Assuming that the news reports of the President's
plea to the Vatican are accurate, see, e.g., http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_06_13.php#003064(President
allegedly asked for the Vatican's
help in encouraging the U.S. bishops to be more outspoken"on the cultural
front"),
In a message dated 6/14/2004 8:45:50 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm asking whether such conduct would be appropriate for a
President who took his constitutional obligations
seriously.
Does this
askforour intuitions on the appropriateness of such conduct
or a
"It is difficult (at least for me) to find even soft (non-justiciable)
reasons against such presidential conduct. This does not mean that I would
hesitate to vote against a president who asked the Popeto instruct
American bishops to denounce action I approve of."
Just so I understand, you
In a message dated 6/14/2004 10:23:48 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Just so I understand, you approve of Catholic politicians
taking communion against the express wishes of their Church and you would base
your vote on it?
The dilemma for the American
The Washington Post is reporting that all eight participating Justices
agreed that Newdow did not have standing.
David B. Cruz
Professor of Law
University of Southern California Law School
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0071
U.S.A.
___
To post, send message
But that is the dliemma discussed by the President and the Pope, so it has
everything to do with the peculiar question discussed on this listserv.
The position advocated by some on this listserv that the President cannot
communicate with (co-)religionists about matters of faith and morals, speak
I am perplexed. In what sense has the President asked the Pope to
pressure the Bishops to embrace some moral norm? As I understand it, the
United States Catholic Conference, with one voice, rejects the moral propriety
of killing unborn children (abortion). Are there known dissenters from
Justice Stevens wrote the Opinion
of a five-Justice Court, reversing the decision of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on standing grounds. Chief
Justice Rehnquist and Justices O'Connor and Thomas each wrote opinions concurring in the judgment,
concluding that Newdow did have
In a message dated 6/14/2004 10:53:37 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In what
sense has the President asked the Pope to pressure the Bishops to embrace some
moral norm?
Although Jim does not
say that I asserted this, just for the record, I never did. My post was a
In a message dated 6/14/2004 10:50:31 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But that
is the dliemma discussed by the President and the Pope, so it
haseverything to do with the peculiar question discussed on this
listserv.
My understanding of Marty's
question was
A question: Say that in the 1960s, the President told a group of white Protestant
leaders that they needed to tell their congregations to take seriously Christ's
teachings of human dignity, and to renounce racism and support civil rights. Or say
that in 2004 in an alternate universe,
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 7:03 AMTo:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: The President and the
Pope
In a message dated 6/14/2004 8:45:50 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm asking whether
I did not force you to discuss the denial of communion aspect of the story.
You did that yourself when you said:
This does not mean that I would hesitate to vote against a president who
asked the Pope to instruct American bishops to denounce action I approve
of.
The action that I approve of in
In a message dated 6/14/2004 11:49:23 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
did not
force you to discuss the denial of communion aspect of the story.You did
that yourself when you said:"This does not mean that I would hesitate
to vote against a president whoasked the
I have understood the distinction from the beginning of this
thread. I was just surprised that you "approved of" Kerry violating his
own Church's norms by receiving communion. Later in the thread, you made
clear that you have no horse in that battle, but you mangled my position.
I will
I don't wish to become entangled in this increasingly ad
hominem debate; andI suppose I regret starting the thread, seeing as how
the question appears to have been willfully misconstrued and turned to other
ends. But for what it's worth, I think it should be quite obvious from my
prior
I did not willfully misconstrue[] anyone's statements. Ad hominem indeed.
Spelling errors? Sorry.
As for your statement that this obviously involves something quite beyond a
public official acting in accord with his religious beliefs, I respectfully
disagree. I am a Roman Catholic and, if I
I would be happy with any of the below. Religion is a fact. No amount of
handwringing or tsk-tsking will change that. Speaking to religious
believers qua religious believers is a good thing and I am thankful that few
presidents have chosen to circumscribe their speech as some here would have
On Monday, June 14, 2004, at 02:04 PM, Will Linden wrote:
 Or if in 1967, the excommunication of Leander Perez has been preceded by a presidential colloquy seeking papal support for civil rights campaigns. (Sorry, but for years I have been driven up the wall by increasingly incoherent
Why? It is Virginia that has set up an establishment clause
defense to the federal act. The Act itself purports to protect Free Exercise
rights and Thomas does not contend these are not incorporated .And Thomas ash
also joined opinions suggesting that what is permitted accommodation is not
Justice Thomas, by the way, would also hold that
the Fourteenth Amendment does not incorporate the Establishment Clause:
"Quite simply, the Establishment Clause is best understood as a federalism
provision—it protects state establishments from federal interference but does
not protect any
I remember John Kennedy assuring the public during his presidential campaign
that he would not take orders from the Pope if he ever had to choose between
the Constitution and Roman Catholic doctrine. I find a candidate/official's
views on the interrelationship between religious institutions and
1. Section 3 of RLUIPA does not
purport to protect Free Exercise rights; i.e., it's not section 5
legislation. It is, instead, a statute that protects the manner in which
federal funds are used.
2. I agree that CT almost certainly would
agree that certain religious accommodations are not
Stevens creates a new prudential limitation on standing: it is improper for
the federal courts to entertain a claim by a plaintiff whose standing to sue
is founded on family law rights that are in dispute when prosecution of the
lawsuit may have an adverse effect on the person who is the source of
In the category of being hoist by one's own petard: A
friendly reader notes that I, too, misspelled "berserk." J
My sincerest apology.
- Original Message -
From:
Marty Lederman
To: Law Religion issues for Law
Academics
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 12:52
PM
I do NOT find it persuasive, however, when someone
proclaims TheChurch/TheChurches should stay out of politics,
and fails to explain why issues he differs with are politics
and those he espouses are not politics. I can only feel that
the wall of separation is differentially permeable. (The last
I have the feeling that this thread may have played itself out, but one
matter hasn't come up -- whether there's a difference between a public
statement soliciting support from religious leaders, etc., and a private
conversation in which such support is solicited (and whether, in a world
of
Mark apparently wanted to recollect what it's like
to take a law-school exam: He just finished parrying 26 Questions
(many of them with mulitple subparts!) on Newdow in one hour, in a
public QA on the Washington Post website:
Mark:
I would have thought that it was the other way around on the problematic score, no?
If Bush is looking for electoral support, wouldn't it be more advantageous to make a
public statement about the matter, rather than making what looks like a rather
innocuous comment to a Vatican official
My intuition is that openness matters, in constraining what
a politician will say. But I agree that we're dealing with
quite a marginal issue here.
- Original Message -
From: Richard Dougherty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Monday, June 14, 2004 5:51 pm
Subject: Re: The President and the Pope
I wonder how Bush would respond if the Bishops all said that no Catholic
voter should support a man who 1) vigorously endorses the death penalty,
whcih the church opposes, and as a chief executive did not do everything
in his power to oppose the death penalty and who did not use all his powers
Title: Message
It's always hard to argue with people's
imaginations, but I would assume that at least many of Bush's supporters would
simply say that the Catholic bishops have it wrong on the merits -- they're
entitled to express their religious views, but voters should disagree with those
There is some irony in this, since the Republican Party has never nominated
a Catholic for the presidency and in two campaigns many Republicans attacked
the Catholicism of the candidate (Al Smith and John F. Kennedy) as being
a tool of the Pope. I remember Republicans arguing that if elected
On 6/14/04 8:11 PM, Paul Finkelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
It is fascinating to see Bush pick and choose which Catholic
doctrine he likes; I am sure, however, that His Holiness can see through all
of this.
You're absolutely right. Picking and choosing Catholic doctrines one likes
is
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Volokh, Eugene wrote:
Now I don't want to constrain Paul's imagination, fascinat[ion], or
sense of irony -- all three of which are fine things to have, and give
ourselves a lot of pleasure. But as best I can tell, Paul's posts are
largely ways to express his contempt
I was trying to make the same point as David, but with a little levity.
(The point was: this stuff cuts both ways, so let's move on).
You guys are wound up a little too tight for me. So much for the stereotype
of laid back Californians. :-)
Frank
On 6/14/04 10:48 PM, David Cruz [EMAIL
Eugene, I can promise you, if I want to express my contempt for the Bush
administration, I will not, if you will excuse me, beat about the Bush, I
will be quite blunt.
No, I am merely pointing out the ironies of politics and history. I am
not entirely sure that the policies of Republicans in
Frank, I think your point misses the issue. It is not about whether particular
Catholics follow one rule or the next -- whether they use birth control in
their lives, or support choice, or support the death penalty, or think toruture
is a good public policy. My point is not about what the
Title: Re: The President and the Pope
Point taken.
Frank
On 6/15/04 12:02 AM, Paul Finkelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Frank, I think your point misses the issue. It is not about whether particular Catholics follow one rule or the next -- whether they use birth control in their lives, or
39 matches
Mail list logo
