Framework Originalism Case Analysis

Framework originalism is the most plausible and applicable version of originalism for modern day government. This kind of originalism views the constitution as the “blue print” that sets the making of government and its institutions into motion. In implementing the constitution, framework originalist believe that it should be looked at as the skeleton that must be filled out by future generations. While framework originalism does allow for some digression for constitutional constructions of the future, it sticks to its originalist roots by emphasizing a required fidelity to original meaning.

Framework originalism emerged resulting from the failures of the originalism that came before it. Past forms of originalism placed emphasis the fixation

In the case Employment Division of Oregon V. Smith, Judge Anthony Scalia asserted that religious beliefs do not excuse people from complying with other valid laws on the state or national level in regard to government regulation of conduct. In the opinion that Judge Scalia delivered on the case, he noted that allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion “would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind.” Using this case as precedent, judges should look at the ruling in the opinion and apply it to the current case. The first amendment, while protecting religious beliefs, does not provide grounds for religious beliefs to transcend law on either the state or national level. As Judge Scalia voices his opinion on the matter, he uses judicial activism while taking into account the way the public views how far the extent of the first amendment should reach. The public consensus of the power of the first amendment is one that is restrained by other laws that have been enacted by the government to protect other

Smith case, state and national law trump personal religious beliefs. Even if the court were to decide that Philips’ cake designing is a form of free speech, his religious beliefs that he claims would prevent him from using this free speech does not exempt him from following in accordance with Colorado State’s Anti-Discriminatory Act. While the first amendment gives people the right to free speech and free exercise it is understood that a person cannot practice these things at the expense of the rights of others. The rights of the first amendment are held near and dear to their hearts of American people, but there is a consensus that you cannot do things like run into a movie theater and yell “fire!” or inflict harm on others in the name of religion. Furthermore, people respect and appreciate that state and national governments can inforce other laws that may put limits on the protections of the first amendment for this reason which is why the ruling in Employment Division of Oregon V. Smith is seen as