Re: Mark of the beast lawsuit by Amish
In the post Smith world, it's not obvious why the free exercise clause would forbid Michigan from requiring the use of RFID chips even if members of a particular faith think the chips constitute the mark of the beast. In the post Bell Atlantic v. Twombly world, the argument that RFRA applies because Michigan is acting as a puppet of USDA even though USDA regs explicitly make participation in any federal identification program optional seems at first glance to be a stretch. Michael R. Masinter 3305 College Avenue Professor of Law Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314 Nova Southeastern University 954.262.6151 (voice) [EMAIL PROTECTED]954.262.3835 (fax) Visiting Professor of Law (2008-2009)305.284.3626 (voice) University of Miami Law School [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1311 Miller Drive Coral Gables, FL 33146 Quoting Jean Dudley [EMAIL PROTECTED]: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/11/bush-administra.html From the Wired article: The Amish farmers claim Michigan regulations requiring them to use radio frequency identification devices on their cattle constitutes some form of a 'mark of the beast' and/or represents an infringement of their 'dominion over cattle and all living things' in violation of their fundamental religious beliefs, according to the farmers' lawsuit filed in September in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Thoughts? Jean ___ 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. Michael R. Masinter 3305 College Avenue Professor of Law Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314 Nova Southeastern University 954.262.6151 (voice) [EMAIL PROTECTED]954.262.3835 (fax) Visiting Professor of Law (2008-2009)305.284.3626 (voice) University of Miami Law School [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1311 Miller Drive Coral Gables, FL 33146 ___ 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: Mark of the beast lawsuit by Amish
It isn't clear from the story whether this is something Michigan did wholly on its own, or whether it is a condition of some federal grant although not formally mandated. If it's a conditional spending program, I would treat the feds as responsible. Michigan appears to have interpreted its own free exercise clause to mean something like Sherbert-Yoder instead of Smith, although the cases are far from perfectly clear. Quoting Michael R. Masinter [EMAIL PROTECTED]: In the post Smith world, it's not obvious why the free exercise clause would forbid Michigan from requiring the use of RFID chips even if members of a particular faith think the chips constitute the mark of the beast. In the post Bell Atlantic v. Twombly world, the argument that RFRA applies because Michigan is acting as a puppet of USDA even though USDA regs explicitly make participation in any federal identification program optional seems at first glance to be a stretch. Michael R. Masinter 3305 College Avenue Professor of Law Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314 Nova Southeastern University 954.262.6151 (voice) [EMAIL PROTECTED]954.262.3835 (fax) Visiting Professor of Law (2008-2009)305.284.3626 (voice) University of Miami Law School [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1311 Miller Drive Coral Gables, FL 33146 Quoting Jean Dudley [EMAIL PROTECTED]: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/11/bush-administra.html[1] From the Wired article: The Amish farmers claim Michigan regulations requiring them to use radio frequency identification devices on their cattle constitutes some form of a 'mark of the beast' and/or represents an infringement of their 'dominion over cattle and all living things' in violation of their fundamental religious beliefs, according to the farmers' lawsuit filed in September in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Thoughts? Jean ___ 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. Michael R. Masinter 3305 College Avenue Professor of Law Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314 Nova Southeastern University 954.262.6151 (voice) [EMAIL PROTECTED]954.262.3835 (fax) Visiting Professor of Law (2008-2009)305.284.3626 (voice) University of Miami Law School [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1311 Miller Drive Coral Gables, FL 33146 ___ 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[3] 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://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/11/bush-administra.html [2] http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw [3] 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: Mark of the beast lawsuit by Amish
I tried to find within the complaint nonconclusory allegations that USDA used its spending powers to compel Michigan to adopt mandatory tagging, but on what I concede to be a cursory read, I didn't see much there. But I agree with Doug that if the allegation is true, RFRA should apply. Assuming Michigan construes its free exercise clause along the lines of Sherbert-Yoder, doesn't Pennhurst construe the eleventh amendment to bar federal courts from hearing claims against state officials for injunctive relief to compel compliance with the state constitution? Has Michigan waived that aspect of its eleventh amendment immunity? Michael R. Masinter 3305 College Avenue Professor of Law Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314 Nova Southeastern University 954.262.6151 (voice) [EMAIL PROTECTED]954.262.3835 (fax) Visiting Professor of Law (2008-2009)305.284.3626 (voice) University of Miami Law School [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1311 Miller Drive Coral Gables, FL 33146 Quoting Douglas Laycock [EMAIL PROTECTED]: It isn't clear from the story whether this is something Michigan did wholly on its own, or whether it is a condition of some federal grant although not formally mandated. If it's a conditional spending program, I would treat the feds as responsible. Michigan appears to have interpreted its own free exercise clause to mean something like Sherbert-Yoder instead of Smith, although the cases are far from perfectly clear. 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: Mark of the beast lawsuit by Amish
Complaint: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/satanfiling.pdf DOJ Brief: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/beast.pdf On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Jean Dudley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/11/bush-administra.html From the Wired article: The Amish farmers claim Michigan regulations requiring them to use radio frequency identification devices on their cattle constitutes some form of a 'mark of the beast' and/or represents an infringement of their 'dominion over cattle and all living things' in violation of their fundamental religious beliefs, according to the farmers' lawsuit filed in September in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Thoughts? Jean ___ 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: Mark of the beast lawsuit by Amish
Yes on the Pennhurst question. Pennhurst holds that plaintiffs cannot sue state officials in their official capacity in federal court to enjoin violations of state law. I don't know if Michigan has waived that immunity, but I rather doubt it. So plaintiffs would have to file in state court to assert the state law claim. Quoting Michael R. Masinter [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I tried to find within the complaint nonconclusory allegations that USDA used its spending powers to compel Michigan to adopt mandatory tagging, but on what I concede to be a cursory read, I didn't see much there. But I agree with Doug that if the allegation is true, RFRA should apply. Assuming Michigan construes its free exercise clause along the lines of Sherbert-Yoder, doesn't Pennhurst construe the eleventh amendment to bar federal courts from hearing claims against state officials for injunctive relief to compel compliance with the state constitution? Has Michigan waived that aspect of its eleventh amendment immunity? Michael R. Masinter 3305 College Avenue Professor of Law Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314 Nova Southeastern University 954.262.6151 (voice) [EMAIL PROTECTED]954.262.3835 (fax) Visiting Professor of Law (2008-2009)305.284.3626 (voice) University of Miami Law School [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1311 Miller Drive Coral Gables, FL 33146 Quoting Douglas Laycock [EMAIL PROTECTED]: It isn't clear from the story whether this is something Michigan did wholly on its own, or whether it is a condition of some federal grant although not formally mandated. If it's a conditional spending program, I would treat the feds as responsible. Michigan appears to have interpreted its own free exercise clause to mean something like Sherbert-Yoder instead of Smith, although the cases are far from perfectly clear. 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[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. 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___ 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: Mark of the beast lawsuit by Amish
Plainly the use of id's on cattle is a mark of the beast. I am puzzled by Professor Masinter's s reference to Twombly-i don't see the relevance of the reference. Marc Stern From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 2:03 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Mark of the beast lawsuit by Amish Complaint: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/satanfiling.pdf DOJ Brief: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/beast.pdf On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Jean Dudley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/11/bush-administra.html From the Wired article: The Amish farmers claim Michigan regulations requiring them to use radio frequency identification devices on their cattle constitutes some form of a 'mark of the beast' and/or represents an infringement of their 'dominion over cattle and all living things' in violation of their fundamental religious beliefs, according to the farmers' lawsuit filed in September in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Thoughts? Jean ___ 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: Mark of the beast lawsuit by Amish
Getting my grammatical pedant on: Shouldn't that be mark in (or on) the beast? As for references to Smith and Twombly, I'm in the utter dark. I'm just a photographer, after all. On Nov 14, 2008, at Fri, Nov 14, 11:10 AM, Marc Stern wrote: Plainly the use of id's on cattle is a mark of the beast. I am puzzled by Professor Masinter's s reference to Twombly-i don't see the relevance of the reference. Marc Stern From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:religionlaw- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 2:03 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Mark of the beast lawsuit by Amish Complaint: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/satanfiling.pdf DOJ Brief: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/beast.pdf On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Jean Dudley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/11/bush-administra.html From the Wired article: The Amish farmers claim Michigan regulations requiring them to use radio frequency identification devices on their cattle constitutes some form of a 'mark of the beast' and/or represents an infringement of their 'dominion over cattle and all living things' in violation of their fundamental religious beliefs, according to the farmers' lawsuit filed in September in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Thoughts? Jean ___ 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 that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: Mark of the beast lawsuit by Amish
The mark of the beast is drawn from Revelations 13:16-18 and refers to Satan's mark (666). David E. Guinn, JD, PhD Recent Publications Available from SSRN at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=199608 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Mark of the beast lawsuit by Amish Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 11:23:10 -0800 To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Getting my grammatical pedant on: Shouldn't that be mark in (or on) the beast? As for references to Smith and Twombly, I'm in the utter dark. I'm just a photographer, after all. On Nov 14, 2008, at Fri, Nov 14, 11:10 AM, Marc Stern wrote: Plainly the use of id's on cattle is a mark of the beast. I am puzzled by Professor Masinter's s reference to Twombly-i don't see the relevance of the reference. Marc Stern From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 2:03 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Mark of the beast lawsuit by Amish Complaint: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/satanfiling.pdf DOJ Brief: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/beast.pdf On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Jean Dudley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/11/bush-administra.html From the Wired article: The Amish farmers claimMichigan regulations requiring them to use radio frequency identification devices on their cattle constitutes some form of a 'mark of the beast' and/or represents an infringement of their 'dominion over cattle and all living things' in violation of their fundamental religious beliefs, according to the farmers' lawsuit filed in September in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Thoughts? Jean ___ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. _ Windows Live Hotmail now works up to 70% faster. http://windowslive.com/Explore/Hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_faster_112008___ 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: Mark of the beast lawsuit by Amish
A careful examination of the quoted text reveals that it is specific to human beings, both the recipients of the mark and the originator: And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: 17And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. 18Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six. Personally, while I am definitely familiar with the text, I am at a loss how the Amish can stretch it to include RFID chips in their cattle. Not withstanding, however, I don't think that biblical interpretation is at question here. The pertinent questions are Is Michigan requiring the implementation of RFID tags in cattle, and, if so, are the Amish exempt from the requirement under Michigan religious freedom law? Jean On Nov 14, 2008, at Fri, Nov 14, 11:33 AM, David E. Guinn wrote: The mark of the beast is drawn from Revelations 13:16-18 and refers to Satan's mark (666). David E. Guinn, JD, PhD Recent Publications Available from SSRN at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=199608 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Mark of the beast lawsuit by Amish Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 11:23:10 -0800 To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Getting my grammatical pedant on: Shouldn't that be mark in (or on) the beast? As for references to Smith and Twombly, I'm in the utter dark. I'm just a photographer, after all. On Nov 14, 2008, at Fri, Nov 14, 11:10 AM, Marc Stern wrote: Plainly the use of id's on cattle is a mark of the beast. I am puzzled by Professor Masinter's s reference to Twombly-i don't see the relevance of the reference. Marc Stern From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:religionlaw- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 2:03 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Mark of the beast lawsuit by Amish Complaint: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/satanfiling.pdf DOJ Brief: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/beast.pdf On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Jean Dudley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/11/bush-administra.html From the Wired article: The Amish farmers claim Michigan regulations requiring them to use radio frequency identification devices on their cattle constitutes some form of a 'mark of the beast' and/or represents an infringement of their 'dominion over cattle and all living things' in violation of their fundamental religious beliefs, according to the farmers' lawsuit filed in September in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Thoughts? Jean ___ 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. Windows Live Hotmail now works up to 70% faster. Sign up today. ___ 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: Mark of the beast lawsuit by Amish
I referred to Bell Atlantic v. Twombly because plaintiffs have sued both USDA and Michigan officials under RFRA despite City of Boerne v. Flores. The predicate for the RFRA claims is the conclusory allegation that Michigan is a puppet controlled by USDA, so that its actions properly can be imputed to the U.S. and brought within the surviving scope of RFRA. I understand Twombly's murky discussion of pleading requirements to sometimes require more than a conclusory allegation to meet Rule 8(a)(2)'s requirement of an allegation that shows the pleader is entitled to relief. Twombly seems to require the allegation of a plausible basis in fact for the asserted conclusion on which the right to relief hinges, at least when the conclusion alleged is contrary to common experience. The USDA regs explicitly make the tagging optional; therefore Michigan, not USDA would seem responsible for Michigan's decision to require tagging, and if so, beyond the reach of RFRA. The conclusory assertion that USDA is acting as puppeteer in the face of regulations that deprive them of that power strikes me as insufficient to meet Twombly's pleading requirements, as murky as they are. I have since read the USDA motion to dismiss; not suprisingly, like thousands of post Twombly motions to dismiss, it makes that very argument. Michael R. Masinter 3305 College Avenue Professor of Law Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314 Nova Southeastern University 954.262.6151 (voice) [EMAIL PROTECTED]954.262.3835 (fax) Visiting Professor of Law (2008-2009)305.284.3626 (voice) University of Miami Law School [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1311 Miller Drive Coral Gables, FL 33146 Quoting Marc Stern [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Plainly the use of id's on cattle is a mark of the beast. I am puzzled by Professor Masinter's s reference to Twombly-i don't see the relevance of the reference. Marc Stern From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 2:03 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Mark of the beast lawsuit by Amish Complaint: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/satanfiling.pdf DOJ Brief: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/beast.pdf On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Jean Dudley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/11/bush-administra.html From the Wired article: The Amish farmers claim Michigan regulations requiring them to use radio frequency identification devices on their cattle constitutes some form of a 'mark of the beast' and/or represents an infringement of their 'dominion over cattle and all living things' in violation of their fundamental religious beliefs, according to the farmers' lawsuit filed in September in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Thoughts? Jean ___ 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.
