Donald Trump’s Policies and the First Amendment of the United States Constitution
The First Amendment to the Constitution states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” In 2015, Presidential candidate Donald Trump proposed that he would consider shutting down mosques in the United States. Now that Donald Trump is president assume for the purposes of this assignment that he created an executive order mandating the closure of all
Consider Donald Trump’s statements from a Constitutional perspective. Would Trump’s policies violate the First Amendment?
Suppose you are the lawyer involved in this case. Which side would you choose to represent, the U.S. Government as the defendant or the congregation of a Muslim mosque as the plaintiffs?
After deciding your position, please make arguments on behalf of your client (either the U.S. Government or the Muslim Congregation). Explain your position using your interpretation of the Constitution and relevant case law.
Your paper must be at least 1000
Please double space your paper and use standard 12 point
Make sure to proofread your paper before
Please follow APA format when referencing information from outside sources.
First Amendment Essay
Student's Name
College/University
Course
Professor's Name
Due Date
The first amendment of the United States Constitution protects the liberty and rights of freedom of speech. Substantially, the religion clause has two fundamental provisions: the free exercise and the establishment provisions. The Establishment Provision suppresses the United States government from creating laws that respect a specific religious establishment, while the free exercise provision harbor laws that restrict freedom of exercise. The first amendment also provides fundamental rights like peaceful assembly, freedom of speech, a petition to the government, and press (Congress.gov., n.d.). The utterances by Donald Trump to consider shutting down all the mosques presents numerous questions concerning the above religious provisions. This paper comprehensively analyses how the proposed policy by Donald Trump to close down all the mosques in the country violates the first amendment provisions. Also, the paper will present a compelling case for the Muslim congregation against the policy while using the Constitution, legal principles, and appropriate case law.
Would Trump's Policies Violate the First Amendment?
The proposed policy by President Donald Trump to shut down all the mosques in the United States essentially violates the sovereign rights of the American people for free religious exercise as the first amendment provides. The policy formulation targets religious groups, in this case, the Muslim faithful and their institutions, and thus it shows biases against certain faith sects. Such tendencies restrain the Muslim community's ability to exercise their freedom of religion and worship freely. On numerous occasions, the Supreme Court's stance has been that the government should not formulate policies that interfere with religious practices (Ravitch, 2019, p. 64). However, policy interference is only allowable in cases where the state has a compelling interest, and thus such interferences should only aim to attain such interest. Substantially, the proposed policies by Donald Trump do not meet that constitutional threshold as there is no clear state interest.
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) is a significant Supreme Court case that supports the argument that the policy violates the human rights of religion. The court case developed the lemon test, which stipulates that any law or proposed policy should have a secular value proposition, and its basic impact should not establish or constrain any religion (Lipp, 2023, p. 1223). According to the Lemon test, a law or policy should not cause entanglement between one religious sect and the executive arm of government. Thence, the proposed approach to shut down all the mosques in the country would fail the lemon test, considering that it not only falls short of secular purpose but also directly restricts freedom of exercising religion. Also, the policy fails on the grounds of equal protection. The proposed approach begs the question of religious discrimination since it only seeks to shut down mosques based on religious affiliation. The government cannot get involved in religious issues or allow religion in government affairs (Lipp, 2023, p.1222). The United States court system has a tough stance on policies or laws depicting religious discrimination.
Representation of Muslim Congregation Using Interpretation of the Constitution and Relevant Case Laws
Since the proposed policy violates the fundamental human rights of exercising freedom of worship, it would help to represent Muslim Mosque as a plaintiff. Arguably, the policy infringes on the first amendment provision of exercising religious freedom. The government should grant the fundamental human right of practicing religion without state interference. Various Supreme Court cases highlight the protection of this right and identify with the significance of freedom to religious practices and the capability to practice one's faith. Employment Division v. Smith (1990) is a significant court case related t...