The court made the following statement: The government's ability to enforce generally applicable prohibitions of socially harmful conduct, like its ability to carry out other
aspects of public policy, "cannot depend on measuring the effects of a governmental action on a religious objector's spiritual
development."... To make an individual's obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law's coincidence with his religious
beliefs, except where the State's interest is "compelling permitting him by virtue of his beliefs. "to become a law unto himself
contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense.
(A) Identify the constitutional clause that is common to both Wisconsin V Yoder (1972) and Oregon v. Smith (1989).
(B) Based on the constitutional clause identified in part A, explain why the facts of Wisconsin V. Yoder led to a different holding than the
holding in Oregon v. Smith
(C) Describe an action that members of the state legislature could take if they disagreed with the decision in Oregon v. Smith