Purchase a course multi-pack for yourself or a friend and save up to 50%!
5-COURSE MULTI-PACK $180
10-COURSE MULTI-PACK $300
Accelerated 1-year bachelor's program
Question 1
The Free Exercise Clause prohibits the government from interfering with religion:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct The Free Exercise Clause protects against intentional and unintentional interference with religion. In other words, a law which is designed to accomplish some government goal but inadvertently affects some group's ability to practice their religion might be struck down as a Free Exercise Clause violation.
Incorrect! The Free Exercise Clause protects against intentional and unintentional interference with religion. In other words, a law which is designed to accomplish some government goal but inadvertently affects some group's ability to practice their religion might be struck down as a Free Exercise Clause violation.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 2
A law which unintentionally interferes with the free exercise of some religion will survive a Free Exercise Clause claim:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct So long as a law is the least restrictive means of accomplishing a compelling government purpose it will not be struck down if it only unintentionally interferes with religion.
Incorrect! So long as a law is the least restrictive means of accomplishing a compelling government purpose it will not be struck down if it only unintentionally interferes with religion.
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 3
Southernstate law requires that all persons operating vehicles traveling public roadways attend a state driving course and pass a test. While this does not apply for self-powered vehicles, such as bicycles, it applies to all others. The course includes a mandatory driving portion during which students learn emergency handling in cars provided by the course operators. When the law is passed the Amish community protests, arguing that their horse-drawn carriages should be exempt and that requiring them to attend the course and operate the motor-vehicle conflicts with their religious beliefs. What is the likely result?
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct Although not an easy determination, it is unlikely that the 1990 Smith case would prevent a court from mandating an exemption here. This is not a criminal statute and the exemption would not create an anomaly in the law. Further, there is no difficulty determining whether a community's religious beliefs prevent them from using mechanized devices, whereas the Smith court was concerned with evaluating who uses peyote for religious purposes versus who uses the drug for other purposes.
Incorrect! Although not an easy determination, it is unlikely that the 1990 Smith case would prevent a court from mandating an exemption here. This is not a criminal statute and the exemption would not create an anomaly in the law. Further, there is no difficulty determining whether a community's religious beliefs prevent them from using mechanized devices, whereas the Smith court was concerned with evaluating who uses peyote for religious purposes versus who uses the drug for other purposes.
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 4
The Marijuana Ministry is a group holding itself out as a religion whose deity takes the form of marijuana plants. According to its founder, Chris Flaps, "we smoke marijuana to become closer to our god and to remind ourselves of her sweetness." After being arrested for possession, use, and distribution of marijuana, the Ministry's founder defends himself by appeal to the Free Exercise Clause and demands that his "church" be granted a limited exemption to the law of general applicability criminalizing marijuana. What is the likely result?
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct This hypothetical is very similar to Employment Div. Dept. of Human Resources v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), except that here the validity of the religion is also in question. The generally applicable law which makes possession, use, and distribution of marijuana a crime will not be the subject of exemptions.
Incorrect! This hypothetical is very similar to Employment Div. Dept. of Human Resources v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), except that here the validity of the religion is also in question. The generally applicable law which makes possession, use, and distribution of marijuana a crime will not be the subject of exemptions.