|
I do not necessarily agree with the
argument ;I am simply reporting on its prominence at one time in the not so
distant past. Marc Stern From: The idea that the govt is responsible for
all that it does not prohibit must be treated with great care. It has the
potential of making govt responsible for all of life, and of eliminating the
sphere of private action. Taken far enough, it is totalitarian. Thus, for
example, the argument I heard at one AALS section meeting that Catholic refusal
to ordain women as priests violates the 14th Amendment, because the
govt's refusal to extend anti-discrim laws to churches results in church discrimination
being state action. Mark S. Scarberry -----Original Message----- That the failure to
regulate might constitute state action-as in failing to ban private
segregation- was one of the most hotly contested issues of the mid-sixties
civil right litigation>THE Supreme court ,if my memories of law school are
reliable, always dodged the question. It largely became moot as a result of the
1964 civil rights act. Marc Stern From: In a message dated 11/9/2004 5:00:06
PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Seems at least plausible that if you
can make that work, you can find state action in the failure of a local
government agency to prevent assaults on public sidewalks. After all,
they are public property. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ |
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
