Last week, we discussed the new immigration bill that will make it a felony
to assist an alien to remain in the United States. Religious and
secular humanitarian groups fear potential prosecution as a result of the
changes. Stuart Buck asked:
I dont know immigration law well enough to
Where would this end? Sabbatarians who observe a day of no work, including studies, would need an extra 16 days to prepare for classes? Or an extra reading period to prepare for exams? And it would need to be worked out so that they get the same number of days between each exams?How is the law
Hmm. Did you mean a "git"? Or an idiot? Or offspring in general? :)Context is all . . . .On Mar 24, 2006, at 1:30 PM, Volokh, Eugene wrote:http://vosizneias.blogspot.com/2006/03/gaithersburg-md-city-hall-got-involved.html: Gaithersburg, MD - City Hall Got Involved In A Man's Refusal To Give
the burden and compellingness are not absolutes. it is a weighing test with less burden needing to be shown if the state interest is slight and more compellingness needing to be shown if the burden is heavy.so I reject the linear sort of analysis Eugene's question posits. I think it reflects a
Thanks very much for the pointer -- any interest in briefly
summarizing the statutory construction argument, for those of us who
don't have the time to read the piece right now? Also, any thoughts
from others on this?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL
RFRA therefore seems to be an attempt to *require* courts to grant exemptions
(at least sometimes) *despite* this slippery
slope risk?
That's not my understanding. In assessing the state interest, surely the court
must evaluate the *entire class of persons who would be entitled to the
A few reactions:
1. Would courts see this as a Braunfeld v. Brown case? I.e. one in which
the state's rule does not directly conflict with (i.e. visit some legal
consequence as a result of) the religious duty -- as the Sunday closing law
did not directly conflict with the Orthodox shopkeepers'
I appreciate Marty's point on this, and I agree that courts must
consider the degree to which exempting similarly situated plaintiffs
(which I take it includes the category of those whose situations
couldn't readily be distinguished) would undermine the government
interest. But I had
the article in html version is herehttp://iipsj.com/SDJ/scholarship/logiclawrfra.htmlthe argument is essentially that as soon as you get into the inquiry of what is substantial, you are weighing factors. same for compelling -- as soon as you try to figure out what is compelling, you are weighing
Prof. Lon Fuller used to say, so long as you have judges, you cannot
stop them from using their judgment. And I think that is the case here.
I assume that if an in-class exam were scheduled for Saturday,
rescheduling it for a Sabbatarian would likely be required. On the
other hand, if students
If the student with the 24-hour flu gets an exception, the Sabbatarian
probably has a free exercise claim and not just a RFRA claim.
I agree with Steve that any sensible application of the compelling
interest inevitably leads to a form of balancing with extra weight on
the side of the individual
Doug Laycock writes:
If the student with the 24-hour flu gets an exception, the
Sabbatarian probably has a free exercise claim and not just a
RFRA claim.
(1) Is this quite right on the facts? A 24-hour flu will
likely make the sufferer *less* productive in the days that follow
I briefly talk about the uses of centrality in The Remnants of Free
Exercise, 1990 Sup. Ct. Rev. 1, 31-33. It is true, as Eugene says and I
did not, that magnitude of burden does not directly equate to
centrality. A second and I think more fundamental point, is that what
Scalia rejected in Smith
The fear of overaccommodating raises a legitimate factual issue;
I am inclined to think, without claiming that the case is easy or clear,
that if we believe the Sabbatarian when he says he will do no work on
the Sabbath, giving him the extra day comes closest to treating him
fairly with
That's very helpful, Chris. So, please allow me to repeat the question I asked
last week, which did not prompt any responses then: If the new statute would,
indeed, impinge on churches' religious missions as much as Chris's post
suggests, then can/must/should Congress enact a religious
Isn't Gonzales v. O Centro rather more helpful than either Sherbert or
Yoder?
-Original Message-
From: Volokh, Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 1:09 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Sabbatarians and deadlines
(1) I
For a story about a religious youth gathering (of 25,000 teens at a San
Francisco park), and an official City (and County) of San Francisco
condemnation of the gathering, see
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/25/MNG6OHU6RR1.DTL.
The story includes a statement from a state
TAKE THAT WOMAN OUT AND *GAFIATE* HER!
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006, Jean Dudley wrote:
On Mar 27, 2006, at 8:05 AM, Steven Jamar wrote:
Hmm. Did you mean a git? Or an idiot? Or offspring in general? :)
Context is all . . .
*blink*
Surely you are kidding. Even this schiksa knows even a
Title: RE: Another Catholic Charities Issue
Don Byrd at Blog From
the Capital reports tonight that the Senate Judiciary Committee
hasapproved an amendment to the immigration reform bill that would exempt
charitable organizations and local churches providing humanitarian assistance
to
The AP reports, http://www.beliefnet.com/story/188/story_18830_1.html:
A small Easter display was removed from the City Hall lobby on
Wednesday out of concern that it would offend non-Christians.
The display -- a cloth Easter bunny, pastel-colored eggs and a sign
with the words 'Happy Easter' --
I can't tell from the news story whether the bunny was part of
the secretary's personal space or whether it was in a space
concededly under the control of the city council, although the
story suggests the latter (it appears that the city council
president directed that the bunny be removed,
21 matches
Mail list logo
