English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The Rehnquist Court was in a unique position when it decided the case of City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997). The case forced the Court to answer several questions ranging from the powers of Congress to the extent of religious liberty. In order to understand the reasoning behind Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion, one must examine the legislative history of various legal fields. This paper examines the legal history of the Free Exercise Clause within the First Amendment, the powers of Congress, and the Separation of Powers Doctrine between co-equal branches of government. This analysis allows the reader to understand the four key axioms that survive today from the Court’s decision within City of Boerne. First, Congress cannot enact legislation that changes the substantive nature of the Constitution. Second, it is permissible for laws of general applicability to inadvertently and indirectly interfere with religious practices. Third, the Constitution, not Congress, is the paramount law of the land. And fourth, the Court is bound to its own precedent, not to the will of Congress.

Religious Freedom and the Power of Interpretation: An Analysis of the History and Precedent Behind City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997)