, it must have a solid justification that does not lean on self-interest, but rather, can yield
    Preedee Thaveeapiradeesak

    common good to all parties concerned. In applying this rule to the current context, it is obvious

    that the judge’s possession towards the Roman Catholic faith has driven him to the extent of

    thinking that God’s miracles work when the cross is visible. It would be quite unreasonable if

    there was a situation whereby the judge was compelled to cast judgment against non-Christians,

    which may be in conflict with the Roman Catholic practice or faith. Such a situation may

    undermine the judge’s competency, especially when the judge intends to use if for closing public

    functions.

    Conclusion

    Judges should be allowed to exercise full sovereignty over their freedoms and should not

    be forced to conduct particular religious practices during court proceedings. The U.S.

    Constitution also does not allow the state to establish any law encouraging or prohibiting any

    particular religious practices, Therefore, judges practicing in professional conduct should not be

    forced to follow a certain religious practice, since it is unconstitutional.


    Preedee Thaveeapiradeesak

    Part 2 (questions)

    Quiz 1

    Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) was a case in the Supreme Court of the United

    States of America (Alito 207). The defendant (Graham) was accused of resisting arrest, during

    which police used excessive force. He suffered shoulder injuries, a broken foot, a bruised

    forehead, and wrist cuts. Graham filed a lawsuit against Connor, who used excessive force

    during his arrest. Another case was Cooper v. Brown, 42 U.S.C. 1983, in which the officer

    (Brown) was accused of releasing the police dogs and acting violently on Cooper, who showed

    no signs of resistance at the time of action. The court decided that Cooper had the legal right to

    remain silent and resistant to forceful arrest and assault, since officer Brown violated the

    principle of qualified immunity.

    Quiz 2

    The history of safeguarding and protecting the power of police arrest is enshrined in the

    Qualified Immunity. According to (Schwartz 2), the Supreme Court granted all government

    officials immunity if the action was of good faith and objectively reasonable. The fourth

    amendment of the constitution also provides excess powers if the accused refuses to be arrested.

    Quiz 3
    Preedee Thaveeapiradeesak

    Discretion of many injustices must be trialed in the court hearing process. The decision

    of the Supreme Court on any constitutional issue is regarded as final. In this case, I strongly

    agree that the Supreme Court's role is to expound on the constitution, which was intended to

    benefit and endure for generations to come, and to consider and solve the current human affairs

    crisis.

    Works Cited

    Alito, J. "County of Los Angeles v. Mendez 137 S. Ct. 1539 (2017)." W. St. UL Rev. 46 (2019):

    207.

    Chapman, Nathan S. "Liberty of Conscience, Free Exercise of Religion, and the U.S.

    Constitution." Christianity and the Laws of Conscience: An Introduction, eds. Helen

    Alvare & Jeff Hammond, Oxford: OUP, Forthcoming, University of Georgia School of

    Law Legal Studies Research Paper 2019-39 (2019).

    Esbeck, Carl H. "The Establishment Clause: What the Text and Record in the First Federal

    Congress Can Tell Us About Original Meaning." University of Missouri School of Law

    Legal Studies Research Paper 2020-19 (2020).

    Marshall, William P. "The Constitutionality of School Prayer: Or Why Engel v. Vitale May

    Have Had It Right All along." Cap. U.L. Rev. 46 (2018): 339.

    Schwartz, Joanna C. "How Qualified Immunity Fails." Yale LJ 127 (2017): 2.

    You might also like