Mock Supreme Court

3rd Case – Stevens

gregchangnon — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:52:52 +0000

The government may not enact laws that suppress religious belief. Although the Santeria religion, is not commonly recognized and understood it is still a religion that is protected by the 1st amendment that states “People have the Freedom of religion, speech, press, petition, and assembly.” When the City of Beaufongier, Loiusiana barred Ricardo Jimenez they were not equally representing his faith along with his constitutional rights among the constitution and the laws of America. The amendments were inacted to protect all people and when ones rights are overruled because of the unfamiliarity of there faith then it is our job to correct it. when they ban Ricardo Jimenez from performing his religion they are breaking the 14th amendment “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .” by chosing in favor of fumiularity than the constitutional rights. When they bar Ricardo Jimenez from practicing his religion they are showing a bias against unfamiliar religions, such bias is unlawful in the United States. By barring him from practicing his religion the City of Beaufongier, Loiusiana was breaking the 14th and 1st amendments. It is our job to find the City of Beaufongier, Loiusiana guilty of violating Ricardo Jimenez right to practice religion.

3rd Case – Ginsberg

gregchangnon — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:50:39 +0000

If we were to do this and Mr. Jimenez was claimed guilty, we would be going against the first amendment, which states that each person is guaranteed of the free exercise of religion. It has come to my attention that Mr. Jimenez had sacrificed a chicken, for it’s blood to communicate it’s blood to the spirit. And although this may sound very crazy and odd, some people believe that this is the way to communicate with god or spirits, or whatever you may think you might want to communicate with. Sure, Mr. Jimenez was killing an animal in the process of this, but we kill animals in our every day lives, to eat. By these neighbors explaining that Mr. Jimenez worries them, in their neighborhood, they can only give us facts, such as, he is up late at night, saying prayers, and chanting. But yet again, this is part of his religion and he, as a citizen of America, deserves to have their free exercise of religion, and this is Mr. Jimenez’s way of exercising his religion.

3rd Case – Souter

gregchangnon — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:47:44 +0000

I vote in favor of Ricardo Jimenez.
The free exercise clause of the first amendment says,
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
Mr. Jimenez has the constitutional right to practice his religion.
On the subject of animal sacrifice, the Humane Slaughter Act bars inhumane slaughter of cattle pigs and sheep, yet it says nothing about poultry. Even though the killing of chickens in the Santeria religion is humane, there is no law barring the killing of poultry.

3rd Case – Breyer

gregchangnon — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:46:08 +0000

The city of Beaufongier has violated the right to freedom of religion of Ricardo Jimenez by restricting it’s full practice. Though it is unorthodox, Ricardo Jimenez should be allowed to sacrifice animals. It would be as if he were a private business that slaughtered beef to sell. They are killing animals to make money, and Jimenez is trying to practice his religion! It would be unconstitutional to rule that he cant freely practice his religion, going against his rights, so that the neighbors property values can be slightly higher. Jimenez’s rights are more important than keeping the peace in a neighborhood.

3rd Case – Scalia

gregchangnon — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:43:41 +0000

I rule in favor of Ricardo Jimenez, the plaintiff. There has been no such ban on any other form of animal killings such as for food. Some may argue that we need all the food from animals, well some people need their religion to get them through the day, they also eat the animals when they are done, making them like simple farmers who do not hate America.

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen says that we have the freedom of religion. Our ancestors ran away from the english because we wanted to be able to practice out own religion. What the City of Beaufongier is doing is unconstitutional and the same as the ancient tyranical english. Are you going to rule in favor of the defendants and let this religion be crushed by tyrants? I hope not because i have faith in my fellow justices and i know deep down you don’t hate America.

3rd Case – Kennedy

gregchangnon — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:08:50 +0000

When the city of Beaufongier prohibits the Santeria religion from sacrificing animals, they are not only taking away the rights and privileges from our citizens, but they also heartlessly removing a vital element of the Santeria religion. As the 14th amendment states, “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,” and by keeping this law in place, the city of Beaufongier is denying the peoples right and privilege to practice and express their treasured religion. Also, the first amendment clearly states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excersise thereof.” This just goes to show that it is simply unconstitutional to forbid the rituals and sacrifices that are crucial to the Santeria religion, which is why I, Justice Anthony Kennedy, am ruling in favor of the plaintiff.

3rd Case – Thomas

gregchangnon — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:07:43 +0000

The First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion, with this being a founding principle of the Constitution. Mr. Jimenez’s religious ritual of sacrificing chickens has been stopped by the City of Beaufongier, who have created a law intended to promote “the enhancement of the quality of life of persons, pets and other animals.” However, I would argue that if they truly want to enhance the quality of life for all animals, they would altogether stop the eating and murdering of animals that we Americans consume everyday. Why should Mr. Jimenez’s religious practice be unlawful when many American butchers kill animal’s everyday?The law in question violates the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment. The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the exercise thereof.” I believe, and as Justice Kennedy has stated that, “religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection.” Mr. Jimenez has every right to practice his religion in this country. He does not need to share the beliefs of all others in this country to have this right. He does not even need to have a reason for his ritual or acceptance of it to maintain his right to the Free Exercise of religion. I vote to protect the right to practice any religion you may believe in and wish to practice while you’re a citizen of the United States.

3rd Case – Alito

gregchangnon — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:25:32 +0000

In the case of Jimenez vs. City of Beaufongier, L.A., we have to determine if Mr. Jimenez’s first amendment right to freedom of religion has been violated by the City of Beaufongier’s attempt to promote health, safety, and general welfare of the city and to enhance the quality of life of people, pets, and other animals. The City of Beaufongier did not in fact violate Mr. Jimenez’s right to freedom of religion.
The City of Beaufongier’s ordinance passes the test of neutrality that we use to determine a law’s possible violation of the constitutional protection of freedom of religion. By our standards, the face of the law does not discriminate against any religion, including Mr. Jimenez’s Santeria religion. The ordinance does not refer to any specific religion in its language and context. Unlike the Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye case, where the Santeria religion was targeted, the city code in this case did not specifically target Mr. Jimenez or his religion.
Since the city’s ordinance is neutral, it is not unconstitutional if it has “the incidental effect of burdening a particular religious practice”. Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (June 11 1993). Therefore, the City of Beaufongier, LA did not violate Mr. Jimenez’s first amendment right to freedom of religion.

3rd Case – Roberts

gregchangnon — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:14:14 +0000

The first amendment of the United States constitution clearly protects the right of citizens of America to have the freedom to practice what every religion they chose. For it states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise. In that sentence, it is clearly stated that no law made by the government can possibly affect the practice of any religion. The federal government rules all, and in this case, they are the ones in power with this first amendment. The sacrificing of the chicken was merely an act of following a well-believed religion. It is simply part of a ritual made to follow for a certain religion, a religion that would not exist without this sacrifice. And we should allow those followers to go through with their rituals. After all, the 1st amendment states they have the freedom to practice what religion they choose

3rd Case – Ricardo Jimenez vs. City of Beaufongier, Louisiana

gregchangnon — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 02:28:07 +0000

Thursday, December 13th

In April 2003, Ricardo Jimenez, a member of the Santeria religion, was barred by the city of Beaufongier, Louisiana, from practicing certain elements of his faith. As the initiation rite to introduce new members, those that believe in the Santeria faith sacrifice a chicken, using the energy in its blood to communicate with the spirits, known as orishas.

City officials, citing a city code that forbids the slaughter of animals, successfully blocked Jimenez, a Santeria priest, from continuing to use animals in any kind of religious practice. The local law, according to representatives of the city, is intended to promote “the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the city,” “to protect property values” and “to enhance the quality of life of persons, pets and other animals.”

Mr. Jimenez claims that animal sacrifice is as essential to his religion as the Eucharist is to Catholicism. “This is not drinking blood, and we don’t sacrifice children,” Mr. Jimenez said. “It is an African religion that has its own central dogma, its own bible. It is a pre-Christian religion. It has its own ceremonies. It has its own rituals.” The sacrifice is done humanely with a single puncturing of the carotid artery with a 4-inch knife. The offerings are an essential part of the religion, considered so sacred that Santeria would cease to exist without them.

Mr. Jimenez’s neighbors have longed complained about the activities that take place in the Jimenez home. “All night chanting and foul orders,” says Lenore Swanson, “have become a regular feature on the street. I fear for the value of our homes.”

The city’s action, according to Jimenez, violates his right and freedom to practice a religion.

PLAINTIFF: Ricardo Jimenez

DEFENDANT: City of Beaufongier, Loiusiana