Question

Which statements describe the reasons why the Supreme Court found the RFRA to be unconstitutional? Check all that apply. Congress had not taken strong enough action to interpret the First Amendment. Congress had changed the meaning of the First Amendment, rather than enforcing it. Congress had given states too much freedom to interpret the First Amendment. Congress had created a law that was not proportional to the problem it was fixing. Congress had taken away states’ rights by passing the RFRA.

ANSWERS: 2,4,5

Answer 1

- Congress had changed the meaning of the First Amendment, rather than enforcing it.

- Congress had created a law that was not proportional to the problem it was fixing.

- Congress had taken away states’ rights by passing the RFRA.

Answer 2

• Congress had changed the meaning of the First Amendment, rather than enforcing it.
• Congress had created a law that was not proportional to the problem it was fixing.
• Congress had taken away states’ rights by passing the RFRA.

Step-by-step explanation:

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 was passed in light of the Supreme Court upholding an Oregon state decision to deny two American Indian men unemployment benefits for having taken a banned substance which they normally use in their religious events.

Congress passed this bill with only 3 Senators opposing it so that it could prevent such from happening again.

The Supreme Court however ruled the Act as unconstitutional as it claimed that Congress was overexerting its powers by: changing the meaning of the First Amendment, creating a law that was disproportionate to the problems it was fixing and overexerting federal power on states and taking away their rights to manage their affairs in this regard.