Talk:Reynolds v. United States

Are dates correct for decided and argued?
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/casefinder/casefinder_1863-1889.html gives a date of 1879 for Reynolds v. United States. Some references give 1878. The case was reargued. Does anyone have a solid reference for the dates in the case? Nereocystis 14:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Bigamy versus polygamy
Was the case for Bigamy of polygamy? The legal terms have changed in the past 100 years, but there is a difference. Anyone know? -Visorstuff 16:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The FindLaw link quotes from the original law,


 * Every person having a husband or wife living, who marries another, whether married or single, in a Territory, or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, is guilty of bigamy, and shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500, and by imprisonment for a term of not more than five years.


 * I believe that this is the Poland Act, passed in 1874, which is mentioned in the decision. The Morrill Act is not explicitly mentioned in the decision, though the Poland Act modified the Morrill Act. I don't know whether this really answers the question. Nereocystis 17:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

"The Morrill Act (Act of July 1, 1862, 12 Stat. 501), which defined the crime of bigamy in U.S. territories, had been adopted for the express purpose of outlawing Mormon polygamous marriages. The First Amendment, however, expressly states that Congress shall "make no law…prohibiting the free exercise" of religion. The issue posed by the Reynolds case was whether a federal bigamy statute could constitutionally be applied to a person who practiced polygamy as a matter of religious duty. The Court held that it could." http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Reynolds_V._United_States


 * It appears that the law in question dealt with bigamy. The article also specifies that he was the husband of two wives.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drumercalzone09 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Major restructuring proposal
A major restructuring proposal for all polygamy articles related to Mormonism has been made at Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr. and polygamy. Please visit and give your two cents. --Descartes1979 (talk) 04:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Court's decision under Religious Duty Arguement is incomplete
Its quote of Thomas Jefferson is incomplete and seems biased against the Supreme Court. In the original delivered opinion, The court specifically mentioned several times man's civil duty to society. Although Mr. Jefferson stated "religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God" and therefore ""the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions," he also stated immediately after that "Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

So although "The Court believed the First Amendment forbade Congress from legislating against opinion, but allowed it to legislate against action," it is important to include courts opinion that "[Congress] was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order."

With the court's test to civil duty left out, it can easily mislead readers to believe the Supreme Court was biased and the right of religious freedom in US is only limited to opinion/belief and does not extend to exercise of one's belief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akgigga (talk • contribs) 17:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Overturned conviction, not acquittal
I just replaced text that said that Reynolds had been acquitted in an earlier trial. Although there was a book citation, this statement is unlikely as it would violate the U.S. law principal of double jeopardy. I found contemporary newspaper sources that said that Reynolds was convicted on April 1, 1875, but I only cited The Encyclopedia of Mormonism which notes that an earlier conviction was overturned. An overturned conviction is very different from an acquittal in U.S. law! Ginkgo100talk 02:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Reynolds v. United States, 565 U.S. 432 (2012) exists. Should we change the title to note this is the 1800s case and there is a newer one?
There is at least 2 case with title Reynolds v. United States, while the 2012 case is less notable it is none the less a case in the supreme court so I think there should be of it somewhere in the article. I am not sure what should be done in this issue. Find the opinion for the newer case here Elithanathile (talk) 06:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Infanticide, incest, polygamy, etc
Funny how the argument is "well YOUR religious beliefs could include any ol crazy thing, but we can still enact common law", which is basically just to say that 1A doesn't apply to your religious beliefs if I find them to be disgusting, or in this case if the more common Christian sects do, which is precisely what 1A was trying to protect against. 98.156.185.48 (talk) 08:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)