Club utilise des cookies et des technologies similaires pour faire fonctionner correctement le site web et vous fournir une meilleure expérience de navigation.
Ci-dessous vous pouvez choisir quels cookies vous souhaitez modifier :
Club utilise des cookies et des technologies similaires pour faire fonctionner correctement le site web et vous fournir une meilleure expérience de navigation.
Nous utilisons des cookies dans le but suivant :
Assurer le bon fonctionnement du site web, améliorer la sécurité et prévenir la fraude
Avoir un aperçu de l'utilisation du site web, afin d'améliorer son contenu et ses fonctionnalités
Pouvoir vous montrer les publicités les plus pertinentes sur des plateformes externes
Gestion des cookies
Club utilise des cookies et des technologies similaires pour faire fonctionner correctement le site web et vous fournir une meilleure expérience de navigation.
Ci-dessous vous pouvez choisir quels cookies vous souhaitez modifier :
Cookies techniques et fonctionnels
Ces cookies sont indispensables au bon fonctionnement du site internet et vous permettent par exemple de vous connecter. Vous ne pouvez pas désactiver ces cookies.
Cookies analytiques
Ces cookies collectent des informations anonymes sur l'utilisation de notre site web. De cette façon, nous pouvons mieux adapter le site web aux besoins des utilisateurs.
Cookies marketing
Ces cookies partagent votre comportement sur notre site web avec des parties externes, afin que vous puissiez voir des publicités plus pertinentes de Club sur des plateformes externes.
Une erreur est survenue, veuillez réessayer plus tard.
Il y a trop d’articles dans votre panier
Vous pouvez encoder maximum 250 articles dans votre panier en une fois. Supprimez certains articles de votre panier ou divisez votre commande en plusieurs commandes.
The Supreme Court's controversial decision in Oregon v. Smith sharply departed from previous expansive readings of the First Amendment's religious freedom clause and ignited a firestorm of protest from legal scholars, religious groups, legislators, and Native Americans. Carolyn Long provides the first book-length analysis of Smith and shows why it continues to resonate so deeply in the American psyche. In 1983, Klamath Indian Alfred Smith and his co-worker Galen Black were fired as counselors from a drug rehabilitation agency for using peyote, a controlled substance under Oregon law, in a religious ceremony of the Native American Church. Both were subsequently denied unemployment benefits, which the State of Oregon claimed was permissible under its police powers and necessary in its effort to eradicate drug abuse. But Smith and Black argued that the denial of unemployment benefits constituted an infringement of their religious freedom and took their cases to court. Long traces the tortuous path that Smith followed as it went from state courts to the Supreme Court and then back again for a second round of hearings. A major event in Native American history, the case attracted widespread support for the Indian cause from a diverse array of religious groups eager to protect their own religious freedom. It also led to an intense tug-of-war between the Court and Congress, which fought back with amendments to the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (to protect the religious use of peyote) and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which protected religious freedom for all Americans. The Court subsequently ruled the latter act unconstitutional in Boerne v. Flores (1997). Long provides a lucid and balanced view of the competing sides in Smith. Drawing on interviews with Smith and his family, as well as with lawyers, judges, and congressional and interest group representatives involved in this struggle between Congress and Court, she takes the reader from the rituals of a peyote religious ceremony to the halls of government to reveal the conflicting interests that emerged in this key First Amendment case. She also clarifies how the Court reversed longstanding precedent by replacing the balancing test of "compelling state interest" and "least restrictive means" with a new "reasonable basis" argument that theoretically could be used to curtail religious practices well beyond those of the Native American church. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protection of religious freedom applies only to laws that specifically target religious behavior and that an individual's religious beliefs do not excuse one from complying with statutes that indirectly infringe on their religious rights. Engagingly written, Long's study highlights the resultant struggles, but without ever losing sight of the rich human dimensions of the story.