Employment Division v. Smith and Tire balance: Difference between pages
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
mNo edit summary |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Image:Tireweight.jpg|thumb|Tire weight]] |
|||
{{SCOTUSCase |
|||
'''Tire Balance''', also referred to as tire unbalance or imbalance, describes the distribution of mass within an automobile [[tire]] and/or the wheel to which it is attached. When the tire rotates, asymmetries of mass cause the wheel to wobble for reasons discussed below. This wobbling can give rise to ride disturbances, usually vertical and lateral vibrations. The ride disturbance due to unbalance usually increases with speed. Vehicle suspensions can be excited by tire unbalance forces when the speed of the wheel reaches a point that its rotating frequency equals the suspension’s resonant frequency. Tires are inspected in factories and repair shops by two methods: static balancers and dynamic balancers. Tires with high unbalance forces are downgraded or rejected. When tires are fitted to wheels at the point of sale, they are measured again, and correction weights are applied to counteract the combined effect of the tire and wheel unbalance. |
|||
|Litigants=Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith |
|||
|ArgueDate=November 6 |
|||
|ArgueYear=1989 |
|||
|DecideDate=April 17 |
|||
|DecideYear=1990 |
|||
|FullName=Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of the State of Oregon, et al. v. Alfred Smith |
|||
|USVol=494 |
|||
|USPage=872 |
|||
|Citation=110 S. Ct. 1595; 108 L. Ed. 2d 876; 1990 U.S. LEXIS 2021; 58 U.S.L.W. 4433; 52 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 855; 53 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P39,826; Unemployment Ins. Rep. (CCH) P21,933 |
|||
|Prior=Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Oregon. ''Smith v. Employment Div.'', 307 Ore. 68, 763 P.2d 146, 1988 Ore. LEXIS 564 (1988) |
|||
|Subsequent= |
|||
|Holding="The Free Exercise Clause permits the State to prohibit sacramental peyote use and thus to deny unemployment benefits to persons discharged for such use." Neutral laws of general applicability do not violate the [[Free Exercise Clause]] of the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]]. |
|||
|SCOTUS=1988-1990 |
|||
|Majority=Scalia |
|||
|JoinMajority=Rehnquist, White, Stevens, Kennedy |
|||
|Concurrence=O'Connor |
|||
|JoinConcurrence=Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun (parts I, II) |
|||
|Dissent=Blackmun |
|||
|JoinDissent=Brennan, Marshall |
|||
|LawsApplied=[[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|U.S. Const. amend. I]] |
|||
}} |
|||
'''''Employment Division v. Smith''''', [[Case citation|494 U.S. 872]] ([[1990]]), is a [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]] case that determined that the state could deny unemployment benefits to a person fired for violating a state prohibition on the use of [[peyote]], even though the use of the drug was part of a religious ritual. Although states have the ''power'' to accommodate otherwise illegal acts done in pursuit of religious beliefs, they are not ''required'' to do so. |
|||
===Static Balance=== |
|||
==Facts== |
|||
[[Alfred Smith]] (an [[Native Americans in the United States|American Indian]]) and [[Galen Black]] (a white man) were members of the [[Native American Church]] and employees at a [[drug rehabilitation]] clinic who were fired because they had ingested [[peyote]], a powerful hallucinogen, as part of their religious ceremonies as members of the Native American Church. However, knowing or intentional possession of peyote is a crime under Oregon law. The counselors filed a claim for unemployment compensation, which was denied because the reason for their dismissal was deemed work-related "misconduct." The [[Oregon Court of Appeals]] reversed that ruling, holding that denying them unemployment benefits for their religious use of peyote violated their right to exercise their religion. The [[Oregon Supreme Court]] agreed, although it relied not on the fact that peyote use is a crime but on the fact that the state's justification for withholding the benefits—preserving the "financial integrity" of the workers' compensation fund—was outweighed by the burden imposed on Smith's and Black's exercise of their religion. The state appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, again arguing that denying the unemployment benefits was proper because using peyote was a crime. |
|||
Static Balance can be measured by a [[Balancing Machine|static balancing machine]] where the tire is placed in its vertical axis on a non-rotating spindle tool. The spot on the tire where the mass is greatest is acted on by gravity to deflect the tooling downward. The amount of deflection indicates the magnitude of the unbalance. The angle of the deflection indicates the angular location of the unbalance. In tire manufacturing factories static balancers operate by use of sensors mounted to the spindle assembly. In tire retail shops static balancers are most usually non-rotating bubble balancers, where the magnitude and angle of the unbalance is observed by looking at the center bubble in an oil-filled glass sighting gauge. |
|||
The U.S. Supreme Court reasoned that if the state could punish the possession of peyote as a crime without infringing a person's right to exercise his religion, it could also withhold unemployment benefits from those who possess peyote without violating the right to exercise religion. But the Oregon Supreme Court had not relied on the fact that possession of peyote was a crime in Oregon, and so the U.S. Supreme Court sent the case back to the Oregon Supreme Court so that it could answer that question. The Oregon Supreme Court held that Oregon law did indeed proscribe the possession of peyote, but that applying Oregon's ban on possession of peyote to deny Smith and Black unemployment benefits violated their right to exercise their religion. The state asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review this second decision of the Oregon Supreme Court, and it agreed to do so. |
|||
===Dynamic Balance=== |
|||
Note the case full name: "Employment Division, Oregon Department of Human Resources v. Smith" |
|||
Dynamic balance describes the forces generated by asymmetric mass distribution when the tire is rotated, usually at a high speed. In the tire manufacturing factory the tire is mounted on a [[Balancing Machine|balancing machine]] test wheel, the assembly is accelerated up to a speed of 300 RPM or higher, and sensors measure the forces of unbalance as the tire rotates. These forces are resolved into static and couple values for the inner and outer planes of the wheel, and compared to the unbalance tolerance (the maximum allowable manufacturing limits). In tire retail shops tire/wheel assemblies are checked on a spin-balancer, which determines the amount and angle of unbalance. Balance weights are then fitted to the outer and inner flanges of the wheel. Dynamic balance is better (it is more comprehensive) than static balance alone, because both couple and static forces are measured and corrected. |
|||
==Majority opinion== |
|||
The majority opinion was delivered by Justice Scalia. The First Amendment forbids government from pro Security (United States)|Social Security]] taxes. |
|||
===The Physics of Dynamic Balance=== |
|||
By contrast, the cases in which the Court had allowed a religious motivation to exempt a person from a neutral, generally applicable law involved the assertion of both the right of free exercise along with some other right. Thus, religious publishers are exempt from a law requiring them to obtain a license if that license may be denied to any publisher the government deems nonreligious. The government may not tax religious solicitors. The government may not require the Amish to send their children to school because their religion demands otherwise, and [[Amish]] parents, like all parents, have the right to direct the education of their children. Because Smith and Black were not asserting a hybrid right, they could not claim a religious exemption under the First Amendment from Oregon's ban on peyote. |
|||
Mathematically, the [[Moment of inertia|moment of inertia]] of the wheel is a [[Tensor|tensor]]. That is, to a first approximation (neglecting deformations due to its elasticity) the wheel and axle assembly are a [[Rigid rotor|rigid rotor]] to which the engine and brakes apply a [[Torque|torque]] vector aligned with the axle. If that torque vector is not aligned with the principal axis of the moment of inertia, the resultant angular acceleration will be in a different direction from the applied torque. In practical terms, the wheel will wobble. Strictly speaking, it is mathematically impossible to exactly align the principal axis of the inertia tensor with the axle by adding a finite number of small masses. But in practice, this is exactly how an automotive technician reduces the wobble to an acceptable level when balancing the wheel. The reader may refer to the linked articles on basic engineering mechanics for more details. Balancing is not to be confused with alignment. |
|||
In the alternative, Smith and Black argued that at the very least, the Court should only uphold Oregon's ban on peyote as applied to them if Oregon had a compelling interest in prohibiting their religious use of peyote. The Court had, after all, i |
|||
===Environmental Consequences=== |
|||
Rather than interpret the First Amendment to require the exemption that Smith and [[Black]] sought, the Court encouraged them to seek redress in the legislature. It observed that Arizona, Colorado, and New [[Mexico]] already specifically exempted religious uses from their otherwise generally applicable peyote bans. "Just as a society that believes in the negative protection accorded to the press by the First Amendment is likely to enact laws that affirmatively foster the dissemination of the printed word, so also a society that believes in the negative protection afforded to religious belief can be expected to be solicitous of that value in its legislation as well." To be sure, requiring claims for religious exemptions to be vetted through the legislative process might put less popular religions at a disadvantage. But the Court held that this situation was preferable to the relative anarchy that would result from "a system in which each conscience is a law unto itself." |
|||
Every year millions of small weights are attached to tires by automotive technicians balancing them (according to the US Environmental Protection Agency, worldwide these total about 70,000 tons of lead annually [http://www.epa.gov/minimize/leadtire.htm]). Traditionally, these weights have been made of [[Lead|lead]], but since lead is a toxic metal political authorities and industrial groups are in the process of converting to less toxic alternatives to lead [http://www.leadfreewheels.org/]. |
|||
==Concurring opinion== |
|||
'''[[Sandra Day O'Connor|Justice O'Connor]]''' took issue with the analytical framework the majority had constructed, preferring to apply the traditional compelling interest test to Oregon's ban on peyote. She agreed with the Court's initial premise that the Free Exercise Clause applied to religiously motivated action as well as pure belief. She pointed out, however, that even a so-called neutral law of general applicability imposes a burden on a person's exercise of religion if that law prevents someone from engaging in religiously motivated conduct or requires someone to engage in conduct forbidden by his or her religion. The First Amendment has to reach both laws that expressly target religion as well as generally applicable laws; otherwise, the law would relegate the constitutional protection of the free exercise of religion to "the barest level of minimum scrutiny that the [[Equal Protection Clause]] already provides." |
|||
However, the First Amendment freedoms are not absolute; the law tolerates burdens on the free exercise of religion that serve a compelling governmental interest and are narrowly tailored to meet that interest. "The compelling interest test effectuates the First Amendment's command that religious liberty is an independent liberty, that it occupies a preferred position, and that the Court will not permit encroachment upon this liberty, whether direct or indirect, unless required by clear and compelling governmental interests of the highest order." Justice O'Connor rejected the idea that this test should only apply when neutral laws of general applicability face some hybrid free-exercise challenge, because those laws burden the free exercise of religion in addition to whatever other right they burden. Furthermore, the exemption from Oregon's ban on peyote was not a pretext for Smith and Black. It was directly linked to the exercise of their religious beliefs, the sincerity of which the Court does not and should not question. Smith and Black merely asked the Court to subject Oregon's ban on peyote as applied to their religious use of it to the same compelling interest test to which the Court had subjected numerous other laws. |
|||
Justice O'Connor found such a compelling interest, and thus rejected Smith's and Black's constitutional challenge. Peyote is a sacrament in the Native American Church; thus, members must "choose between carrying out the ritual embodying their religious beliefs and avoidance of criminal prosecution. That choice is... more than sufficient to trigger First Amendment scrutiny." But peyote is also a [[Schedule I]] drug, meaning Congress has found that it has a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use, and a lack of safety standards for using the drug under medical supervision. These findings led Oregon to ban the use of peyote, and Smith and Black did not dispute that Oregon's interest in doing so was compelling. Justice O'Connor believed that this general ban was "essential to accomplish" the state's objective in stamping out the harm caused by peyote. "Oregon's criminal prohibition represents that state's judgment that the possession and use of controlled substances, even by only one person, is inherently harmful and dangerous. Because the health effects caused by the use of controlled substances exist regardless of the motivation of the user, the use of such substances, even for religious purposes, violates the very purpose of the laws that prohibit them." Furthermore, society's interest in preventing trafficking in controlled substances was similarly central to effectuating Oregon's ban on peyote. Justice O'Connor likewise suggested that Smith and Black seek redress in the state legislature and not the courts, for the fact that other states allow religious use of peyote does not compel Oregon to follow suit. |
|||
==Dissenting opinion== |
|||
'''[[Harry Blackmun|Justice Blackmun]]''' agreed with Justice O'Connor that the compelling interest test should apply to Oregon's ban on peyote, but disagreed with her that the ban was supported by a compelling interest that was narrowly tailored. Blackmun began by "articulat[ing] in precise terms the state interest involved" in the ban. Blackmun focused narrowly on the state's interest in not exempting religious use from its otherwise generally applicable ban on peyote rather than the state's broader interest in "fighting the critical 'war on drugs.'" Blackmun framed the issue as he did because "failure to reduce the competing interests to the same [[plane]] of generality tends to distort the weighing process in the state's favor." Blackmun questioned whether Oregon actually did enforce its criminal prohibition on peyote against religious users, noting that it had not actually prosecuted Smith or Black. Because Oregon had not prosecuted any religious users of peyote, its "asserted interest thus amounts only to the symbolic preservation of an unfettered prohibition. But a government interest in symbolism, even symbolism for so worthy a cause as the abolition of unlawful drugs, cannot suffice to abrogate the constitutional rights of individuals." |
|||
Oregon also claimed an interest in protecting the health and safety of its citizens from the dangers of illegal drug use. But there was no evidence that religious use of peyote actually harmed anyone. The fact that peyote was a Schedule I drug did not persuade Blackmun. The federal government may have placed peyote on Schedule I, but the federal government also tolerated the religious use of peyote. In addition, other Schedule I drugs (such as [[marijuana]]) have lawful uses. Religious use was not recreational use; the Native American Church ritual in which peyote is consumed is heavily supervised, thus mitigating Oregon's health and safety concerns. The religious use occurs in a context that harmonizes with the state's general ban. The Native American Church discourages nonreligious use of peyote, and promotes family harmony, self-reliance, and abstinence from alcohol. Research suggests that religious use of peyote can help [[curb]] "the tragic effects of alcoholism on the Native American population." And as for the state's interest in abolishing drug trafficking, Blackmun pointed out that there is "practically no illegal traffic in peyote." |
|||
Finally, Blackmun expressed concern for "the severe impact of a state's restrictions on the adherents of a minority religion." Eating peyote is "an act of worship and communion," a "means for communicating with the Great Spirit." If Oregon is a hostile environment in which to practice the Native American religion, its adherents might be forced to "migrate to some other and more tolerant region." Blackmun felt it inconsistent with First Amendment values to denigrate an "unorthodox" religious practice in this way. |
|||
==See also== |
==See also== |
||
* [[Balancing machine]] |
|||
*[[List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 494]] |
|||
*[[Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993]] |
|||
==Further reading== |
|||
*{{cite book |title=The Constitution & Religion: Leading Supreme Court Cases on Church and State |last=Alley |first=Robert S. |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=1999 |publisher=Prometheus Books |location=Amherst, NY |isbn=1573927031 |pages=483–501 }} |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
==External links== |
|||
[[Category:Vehicle technology]] |
|||
*{{caselaw source |
|||
|case=''Employment Division v. Smith'', 494 U.S. 872 (1990) |
|||
|enfacto=http://www.enfacto.com/case/U.S./494/872/ |
|||
|findlaw=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=494&invol=872 |
|||
|other_source1=LII |
|||
|other_url1=http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0494_0872_ZO.html |
|||
}} |
|||
[[de:Unwucht]] |
|||
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases]] |
|||
[[fr:Balourd]] |
|||
[[Category:United States Native American case law]] |
|||
[[ja:アンバランス (力学)]] |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
[[scn:Balordu]] |
|||
Revision as of 19:43, 13 October 2008
Tire Balance, also referred to as tire unbalance or imbalance, describes the distribution of mass within an automobile tire and/or the wheel to which it is attached. When the tire rotates, asymmetries of mass cause the wheel to wobble for reasons discussed below. This wobbling can give rise to ride disturbances, usually vertical and lateral vibrations. The ride disturbance due to unbalance usually increases with speed. Vehicle suspensions can be excited by tire unbalance forces when the speed of the wheel reaches a point that its rotating frequency equals the suspension’s resonant frequency. Tires are inspected in factories and repair shops by two methods: static balancers and dynamic balancers. Tires with high unbalance forces are downgraded or rejected. When tires are fitted to wheels at the point of sale, they are measured again, and correction weights are applied to counteract the combined effect of the tire and wheel unbalance.
Static Balance
Static Balance can be measured by a static balancing machine where the tire is placed in its vertical axis on a non-rotating spindle tool. The spot on the tire where the mass is greatest is acted on by gravity to deflect the tooling downward. The amount of deflection indicates the magnitude of the unbalance. The angle of the deflection indicates the angular location of the unbalance. In tire manufacturing factories static balancers operate by use of sensors mounted to the spindle assembly. In tire retail shops static balancers are most usually non-rotating bubble balancers, where the magnitude and angle of the unbalance is observed by looking at the center bubble in an oil-filled glass sighting gauge.
Dynamic Balance
Dynamic balance describes the forces generated by asymmetric mass distribution when the tire is rotated, usually at a high speed. In the tire manufacturing factory the tire is mounted on a balancing machine test wheel, the assembly is accelerated up to a speed of 300 RPM or higher, and sensors measure the forces of unbalance as the tire rotates. These forces are resolved into static and couple values for the inner and outer planes of the wheel, and compared to the unbalance tolerance (the maximum allowable manufacturing limits). In tire retail shops tire/wheel assemblies are checked on a spin-balancer, which determines the amount and angle of unbalance. Balance weights are then fitted to the outer and inner flanges of the wheel. Dynamic balance is better (it is more comprehensive) than static balance alone, because both couple and static forces are measured and corrected.
The Physics of Dynamic Balance
Mathematically, the moment of inertia of the wheel is a tensor. That is, to a first approximation (neglecting deformations due to its elasticity) the wheel and axle assembly are a rigid rotor to which the engine and brakes apply a torque vector aligned with the axle. If that torque vector is not aligned with the principal axis of the moment of inertia, the resultant angular acceleration will be in a different direction from the applied torque. In practical terms, the wheel will wobble. Strictly speaking, it is mathematically impossible to exactly align the principal axis of the inertia tensor with the axle by adding a finite number of small masses. But in practice, this is exactly how an automotive technician reduces the wobble to an acceptable level when balancing the wheel. The reader may refer to the linked articles on basic engineering mechanics for more details. Balancing is not to be confused with alignment.
Environmental Consequences
Every year millions of small weights are attached to tires by automotive technicians balancing them (according to the US Environmental Protection Agency, worldwide these total about 70,000 tons of lead annually [1]). Traditionally, these weights have been made of lead, but since lead is a toxic metal political authorities and industrial groups are in the process of converting to less toxic alternatives to lead [2].