Frank
On 8/4/05 6:53 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In a message dated 8/3/2005 11:47:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Given the regulatory state in which we live—one that requires that parents who send their children to religious private school must pay for both the school tuition as well as taxes to fund public schools--it seems to me that the principle from which Madison drew his conclusion is not so easily dispositive in resolving this dispute.On the assumption that Madison's view, stated by Paul in his earlier post, accurately represents the original meaning of the EC, then shouldn't those who contend it unfairly discriminates against religion regarding governmental benefits advocate amending the First Amendment to explicitly state the EC doesn't apply to these entitlements?
Bobby
Robert Justin Lipkin
Professor of Law
Widener University School of Law
Delaware
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
