Free exercise of the First Amendment clause

Solution Preview

Analyze it in about 4 pages '8x11' pages worth of text. This is like writing an opinion for the court. I am not looking for a legal brief, but a political theorist's take. As a member of the Court, you may concur or dissent from the majority opinion.

You may start by summarizing the facts of the case, then discuss the issues or principles at stake. A clear, concise and logical argument supported generously by references and citations.

Case:
How can the intent of the First Congress be unquestionably documented and verified to be as obvious as a simple distinction between the meaning of the all inclusive word "religion" and the limited-in-meaning word "church"? The answer is obvious in the words of the Free Exercise Clause. The adverb "thereof" in the Free Exercise Clause takes its entire meaning from the word to which it refers. In this case, "thereof" (of it) relates back to "religion" in the Establishment Clause, and "religion" is the only meaning ever given to "thereof" in the Free Exercise Clause. It would be absurd, for instance, to distort the meaning of the word "religion" into "a state church" because the meaning of the word "thereof" would then be limited to an understanding as follows: Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of a state church. Further, as strict constructionists emphasize, the word "church" does not appear in either of the Religion Clauses. It is the broad understanding of "religion" which was meant by the First Congress because that is the unmodified word it used.
It is obvious, to any open eyed reader of the First Amendment, the First Congress used a different word in regard to "the free exercise" of religion than it did to speech, press, peaceable assembly, and petition. If words mean things and if the First Congress chose its words in the Bill of Rights with care, why did it without question use "abridging" in regard to speech, press, peaceable assembly, and petition; but, in regard to religion, it used "prohibiting"? The answer is as apparent as the words themselves. The word "abridging" has a different meaning than "prohibiting." The First Congress, then, meant something different in regard to religion than to speech, press, peaceable assembly, and petition.
It is prohibition which is protected by the Free Exercise Clause, not abridgment. A prohibition is total; an abridgment is merely a restriction, limitation, or reduction. The First Congress clearly commanded speech, press, peaceable assembly, and petition shall not be reduced because that is what "abridging" means. It clearly commanded "the free exercise" of religion shall not be totally prohibited, because that is what "prohibiting" means. Thus, the thesis of this essay is: the free exercise of religion cannot be totally prohibited, but it can be abridged. If the majority in the First Congress had intended to use "abridging" in reference to religion, it would have; it did not! Failure to understand the First Amendment in the same terms as did the majority in the First Congress is to reject basic strict constructionist principle and to distort the Free Exercise Clause into a license for anarchy.
If there is any one principle upon which the United States of America is founded, it is absolute acceptance of the rule of law--the supreme law of the land being the Constitution for the United States of America as initially drafted and subsequently amended. Not one word in the Constitution advocates anarchy. The First Amendment is not an exception to the principle of the rule of law. The Free Exercise Clause does not authorize any action in the name of religion in violation of the civil and criminal laws of the land which apply to all citizens equally. The only action which can be freely exercised in regard to religion is activity which complies with the laws of society as drafted and approved by citizens of the United States of America in accordance with the Constitution. Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, but it certainly can--in the name of law and order--make laws which constitutionally limit the actions of any citizen.
It is ridiculous to assert that the Free Exercise Clause ...