]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 8:49 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Locke v. Davey and expanded free exercise rights
I think Alan has made an interesting point here. The footnote
states
that
at least in some respects
I think Alan has made an interesting point here. The footnote states that "at least in some respects, [Washington's] constitution provides greater protection of relgious liberties than the Free Exercise Clause." First, I don't think it is unconstitutional for state constitutions, anymore than the
-Original
Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 8:49
AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Locke v. Davey and
expanded free exercise rights
I think
Alan has made an interesting point here. The footnote states
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 8:49 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Locke v. Davey and expanded free exercise rights
I think Alan has made an interesting point here. The footnote states
that
at least
Marc makes a good and perfectly fair point. The question for me is the relative balance of the burdens. Where there is a generally applicable law, that means that there is some harm the legislature was trying to prevent. Where it imposes a burden on religious entities, I think it is perfectly
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 8:49 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Locke v. Davey and expanded free exercise rights
I think Alan has made an interesting point here. The footnote states
that
at least in some respects, [Washington's
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 8:49 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Locke v. Davey and expanded free exercise rights
I think Alan has made an interesting point here. The footnote states
to the secular burden?
Marc Stern
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 8:49 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Locke v. Davey and expanded free exercise rights
I think
, in Locke.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 2:16 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Locke v. Davey and expanded free exercise rights
On the one hand, Alan is absolutely correct that the Court refers to
expansive
I wonder, Alan, if you could play this out a bit for me. Locke v. Davey stands for the proposition that disestablishment principles support carving back on benefits to religious groups from an otherwise generally applicable scheme. At the same time, it says those disestablishment principles do not
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March
01, 2004 2:06 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Locke v. Davey and
expanded free exercise rights
I wonder, Alan, if you could play
this out a bit for me. Locke
: Locke v. Davey and
expanded free exercise rights
Congress
was not even thinking of other landowners, because it is clueless when it comes
to land use law. Its only foray into land use has been to enforce
equality norms in the federal housing laws, not to meddle with setback,
traffic, and height
In a message dated 3/1/2004 4:42:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1,Congress was not clueless because the issue of impacts on communities was discussed in hearings Besides, many members of Congress started their political careers on zoning boards.
I missed that when I read
Had O'Connor written the opinion, I would have agreed with you, because she looks at cases case-by-case. But that is not the Chief's style. He has laid out those instances in which strict scrutiny applies, and all the examples he gives, he gives under the heading of hostility/animus. He is very
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Locke v. Davey and
expanded free exercise rights
Had O'Connor written the opinion, I
would have agreed with you, because she looks at cases case-by-case. But
that is not the Chief's style. He has laid out those instances in which
strict scrutiny applies, and all
Sorry for not being clearer, Marci. I'm not focusing on the holding in
Locke but only on the note about expansive free exercise rights under the
Washington constitution. I thought from some earlier posts quite a while
back that you believed that religious exemptions that were not limited to
04 2:16 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Locke v. Davey and expanded free exercise rights
On the one hand, Alan is absolutely correct that the Court refers to expansive state constitutional rights. On the other hand, the Court dramatically narrows the usefulness of Lukumi in atta
I was particularly pleased with footnote 8 in the majority opinion that
pointed out that Washington provides greater free exercise protection than
the federal constitution. Conceptually, this resonates with the argument
that there an important connection or equilibrium in interpreting the
PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004
2:16 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Locke v. Davey and
expanded free exercise rights
On the
one hand, Alan is absolutely correct that the Court refers to expansive state
constitutional
m.
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 2:15
PM
Subject: Re: Locke v. Davey and expanded
free exercise rights
On the one hand, Alan is absolutely correct
that the Court refers to expansive state c
20 matches
Mail list logo
