In Boerne v. Flores, Justice Stevens declared that the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act was unconstitutional as applied to the states because it
violated the establishment clause. If the historic landmark on the hill in
Boerne happened to be a museum or an art gallery owned by an atheist, it
I agree with what's been written, but I'm trying to make sense specifically
of Stevens. (I'm working on a paper on Stevens and the religion clauses.)
My question wasn't whether it's possible to reconcile the majority opinion
in Boerne with the majority opinion in O Centro. It clearly is. My
with him.
I have two questions for this august group:
1. If you could ask Mr. Welsh anything, what would you ask him?
2. Is anything known about the Supreme Court's internal
deliberations about the case?
Thanks for your help.
Andrew Koppelman
John
But, Rick, your first post seemed to depend on collapsing the distinction
that you're now insisting on. I gather the judge's order was
precisely against school-sponsored prayer. If that's right, then
you're right. The students weren't defying the court's order.
What they did was consistent with
? As best I can tell, this question never really occurs to
Howe. Is he being inconsistent here?
Andrew Koppelman
Professor of Law and Political Science
Northwestern University School of Law
357 East Chicago Avenue
Chicago, IL 60611-3069
(312) 503-8431
today?
- Original Message -
From: Andrew Koppelman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 3:21 PM
Subject: Re: Return to Dover
This evaluation is carefully
phrased to avoid either endorsing or rejecting
the Lemon test and
the Endorsement Test. If it had been overturned, it would only have been
with an explicit repudiation of the Lemon test or the endorsement tests,
or both. Of course, we'll never know for sure since it won't be appealed
Andrew Koppelman
that
it would not have been upheld.
I could justify these claims by summarizing the Court's reasoning, but I
won't waste your time by doing that, since the reasoning is laid out in the
opinion. If I'm wrong, I can be refuted by pointing to specific weaknesses
in the court's reasoning.
Andrew
If this is the distinction -- between responding to inquiries and
engaging on proselytization on his own initiative (and that distinction
makes sense to me) -- then Chaplain Klingenschmitt's problem is nicely
framed. Which side of the line would you put him on? Can't he
reasonably say that he
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.
Andrew Koppelman
out the ways in which
mini-RFRAs have been interpreted by the state courts? Or a study of the
interpretation of RFRA, as validly applied to federal law, in the federal
courts?
Thanks.
Andrew Koppelman
Professor of Law and Political Science
Northwestern
Andrew Koppelman
Professor of Law and Political Science
Northwestern University School of Law
357 East Chicago Avenue
Chicago, IL 60611-3069
(312) 503-8431
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
To post, send
12 matches
Mail list logo
