Complex Readings question and answers
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course Name and Number
Instructor
Date
Complex Readings question and answers
Q.1 How difficult was this reading? Why or why not?
This reading is challenging in that it challenges and stretches the thinking of a reader who does not have background knowledge in civil law. Even when the reader has a background in law, a new topic is hard to grasp the cadent when the idea dealt with is difficult (Kauffman & Martin, 2018). The difficulty could also be due to the poor writing skills of the writer. Arguments presented to the reader logically are easy to understand even when the topic is complicated.
Q.2What strategies did you use to improve your understanding?
To improve my understanding of the case ruling, I had to read the cadent several times. The first reading I skimmed through the lesson, followed by several repeats in reading each time improving my familiarity with the cadent (Kauffman & Martin, 2018). Each time I read the text, I had to break up the reading to shorter sections and write a summary, always being objective. Again I had to keep referring to the contextual meaning of different vocabulary. To keep focused, I had to frame questions to get answered in the reading.
Q.3What did the study commissioned by the Forest service say about the impact of the road on affected tribes?
According to the study, construction of the road and harvesting timber at the chimney rock area would destroy the Native Americans historic places of worship (Lyng v. NICP, 1988). The study found the site a sacred place for doing religious rituals by indigenous American Indians. The Indians worship required privacy, silence and anything that caused the noise to the natural setting of the holy place was not needed.
Q.4Did the forest services try to reduce the impact of the road? How?
The forest service developed strategies to reduce the impact of the road. The forest service selected a different route through the chimney area that minimized the interference of the archaeological sites, and that was far from the Native Indian Americans spiritual activities site (Lyng v. NICP, 1988). However, this reduction was minimal in that the forest service also developed yet another plan of harvesting timber in the same area, and which would interfere with the religious activities. Nonetheless, the service provided that the timber harvesting would be well managed by ensuring that it would not get done at the areas around all the religious places of worship. The service would identify productive zones where timber would not get harvested.
Q.5How did the district court allow the forest to build the road? Why not?
The district court relied on the provision of the constitution on the First Amendment issue which, according to the Supreme Court was not necessary. They held that the Free exercise Clouse prohibited the government from constructing roads or harvesting timber in religious places like the chimney rock area (Lyng v. NICP, 1988). According to the Supreme Court, the lower court did not consider adequately past judicial cases.
Q.6What did the Ninth Circuit decide about the district court’s decision?
The ninth circuit held that the district court’s decision was considerate on the provisions of the constitution and affirmed it (Lyng v. NICP, 1988). It confirmed the districts courts’ granting of an injunction that barred the construction of the road through the forest where Indians held religious rituals.
Q.7What did the Ninth Circuit decide about the tribes’ First Amendment claim?
The Ninth Circuit decided that no statute is recognized by law that prohibits Native Americans from interfering with their religion (Lyng v. NICP, 1988). The First Amendment claim thus protected the Native Americans’ site of religious worship.
Q.8What is NEPA and FWPCA? Why are they mentioned?
NEPA means the National Environmental Policy Act; a statutory law that regulates the use and exploitation of national resources such as forests. FWPCA, on the other hand, means Federal Water Pollution Act; a statutory law that governs the pollution of interstate waters by ensuring that it is free from chemicals and improving the conditions of both underground and surface water. The two statutory laws got referred to because they deal with setting standards of both road construction and wood harvesting. The activities of the government would pollute water resources and destroy natural resources. According to the District Court, the injunction of stopping the service from the construction activities would be in effect until they meet the requirements of the two Acts (Lyng v. NICP, 1988).
Q.9Why does the Supreme Court discuss Bowen V. Roy?
The Supreme Court uses Bowen and Roy case as the basis of reversing the lower court ruling. According to the Supreme Court, the legal application of Bowen V. Roy and that of Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery are similar. Thus the same ruling decision applied (Lyng v. NICP, 1988). The Supreme Court, therefore, uses the prior case ruling to dissent the lower courts application of The Free Exercise Clouse, a statute that got used to issue the initial injunction. According to the Supreme Court, since the court in Bowen V. Roy held that the law did not violate Indian religious rights, then the rights of the Indians to worship will not be denied by the road constructed.
Q.10The Supreme Court says Lyng and Bowen are similar. Discuss whether they are similar.
The two cases are similar in that their decisions based on the violation of Indian religious rights. In both cases, a federal statute, the Free Exercise Clouse was used as the basis to determine the violations of the rights of worship (Lyng v. NICP, 1988). Again, in both cases, they challenged the government that its administrative activities would interfere with their spiritual activities. While the Lyng case is about disturbing the silence and privacy of the indigenous Americans worship, Bowen’s case law was about the use of social security numbers by the state.
Q.11Why does the court discuss “indirect coercion or penalties”?
The court uses the indirect coercion or penalties to justify its decision of allowing the road and timber harvesting near Indians place of worship (Lyng v. NICP, 1988). In determining the ruling, the court had to balance between the rights of the government and that of Lyng. In discussing the indirect coercion, the court implies that the principle will not get violated. It means that there will be a balance, and neither the government’s rights nor that of Lyng would get violated.
Q.12Exercise clause is written in terms of what government cannot do to the individual, not in terms of what an individual can extract from the government. Why is this idea a stumbling block in the tribes’ quest to have their religious freedom protected? Who and what type of religion or spiritual practices would be covered under this quote?
While Exercise clause protects an individual from certain compulsions of the government, it does not give individuals the freedom to dictate the government on applying internal administrative procedures. This clause protects all the native religions whether in government forests or not. However, in a case where the natives conduct their rituals in a government-owned land did not have the right to stop government projects of serving the entire public for their religious benefits. The Free Exercise Duty Act does not mean that the government should conduct its administrative activities in ways that are in line with the beliefs of religious beliefs. This idea protects the Native Americans from forcing the government to halt its construction of roads or harvesting timber in the forest.
The Free Exercise Clause protects the government from interfering with the indigenous Americans worship (Lyng v. NICP, 1988). But when it comes to government conducting its activities for the benefit of the entire public, the clause will not apply. The government’s intention was not to interfere with the Indians worship but to exploit its resources for the benefit of the entire public. It is difficult for the affected Indians to proof that their worship would be interrupted by government activities. Furthermore, the Forest Service had taken steps to minimize the effect of the administrative actions to the indigenous areas of worship if any. The continued injunction to the government to prevent them from conducting administrative activities would deny the public their right to be served by the government at the expense of the few Indians.
References
Lyng v. Northwest Indian Prot. Assn. (1988)
Kauffman, C. M., & Martin, P. L. (2018, April). When Rivers Have Rights: Case Comparisons of New Zealand, Colombia, and India. In International Studies Association Annual Conference, San Francisco (Vol. 4).