Marty quotes a passage from
Roberts's casenote accept the Blaisdell majority's description of the
Contracts Clause as one of the Constitution's "general clauses, which afford a
broad outline" and therefore require "construction . . . to fill in the
details." Quite obviously, a central question is how Roberts, the Court,
or anyone else is supposed to discertn that the CC is "general" rather
than quite particular. There's certainly noting in the language itself to
suggest that "no law" doesn't mean "no law," as Hugo Black said was the case for
both the First Amendment AND the CC.
sandy
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note 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.
