World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Davis v. Beason

Article Id: WHEBN0022041132
Reproduction Date:

Title: Davis v. Beason  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Politics of Idaho, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Idaho, Mormonism and polygamy, Poland Act, Brown v. Buhman
Collection:
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Publication
Date:
 

Davis v. Beason

Davis v. Beason
Argued 9 – 10 December, 1889
Decided February 3, 1890
Full case name Davis v. Beason, Sheriff.
Citations 133 U.S. 333 (more)
Holding
Courts of the United States have jurisdiction to hear charges related to polygamy even though it be part of a religious belief.
Court membership
Case opinions
Majority Field, joined by Unanimous
Laws applied
Amendment I

Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 (1890), was a United States Supreme Court case affirming, by a 9-0 vote, that federal laws against polygamy did not conflict with the free exercise clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Background

Congress had passed the [1]

Mormons initiated a challenge to Idaho's oath test. Davis, a resident of Idaho, was convicted in the territorial district court of swearing falsely after taking the voter's oath.[2][3] Davis appealed his conviction via a habeas corpus writ, claiming that the Idaho law requiring the oath violated his right to the free exercise of his religion as a member of the LDS Church.

Supreme Court ruling

Justice Field, writing for the Court, condemned polygamy, writing that "Few crimes are more pernicious to the best interests of society, and receive more general or more deserved punishment." He went on to echo Reynolds v. United States (1878): "However free the exercise of religion may be, it must be subordinate to the criminal laws of the country, passed with reference to actions regarded by general consent as properly the subjects of punitive legislation." He wrote by way of comparison that if a religious sect advocated fornication or human sacrifice, "swift punishment would follow the carrying into effect of its doctrines, and no heed would be given to the pretense that, as religious beliefs, their supporters could be protected in their exercise by the constitution of the United States."

Field listed the limits that federal law placed upon the rights of United States territories to qualify voters, noted Idaho's specific prohibition of polygamists and people encouraging polygamy from the right to vote, and wrote that this was "not open to any constitutional or legal objection," as the Idaho law "simply excludes from the privilege of voting ... those who have been convicted of certain offenses".

Subsequent events

Richard Morgan wrote, "The decision became one of the principal underpinnings of what later came to be called the 'secular regulation' approach to the free exercise clause whereby no religious exemptions are required from otherwise valid secular regulations."[3]

106 years later, in Romer v. Evans (1996), the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional a Colorado constitutional initiative that prevented any jurisdiction from protecting homosexual citizens from discrimination. In the dissent, Justice Scalia asked how Romer could be reconciled with Davis v. Beason:

"It remains to be explained how §501 of the Idaho Revised Statutes was not an "impermissible targeting" of polygamists, but (the much more mild) Amendment 2 is an "impermissible targeting" of homosexuals. Has the Court concluded that the perceived social harm of polygamy is a "legitimate concern of government," and the perceived social harm of homosexuality is not?"[4]

References

  1. ^ American Cultural Pluralism and Law; Jill Norgren, Serena Nanda; p. 91-92; Greenwood Publishing Group, 2006; fetched from the version on Google Book Search on 18 March 2009.
  2. ^ "Davis v. Beason (1890)", fetched 18 March 2009.
  3. ^ a b "Davis v. Beason 130 U.S. 333 (1890)", Richard E. Morgan, 1986. Macmillan Reference USA. Fetched 18 March 2009.
  4. ^ (1996)Romer v. Evans, US Supreme Court, decided May 20, 1996.

External links

  • on FindLawDavis v. Beason
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
 
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
 
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.
 



Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from World eBook Library are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.