The Texas municipal league and civil rights groups -- especially those protecting children's and women's and gay rights -- would disagree w the notion "substantial" is irrelevant. And the TX legislature had no interest, or so I am told by those groups on the ground in Texas. I don't want the listserv to have the impression that the state RFRA battles are being fought solely by law professors and religious lobbyists. The civil rights groups that initially backed RFRA have caught up to the agendas behind the veil
Marci A. Hamilton Verkuil Chair in Public Law Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School Yeshiva University @Marci_Hamilton On Dec 2, 2013, at 12:28 PM, "Douglas Laycock" <dlayc...@virginia.edu> wrote: > Apologies to anyone getting this twice; I think it bounced the first time. > > What I said is in the second letter (link below) and summarized in the e-mail > to which Marci responded. We supported the bill as drafted, without > “substantial;” I also suggested that the committee restore “substantial” if > it were bothered by the omission. I think most of my co-signers would have > agreed with that suggestion, but I don’t know that, because they were not > asked to sign the second letter. I said it didn’t matter much because the > substantiality of the burden would affect the inevitable balancing of burden > against government interest; Chris Lund’s recent post better documents that > explanation. > > Douglas Laycock > Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law > University of Virginia Law School > 580 Massie Road > Charlottesville, VA 22903 > 434-243-8546 > > From: hamilto...@aol.com [mailto:hamilto...@aol.com] > Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 10:18 AM > To: dlayc...@virginia.edu; religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > Subject: Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing "substantial" > as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs > > Thanks, Doug. The letter in support of the new TRFRA amendment bill, which > would have omitted "substantial" as a modifier, does not mention the removal > of > "substantial," but is in support of the bill. > > If there is anyone who signed it who opposes removal of "substantial," > please let me know. Otherwise, I will assume all > signatories have endorsed the removal of "substantial" as a modifier for > "burden." No need to respond if you support the bill as worded. > > Thanks all > > > > Marci A. Hamilton > Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law > Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law > Yeshiva University > 55 Fifth Avenue > New York, NY 10003 > (212) 790-0215 > http://sol-reform.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Douglas Laycock <dlayc...@virginia.edu> > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>; > hamilton02 <hamilto...@aol.com> > Sent: Sun, Dec 1, 2013 11:37 am > Subject: Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing "substantial" > as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs > > The presence or absence of the word "substantial" was briefly addressed in a > follow-up letter here: > > http://www.law.virginia.edu/pdf/faculty/laycock/texasreligfreedamdt2013senate2corrected.pdf > > I defended the word's omission. I also suggested that the Committee add it if > they thought it mattered. > > My apologies for the delay. There was an initial miscommunication with our > tech > people, and by the time they got this posted, I was caught up in Town of > Greece > and completely forgot to go back to this. > > On Sun, 1 Dec 2013 11:00:33 -0500 (EST) > hamilto...@aol.com wrote: > >Thanks Marty! > > > > > >Marci A. Hamilton > >Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law > >Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law > >Yeshiva University > >55 Fifth Avenue > >New York, NY 10003 > >(212) 790-0215 > >http://sol-reform.com > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
