What I said is in the second letter (link below) and summarized in the
e-mail to which you responded. We supported the bill as drafted, without
"substantial;" I also suggested that the committee restore "substantial" if
it were bothered by the omission. I think most of my co-signers would have
agreed with that suggestion, but I don't know that, because they were not
asked to sign the second letter.
Douglas Laycock
Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Virginia Law School
580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
434-243-8546
From: hamilto...@aol.com [mailto:hamilto...@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 10:18 AM
To: dlayc...@virginia.edu; religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing
"substantial" as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs
Thanks, Doug. The letter in support of the new TRFRA amendment bill, which
would have omitted "substantial" as a modifier, does not mention the removal
of
"substantial," but is in support of the bill.
If there is anyone who signed it who opposes removal of "substantial,"
please let me know. Otherwise, I will assume all
signatories have endorsed the removal of "substantial" as a modifier for
"burden." No need to respond if you support the bill as worded.
Thanks all
Marci A. Hamilton
Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Yeshiva University
55 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003
(212) 790-0215
http://sol-reform.com <http://sol-reform.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/professormarciahamilton?fref=ts>
<https://twitter.com/marci_hamilton>
-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas Laycock <dlayc...@virginia.edu <mailto:dlayc...@virginia.edu>
>
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> >; hamilton02 <hamilto...@aol.com
<mailto:hamilto...@aol.com> >
Sent: Sun, Dec 1, 2013 11:37 am
Subject: Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing
"substantial" as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs
The presence or absence of the word "substantial" was briefly addressed in a
follow-up letter here:
http://www.law.virginia.edu/pdf/faculty/laycock/texasreligfreedamdt2013senat
e2corrected.pdf
I defended the word's omission. I also suggested that the Committee add it
if
they thought it mattered.
My apologies for the delay. There was an initial miscommunication with our
tech
people, and by the time they got this posted, I was caught up in Town of
Greece
and completely forgot to go back to this.
On Sun, 1 Dec 2013 11:00:33 -0500 (EST)
hamilto...@aol.com <mailto:hamilto...@aol.com> wrote:
>Thanks Marty!
>
>
>Marci A. Hamilton
>Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
>Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
>Yeshiva University
>55 Fifth Avenue
>New York, NY 10003
>(212) 790-0215
>http://sol-reform.com
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com
<mailto:lederman.ma...@gmail.com> >
>To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> >
>Sent: Sun, Dec 1, 2013 9:44 am
>Subject: Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing
"substantial"
as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs
>
>
>I assume this is the letter, although it does not specifically address the
removal of "substantial":
>
>http://txvalues.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Professor-Support-Texas-Reli
gious-Freedom-Amedment-Senate-version.pdf
>
>
>
>
>On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 9:03 AM, <hamilto...@aol.com
<mailto:hamilto...@aol.com> > wrote:
>
>When a new TRFRA was introduced in Texas earlier this year, I was told that
there was a letter submitted signed by approximately 16 law professors
>who supported the removal of "substantial" from the typical RFRA analysis.
Doug had said on this list that he would send it to me several months ago,
but
>I have never received it. I assume several on this list signed it. Could
someone please forward it to me? It is, essentially, a public document,
having
been distributed
>to Texas legislators.
>
>
>KY actually did pass such a law so I assume this is a new trend. I am
hearing
from many civil rights groups who are deeply concerned about such a law, and
I
would like
>to explain to them the reasoning behing making a de minimis burden the
trigger
for strict scrutiny.
>
>
>Thanks-- Marci
>
>
>Marci A. Hamilton
>Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
>Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
>Yeshiva University
>55 Fifth Avenue
>New York, NY 10003
>(212) 790-0215
>http://sol-reform.com
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
<mailto: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
<mailto: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.
>
>
Douglas Laycock
Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Virginia Law School
580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
434-243-8546
_______________________________________________
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.
