In a message dated 10/16/2003 11:21:44 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Am I missing something on the standing question, or is this squarely governed by Flast v. Cohen's acceptance of taxpayer standing in Establishment Clause cases whether or not Newdow's relationship with his
Marty makes some very good points. The problem here is the Ten Commandments, which are not your typical monument. I have been assuming that the Ten Commandments were not the city's _expression_, but rather the Eagles'. If they are the city's _expression_, the city has an additional set of
In a message dated 10/12/2003 11:58:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Wouldn't NEA v. Finley support a similar argument?
Finley would help only on the theory that the limitation of decency was in place in
order to protect children. a limit that makes some sense when the
This strand has been particularly strained in my view, because there are, of course, a significant number of fundamentalist Mormons today who are polygamous in Utah, Arizona, and Nevada. One does not need a hypothetical change in belief in mainstream Mormonism to find individuals practicing
The Hibbs majority is in the mainstream of the Boerne reasoning, to be sure. What this proves is that the constant criticism of the Court's federalism jurisprudence as a political attack on civil rights in general was unfounded. As the Court has said repeatedly, the Civil Rights Acts are fine
