Re: Connecticut bill
The american jewish congress also filed a statement opposing the bill. Unfortunately we were not paid for our efforts either_and we could use the money Marc stern - Original Message - From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Thu Mar 12 14:51:09 2009 Subject: Connecticut bill The bishops have their own lawyers. They did not commission the law professor's letter, and no one but the signers had any input into its content. Marci, even you agree that this bill was plainly unconstitutional, so it did not take a conspiracy of bishops to get me to say so. If the real question is whether anyone was paid to write that letter, the answer is no. Not a penny. I had no client that I could have billed, and even if I did, I do not bill commercial rates to clients on public interest matters. Usually, I do not bill public interest clients at all. Many people who saw the bill thought it was obviously unconstitutional, and they began turning for help in all directions. I heard about it from Catholic lawyers, Protestant lawyers, two different list serves, and a Professor at at the Yale Law School. No doubt the Connecticut bishops were encouraging their representatives to spread the word and seek help, and there may well be a chain of communications that leads back to the bishops. But I cannot reconstruct that chain, they did not contact me directly, and no one in Connecticut answered my e-mail when I tried to ask a question about one of the details in the bill. As far as I know, they had never heard of me and had other communications that seemed more important to attend to. The idea to circulate a draft for additional signatures was my own. Many of the people I sent it to already knew about it; some heard about it from me. Quoting hamilto...@aol.com: I would like to ask a point of information on the law profs letter to Conn legis. I am wondering if it was formally or informally commissioned by the bishops. Marci Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Marc Stern mst...@ajcongress.org Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:21:28 To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: NY Religious Corporations Law ___ 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. Douglas Laycock Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law University of Michigan Law School 625 S. State St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215 734-647-9713 ___ 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.
Re: Connecticut bill
Thanks, Doug. Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Douglas Laycock layco...@umich.edu Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 14:51:09 To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Connecticut bill ___ 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.
Re: Connecticut bill
For the record I was not asking about money. I was just struck by the bishops full page newspaper ad and wondered what else they might have done in response to a clearly unconstl law.. No offense at all intended. Marci Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Marc Stern mst...@ajcongress.org Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 15:34:16 To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Connecticut bill ___ 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.
Re: Connecticut bill
Fair enough. I did not take offense. I haven't seen the full page ad. Quoting hamilto...@aol.com: For the record I was not asking about money. I was just struck by the bishops full page newspaper ad and wondered what else they might have done in response to a clearly unconstl law.. No offense at all intended. Marci Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Marc Stern mst...@ajcongress.org Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 15:34:16 To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Connecticut bill ___ 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[1] 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[2] 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 Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law University of Michigan Law School 625 S. State St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215 734-647-9713 Links: -- [1] http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw [2] http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw___ 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.
Re: Connecticut bill
Just for the sake of perspective on the proposed Connecticut legislation, I would welcome any comments on Section 200 of the New York Religious Corporations Law (codified in Article 10 applicable to Other Denominations - including Jewish Congregations ) compared to sub- sections (e) and (h) of the proposed Connecticut legislation. -- § 200. Control of trustees by corporate meetings; salaries of ministers. A corporate meeting of an incorporated church, whose trustees are elective as such, may give directions, not inconsistent with law, as to the manner in which any of the temporal affairs of the church shall be administered by the trustees thereof; and such directions shall be followed by the trustees. The trustees of an incorporated church to which this article is applicable, shall have no power to settle or remove or fix the salary of the minister, or without the consent of a corporate meeting, to incur debts beyond what is necessary for the care of the property of the corporation; or to fix or charge the time, nature or order of the public or social worship of such church, except when such trustees are also the spiritual officers of such church. (emphasis supplied) The provison has been in NY law in some form since 1813 and was last amended in 1909 . SAMUEL M. KRIEGER,ESQ. Krieger Prager LLP 39 Broadway New York, NY 10006 ___ 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.
Re: Connecticut bill
I have plenty of comments on it, as an officer of one of the other churches, after the court seemed to contrive a new hoop for us to jump through every week; but they probably would not get past the moderator. We're from the government, we're here to protect you. (Ironically, our church in Boston, where there is no such statute, might have benefited from some protection.) On Wed, 11 Mar 2009, SAMUEL M. KRIEGER wrote: Just for the sake of perspective on the proposed Connecticut legislation, I would welcome any comments on Section 200 of the New York Religious Corporations Law (codified in Article 10 applicable to Other Denominations - including Jewish Congregations ) compared to sub- sections (e) and (h) of the proposed Connecticut legislation. -- § 200. Control of trustees by corporate meetings; salaries of ministers. A corporate meeting of an incorporated church, whose trustees are elective as such, may give directions, not inconsistent with law, as to the manner in which any of the temporal affairs of the church shall be administered by the trustees thereof; and such directions shall be followed by the trustees. The trustees of an incorporated church to which this article is applicable, shall have no power to settle or remove or fix the salary of the minister, or without the consent of a corporate meeting, to incur debts beyond what is necessary for the care of the property of the corporation; or to fix or charge the time, nature or order of the public or social worship of such church, except when such trustees are also the spiritual officers of such church. (emphasis supplied) The provison has been in NY law in some form since 1813 and was last amended in 1909 . SAMUEL M. KRIEGER,ESQ. Krieger Prager LLP 39 Broadway New York, NY 10006 Will Linden wlin...@panix.com http://www.ecben.net/ Magic Code: MAS/GD S++ W++ N+ PWM++ Ds/r+ A- a++ C+ G- QO++ 666 Y___ 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.
RE: Connecticut bill
To the extent that the entire NY Religious Corporations Law is mandatory, as opposed to merely default provisions that apply in the absence of contrary rules in the organization's charter or bylaws, I think there are serious constitutional issues with very many of the internal governance provisions. * Howard M. Friedman Disting. Univ. Professor Emeritus University of Toledo College of Law Toledo, OH 43606-3390 Phone: (419) 530-2911, FAX (419) 530-4732 E-mail: howard.fried...@utoledo.edu * From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of SAMUEL M. KRIEGER Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 1:11 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Connecticut bill Just for the sake of perspective on the proposed Connecticut legislation, I would welcome any comments on Section 200 of the New York Religious Corporations Law (codified in Article 10 applicable to Other Denominations - including Jewish Congregations ) compared to sub- sections (e) and (h) of the proposed Connecticut legislation. -- § 200. Control of trustees by corporate meetings; salaries of ministers. A corporate meeting of an incorporated church, whose trustees are elective as such, may give directions, not inconsistent with law, as to the manner in which any of the temporal affairs of the church shall be administered by the trustees thereof; and such directions shall be followed by the trustees. The trustees of an incorporated church to which this article is applicable, shall have no power to settle or remove or fix the salary of the minister, or without the consent of a corporate meeting, to incur debts beyond what is necessary for the care of the property of the corporation; or to fix or charge the time, nature or order of the public or social worship of such church, except when such trustees are also the spiritual officers of such church. (emphasis supplied) The provison has been in NY law in some form since 1813 and was last amended in 1909 . SAMUEL M. KRIEGER,ESQ. Krieger Prager LLP 39 Broadway New York, NY 10006 ___ 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.
RE: Connecticut bill
In New York, a religious institution is generally permitted to register under the secular not for profit corporation law. From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Friedman, Howard M. Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 2:54 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Connecticut bill To the extent that the entire NY Religious Corporations Law is mandatory, as opposed to merely default provisions that apply in the absence of contrary rules in the organization's charter or bylaws, I think there are serious constitutional issues with very many of the internal governance provisions. * Howard M. Friedman Disting. Univ. Professor Emeritus University of Toledo College of Law Toledo, OH 43606-3390 Phone: (419) 530-2911, FAX (419) 530-4732 E-mail: howard.fried...@utoledo.edu * From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of SAMUEL M. KRIEGER Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 1:11 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Connecticut bill Just for the sake of perspective on the proposed Connecticut legislation, I would welcome any comments on Section 200 of the New York Religious Corporations Law (codified in Article 10 applicable to Other Denominations - including Jewish Congregations ) compared to sub- sections (e) and (h) of the proposed Connecticut legislation. -- § 200. Control of trustees by corporate meetings; salaries of ministers. A corporate meeting of an incorporated church, whose trustees are elective as such, may give directions, not inconsistent with law, as to the manner in which any of the temporal affairs of the church shall be administered by the trustees thereof; and such directions shall be followed by the trustees. The trustees of an incorporated church to which this article is applicable, shall have no power to settle or remove or fix the salary of the minister, or without the consent of a corporate meeting, to incur debts beyond what is necessary for the care of the property of the corporation; or to fix or charge the time, nature or order of the public or social worship of such church, except when such trustees are also the spiritual officers of such church. (emphasis supplied) The provison has been in NY law in some form since 1813 and was last amended in 1909 . SAMUEL M. KRIEGER,ESQ. Krieger Prager LLP 39 Broadway New York, NY 10006 ___ 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.
Re: Connecticut bill
Well done, Doug et al. While the signers of the letter disagree on a topic or two in the area of religious freedom and constitutional interpretation of the religion clauses, there is a huge breadth of space over which they and I suspect nearly all constitutional law experts agree. This is clearly one of the easy ones. Con Law books emphasize boundaries and hard cases. I regularly try to draw my students back to thinking about just how much is in fact settled and how clearly constitutional most of the efforts of Congress, the Court, the Executive, and the states in fact are. While the areas of dispute are oftentimes very important, we can sometimes (and maybe generally do) exaggerate their importance because they are the hot issues of the moment. This bill, the response to it, and Doug's letter serve to remind us that we agree on much. They also serve to remind us that even in settled, clear areas, people, whether well-meaning or otherwise, can act improperly and that indeed the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Wendell Phillips (1811–84) http://www.bartleby.com/73/1073.html (often attributed to Thomas Jefferson, though no one has found where he said or wrote it). Thanks. Steve -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Associate Director, Institute of Intellectual Property and Social Justice http://iipsj.org Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 http://iipsj.com/SDJ/ Nothing that is worth anything can be achieved in a lifetime; therefore we must be saved by hope. Reinhold Neibuhr On Mar 10, 2009, at 5:29 PM, Douglas Laycock wrote: Earlier today we discussed a bill in Connecticut to impose Protestant forms of church governance on the Catholic Church. The bill has been pulled and tomorrow's hearing has been cancelled, apparently due to a flood of calls to legislators. Church leaders in Connecticut are not convinced that the issue is fully dead. Maybe they are right; maybe they are just being cautious. If the link below actually works, you can find there a copy of the bill, and a copy of a letter that twelve of us sent to the Committee Co-Chairs. We cannot take credit for killing the bill; they apparently pulled it before our letter was delivered. I hope we can take credit for a good explanation of why it is clearly unconstitutional. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~laycockd/ The breadth of agreement that this one was unconstitutional, which extends far beyond the signers of this letter, is encouraging. Douglas Laycock Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law University of Michigan Law School 625 S. State St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215 734-647-9713___ 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.
Re: Connecticut bill
The fun is in the matters that are close to the line. Whenever the law draws a line, there will be cases very near each other on opposite sides. The precise course of the line may be uncertain, but no one can come near it without knowing that he does so…. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. U.S. v. Wurzbach (1930) 280 US 396. On the other hand there are those cases that are so far from the line that, even if you are on the side of the offending party, you wonder: WHAT WERE THEY THINKING? Alan Armstrong Law Office of Alan Leigh Armstrong Serving the Family and Small Business Since 1984 18652 Florida St., Suite 225 Huntington Beach CA 92648-6006 714-375-1147 Fax 714-782 6007 a...@alanarmstrong.com alanarmstrong@verizon.net KE6LLN All documents prepared on Macintosh computers to look better On Mar 10, 2009, at 3:40 PM, Steven Jamar wrote: Well done, Doug et al. While the signers of the letter disagree on a topic or two in the area of religious freedom and constitutional interpretation of the religion clauses, there is a huge breadth of space over which they and I suspect nearly all constitutional law experts agree. This is clearly one of the easy ones. Con Law books emphasize boundaries and hard cases. I regularly try to draw my students back to thinking about just how much is in fact settled and how clearly constitutional most of the efforts of Congress, the Court, the Executive, and the states in fact are. While the areas of dispute are oftentimes very important, we can sometimes (and maybe generally do) exaggerate their importance because they are the hot issues of the moment. This bill, the response to it, and Doug's letter serve to remind us that we agree on much. They also serve to remind us that even in settled, clear areas, people, whether well-meaning or otherwise, can act improperly and that indeed the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Wendell Phillips (1811–84) http://www.bartleby.com/73/1073.html (often attributed to Thomas Jefferson, though no one has found where he said or wrote it). Thanks. Steve -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Associate Director, Institute of Intellectual Property and Social Justice http://iipsj.org Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 http://iipsj.com/SDJ/ Nothing that is worth anything can be achieved in a lifetime; therefore we must be saved by hope. Reinhold Neibuhr On Mar 10, 2009, at 5:29 PM, Douglas Laycock wrote: Earlier today we discussed a bill in Connecticut to impose Protestant forms of church governance on the Catholic Church. The bill has been pulled and tomorrow's hearing has been cancelled, apparently due to a flood of calls to legislators. Church leaders in Connecticut are not convinced that the issue is fully dead. Maybe they are right; maybe they are just being cautious. If the link below actually works, you can find there a copy of the bill, and a copy of a letter that twelve of us sent to the Committee Co-Chairs. We cannot take credit for killing the bill; they apparently pulled it before our letter was delivered. I hope we can take credit for a good explanation of why it is clearly unconstitutional. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~laycockd/ The breadth of agreement that this one was unconstitutional, which extends far beyond the signers of this letter, is encouraging. Douglas Laycock Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law University of Michigan Law School 625 S. State St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215 734-647-9713 ___ 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. ___ 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
Re: Connecticut bill
you are welcome -- and thanks for the current best info on the origin of the phrase. steve On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Douglas Laycock layco...@umich.edu wrote: Thanks, Steve. I was one of those people who once attributed eternal vigilance is the price of liberty to Jefferson. In belatedly tracking down a footnote, I found an earlier source than Wendell Phillips for the core of the idea, if not the pithy and commonly remembered phrasing. The condition upon which god hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt. John Philpot Curran, Speech upon the Right of Election of the Lord Mayor of Dublin, July 10, 1790 This according to Bartlett's 16th edition. Quoting Steven Jamar stevenja...@gmail.com: Well done, Doug et al. While the signers of the letter disagree on a topic or two in the area of religious freedom and constitutional interpretation of the religion clauses, there is a huge breadth of space over which they and I suspect nearly all constitutional law experts agree. This is clearly one of the easy ones. Con Law books emphasize boundaries and hard cases. I regularly try to draw my students back to thinking about just how much is in fact settled and how clearly constitutional most of the efforts of Congress, the Court, the Executive, and the states in fact are. While the areas of dispute are oftentimes very important, we can sometimes (and maybe generally do) exaggerate their importance because they are the hot issues of the moment. This bill, the response to it, and Doug's letter serve to remind us that we agree on much. They also serve to remind us that even in settled, clear areas, people, whether well-meaning or otherwise, can act improperly and that indeed the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Wendell Phillips (1811?84) http://www.bartleby.com/73/1073.html (often attributed to Thomas Jefferson, though no one has found where he said or wrote it). Thanks. Steve -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Associate Director, Institute of Intellectual Property and Social Justice http://iipsj.org Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 http://iipsj.com/SDJ/ Nothing that is worth anything can be achieved in a lifetime; therefore we must be saved by hope. Reinhold Neibuhr On Mar 10, 2009, at 5:29 PM, Douglas Laycock wrote: Earlier today we discussed a bill in Connecticut to impose Protestant forms of church governance on the Catholic Church. The bill has been pulled and tomorrow's hearing has been cancelled, apparently due to a flood of calls to legislators. Church leaders in Connecticut are not convinced that the issue is fully dead. Maybe they are right; maybe they are just being cautious. If the link below actually works, you can find there a copy of the bill, and a copy of a letter that twelve of us sent to the Committee Co-Chairs. We cannot take credit for killing the bill; they apparently pulled it before our letter was delivered. I hope we can take credit for a good explanation of why it is clearly unconstitutional. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~laycockd/http://www-personal.umich.edu/%7Elaycockd/ The breadth of agreement that this one was unconstitutional, which extends far beyond the signers of this letter, is encouraging. Douglas Laycock Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law University of Michigan Law School 625 S. State St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215 734-647-9713___ 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. Douglas Laycock Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law University of Michigan Law School 625 S. State St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215 734-647-9713 ___ 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. -- Prof. Steven Jamar Howard University School of Law Associate Director, Institute of Intellectual Property and Social Justice
