Re: Connecticut bill

[Douglas Laycock]

Fair enough.  I did not take offense.  I haven't seen the full page ad. 

Quoting hamilto...@aol.com:

> For the record I was not asking about money.  I was just struck by 
> the bishops full page newspaper ad and wondered what else they might 
> have done in response to a clearly unconstl law..  No offense at all 
> intended.
> Marci
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> -Original Message-
> From: "Marc Stern" 
>
> Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 15:34:16
> To: 
> Subject: Re: Connecticut bill
>
>
> ___
> 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[1]
>
> 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[2]
>
> 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.
>
>
>

Douglas Laycock
Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law
University of Michigan Law School
625 S. State St.
Ann Arbor, MI  48109-1215
  734-647-9713

Links:
--
[1] http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
[2] http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw___
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.

Re: Connecticut bill

[hamilton02]

For the record I was not asking about money.  I was just struck by the bishops 
full page newspaper ad and wondered what else they might have done in response 
to a clearly unconstl law..  No offense at all intended.
Marci
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-Original Message-
From: "Marc Stern" 

Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 15:34:16 
To: 
Subject: Re: Connecticut bill


___
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.

Re: Connecticut bill

[hamilton02]

Thanks, Doug.  

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-Original Message-
From: Douglas Laycock 

Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 14:51:09 
To: 
Subject: Connecticut bill


___
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.

Re: Connecticut bill

[Marc Stern]

The american jewish congress also filed a statement opposing the bill. 
Unfortunately we were not paid for our efforts either_and we could use the money
Marc stern

- Original Message -
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu 
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 
Sent: Thu Mar 12 14:51:09 2009
Subject: Connecticut bill

The bishops have their own lawyers.  They did not commission the law 
professor's letter, and no one but the signers had any input into its content.  
Marci, even you agree that this bill was "plainly unconstitutional," so it did 
not take a conspiracy of bishops to get me to say so.

If the real  question is whether anyone was paid to write that letter, the 
answer is no.  Not a penny.  I had no client that I could have billed, and even 
if I did, I do not bill commercial rates to clients on public interest matters. 
  Usually, I do not bill public interest clients at all.

Many people who saw the bill thought it was obviously unconstitutional, and 
they began turning for help in all directions.  I heard about it from Catholic 
lawyers, Protestant lawyers, two different list serves, and a Professor at at 
the Yale Law School.  No doubt the Connecticut bishops were encouraging their 
representatives to spread the word and seek help, and there may well be a chain 
of communications that leads back to the bishops.  But I cannot reconstruct 
that chain, they did not contact me directly, and no one in Connecticut 
answered my e-mail when I tried to ask a question about one of the details in 
the bill.  As far as I know, they had never heard of me and had other 
communications that seemed more important to attend to.  

The idea to circulate a draft for additional signatures was my own.  Many of 
the people I sent it to already knew about it; some heard about it from me.

 

 

Quoting hamilto...@aol.com:

> I would like to ask a point of information on the law profs letter to 
> Conn legis.  I am wondering if it was formally or informally 
> commissioned by the bishops.
> Marci
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> -Original Message-
> From: "Marc Stern" 
>
> Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:21:28
> To: 
> Subject: Re: NY Religious Corporations Law
>
>
> ___
> 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.
>
>
>


 

Douglas Laycock
Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law
University of Michigan Law School
625 S. State St.
Ann Arbor, MI  48109-1215
  734-647-9713

___
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.

Connecticut bill

[Douglas Laycock]

The bishops have their own lawyers.  They did not commission the law 
professor's letter, and no one but the signers had any input into its content.  
Marci, even you agree that this bill was "plainly unconstitutional," so it did 
not take a conspiracy of bishops to get me to say so. 

If the real  question is whether anyone was paid to write that letter, the 
answer is no.  Not a penny.  I had no client that I could have billed, and even 
if I did, I do not bill commercial rates to clients on public interest matters. 
  Usually, I do not bill public interest clients at all. 

Many people who saw the bill thought it was obviously unconstitutional, and 
they began turning for help in all directions.  I heard about it from Catholic 
lawyers, Protestant lawyers, two different list serves, and a Professor at at 
the Yale Law School.  No doubt the Connecticut bishops were encouraging their 
representatives to spread the word and seek help, and there may well be a chain 
of communications that leads back to the bishops.  But I cannot reconstruct 
that chain, they did not contact me directly, and no one in Connecticut 
answered my e-mail when I tried to ask a question about one of the details in 
the bill.  As far as I know, they had never heard of me and had other 
communications that seemed more important to attend to.   

The idea to circulate a draft for additional signatures was my own.  Many of 
the people I sent it to already knew about it; some heard about it from me. 

Quoting hamilto...@aol.com:

> I would like to ask a point of information on the law profs letter to 
> Conn legis.  I am wondering if it was formally or informally 
> commissioned by the bishops.
> Marci
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> -Original Message-
> From: "Marc Stern" 
>
> Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:21:28
> To: 
> Subject: Re: NY Religious Corporations Law
>
>
> ___
> 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[1]
>
> 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[2]
>
> 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.
>
>
>

Douglas Laycock
Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law
University of Michigan Law School
625 S. State St.
Ann Arbor, MI  48109-1215
  734-647-9713

Links:
--
[1] http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
[2] http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw___
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.

RE: Connecticut bill

[Marc Stern]

In New York, a religious institution is generally permitted to register under 
the secular not for profit corporation law.



From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu 
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Friedman, Howard M.
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 2:54 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Connecticut bill



To the extent that the entire NY Religious Corporations Law is mandatory, as 
opposed to merely default provisions that apply in the absence of contrary 
rules in the organization's charter or bylaws, I think there are serious 
constitutional issues with very many of the internal governance provisions.

 

*
Howard M. Friedman 
Disting. Univ. Professor Emeritus
University of Toledo College of Law
Toledo, OH 43606-3390 
Phone: (419) 530-2911, FAX (419) 530-4732 
E-mail: howard.fried...@utoledo.edu 
* 



From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu 
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of SAMUEL M. KRIEGER
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 1:11 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Connecticut bill

 

Just for the sake of perspective  on the proposed Connecticut legislation, I 
would welcome any comments on  Section 200   of   the New York Religious 
Corporations Law (codified in Article 10  applicable to "Other Denominations" - 
including Jewish Congregations ) compared  to sub- sections (e) and (h) of the 
proposed Connecticut legislation.

 

--

 

"§  200.  Control  of  trustees  by  corporate  meetings;  salaries  of
  ministers. 

 

  A  corporate  meeting  of  an  incorporated  church,  whose
  trustees  are  elective  as  such, may give directions, not inconsistent
  with law, as to the manner in which any of the temporal affairs  of  the
  church   shall  be  administered  by  the  trustees  thereof;  and  such
  directions shall be  followed  by  the  trustees.  The  trustees  of  an
  incorporated  church  to which this article is applicable, shall have no
  power to settle or remove or fix the salary of the minister, or  without
  the  consent  of  a  corporate  meeting,  to  incur debts beyond what is
  necessary for the care of the property of the corporation; or to fix  or
  charge the time, nature or order of the public or social worship of such
  church,  except  when  such  trustees are also the spiritual officers of
  such church."  (emphasis supplied) 


 

The provison  has been  in   NY law in some form since 1813 and was  last  
amended in 1909 .

 

 

SAMUEL M. KRIEGER,ESQ.
Krieger & Prager LLP
39 Broadway
New York, NY 10006

___
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.

RE: Connecticut bill

[Friedman, Howard M.]

To the extent that the entire NY Religious Corporations Law is mandatory, as 
opposed to merely default provisions that apply in the absence of contrary 
rules in the organization's charter or bylaws, I think there are serious 
constitutional issues with very many of the internal governance provisions.

 

*
Howard M. Friedman 
Disting. Univ. Professor Emeritus
University of Toledo College of Law
Toledo, OH 43606-3390 
Phone: (419) 530-2911, FAX (419) 530-4732 
E-mail: howard.fried...@utoledo.edu 
* 



From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu 
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of SAMUEL M. KRIEGER
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 1:11 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Connecticut bill

 

Just for the sake of perspective  on the proposed Connecticut legislation, I 
would welcome any comments on  Section 200   of   the New York Religious 
Corporations Law (codified in Article 10  applicable to "Other Denominations" - 
including Jewish Congregations ) compared  to sub- sections (e) and (h) of the 
proposed Connecticut legislation.

 

--

 

"§  200.  Control  of  trustees  by  corporate  meetings;  salaries  of
  ministers. 

 

  A  corporate  meeting  of  an  incorporated  church,  whose
  trustees  are  elective  as  such, may give directions, not inconsistent
  with law, as to the manner in which any of the temporal affairs  of  the
  church   shall  be  administered  by  the  trustees  thereof;  and  such
  directions shall be  followed  by  the  trustees.  The  trustees  of  an
  incorporated  church  to which this article is applicable, shall have no
  power to settle or remove or fix the salary of the minister, or  without
  the  consent  of  a  corporate  meeting,  to  incur debts beyond what is
  necessary for the care of the property of the corporation; or to fix  or
  charge the time, nature or order of the public or social worship of such
  church,  except  when  such  trustees are also the spiritual officers of
  such church."  (emphasis supplied) 


 

The provison  has been  in   NY law in some form since 1813 and was  last  
amended in 1909 .

 

 

SAMUEL M. KRIEGER,ESQ.
Krieger & Prager LLP
39 Broadway
New York, NY 10006

___
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.

Re: Connecticut bill

[Will Linden]

  I have plenty of comments on it, as an officer of one of the "other 
churches", after the court seemed to contrive a new hoop for us to jump 
through every week; but they probably would not get past the moderator. 
"We're from the government, we're here to protect you."


  (Ironically, our church in Boston, where there is no such statute, might 
have benefited from some "protection".)



On Wed, 11 Mar 2009, SAMUEL M. KRIEGER wrote:


Just for the sake of perspective  on the proposed Connecticut legislation, I would 
welcome any comments on  Section 200   of   the New York Religious Corporations Law 
(codified in Article 10  applicable to "Other Denominations" - including Jewish 
Congregations ) compared  to sub- sections (e) and (h) of the proposed Connecticut 
legislation.

--

"§  200.  Control  of  trustees  by  corporate  meetings;  salaries  of
 ministers.

 A  corporate  meeting  of  an  incorporated  church,  whose
 trustees  are  elective  as  such, may give directions, not inconsistent
 with law, as to the manner in which any of the temporal affairs  of  the
 church   shall  be  administered  by  the  trustees  thereof;  and  such
 directions shall be  followed  by  the  trustees.  The  trustees  of  an
 incorporated  church  to which this article is applicable, shall have no
 power to settle or remove or fix the salary of the minister, or  without
 the  consent  of  a  corporate  meeting,  to  incur debts beyond what is
 necessary for the care of the property of the corporation; or to fix  or
 charge the time, nature or order of the public or social worship of such
 church,  except  when  such  trustees are also the spiritual officers of
 such church."  (emphasis supplied)


The provison  has been  in   NY law in some form since 1813 and was  last  
amended in 1909 .


SAMUEL M. KRIEGER,ESQ.
Krieger & Prager LLP
39 Broadway
New York, NY 10006



Will Linden  wlin...@panix.com
http://www.ecben.net/
Magic Code: MAS/GD S++ W++ N+ PWM++ Ds/r+ A-> a++ C+ G- QO++ 666 Y___
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.

Re: Connecticut bill

[SAMUEL M. KRIEGER]

Just for the sake of perspective  on the proposed Connecticut legislation, I 
would welcome any comments on  Section 200   of   the New York Religious 
Corporations Law (codified in Article 10  applicable to "Other Denominations" - 
including Jewish Congregations ) compared  to sub- sections (e) and (h) of the 
proposed Connecticut legislation.

--

"§  200.  Control  of  trustees  by  corporate  meetings;  salaries  of
  ministers. 

  A  corporate  meeting  of  an  incorporated  church,  whose
  trustees  are  elective  as  such, may give directions, not inconsistent
  with law, as to the manner in which any of the temporal affairs  of  the
  church   shall  be  administered  by  the  trustees  thereof;  and  such
  directions shall be  followed  by  the  trustees.  The  trustees  of  an
  incorporated  church  to which this article is applicable, shall have no
  power to settle or remove or fix the salary of the minister, or  without
  the  consent  of  a  corporate  meeting,  to  incur debts beyond what is
  necessary for the care of the property of the corporation; or to fix  or
  charge the time, nature or order of the public or social worship of such
  church,  except  when  such  trustees are also the spiritual officers of
  such church."  (emphasis supplied) 


The provison  has been  in   NY law in some form since 1813 and was  last  
amended in 1909 .


SAMUEL M. KRIEGER,ESQ.
Krieger & Prager LLP
39 Broadway
New York, NY 10006
___
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.

Re: Connecticut bill

[Steven Jamar]

you are welcome -- and thanks for the current best info on the origin of the
phrase.

steve

On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Douglas Laycock  wrote:

> Thanks, Steve.
>
> I was one of those people who once attributed "eternal vigilance is the
> price of liberty" to Jefferson.  In belatedly tracking down a footnote, I
> found an earlier source than Wendell Phillips for the core of the idea, if
> not the pithy and commonly remembered phrasing.
>
> "The condition upon which god hath given liberty to man is eternal
> vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence
> of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
>
>John Philpot Curran, Speech upon the Right
> of Election of the Lord Mayor of Dublin, July 10, 1790
>
> This according to Bartlett's 16th edition.
>
>
>
> Quoting Steven Jamar :
>
> > Well done, Doug et al.
> >
> > While the signers of the letter disagree on a topic or two in the
> > area  of religious freedom and constitutional interpretation of the
> > religion  clauses, there is a huge breadth of space over which they
> > and I  suspect nearly all constitutional law experts agree.  This is
> > clearly  one of the easy ones.
> >
> > Con Law books emphasize boundaries and hard cases.  I regularly try
> > to  draw my students back to thinking about just how much is in fact
> > settled and how clearly constitutional most of the efforts of
> > Congress, the Court, the Executive, and the states in fact are.
> > While  the areas of dispute are oftentimes very important, we can
> > sometimes  (and maybe generally do) exaggerate their importance
> > because they are  the hot issues of the moment.  This bill, the
> > response to it, and  Doug's letter serve to remind us that we agree
> > on much.
> >
> > They also serve to remind us that even in settled, clear areas,
> > people, whether well-meaning or otherwise, can act improperly and
> > that  indeed the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Wendell
> > Phillips  (1811?84) http://www.bartleby.com/73/1073.html (often
> > attributed to  Thomas Jefferson, though no one has found where he
> > said or wrote it).
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > --
> > Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox:  202-806-8017
> > Associate Director, Institute of Intellectual Property and Social
> > Justice http://iipsj.org
> > Howard University School of Law   fax:  202-806-8567
> > http://iipsj.com/SDJ/
> >
> > "Nothing that is worth anything can be achieved in a lifetime;
> > therefore we must be saved by hope."
> >
> > Reinhold Neibuhr
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mar 10, 2009, at 5:29 PM, Douglas Laycock wrote:
> >
> >> Earlier today we discussed a bill in Connecticut to impose
> >> Protestant forms of church governance on the Catholic Church.  The
> >> bill has been pulled and tomorrow's hearing has been cancelled,
> >> apparently due to a flood of calls to legislators.  Church leaders
> >> in Connecticut are not convinced that the issue is fully dead.
> >> Maybe they are right; maybe they are just being cautious.
> >>
> >> If the link below actually works, you can find there a copy of the
> >> bill, and a copy of a letter that twelve of us sent to the Committee
> >>  Co-Chairs.  We cannot take credit for killing the bill; they
> >> apparently pulled it before our letter was delivered.  I hope we can
> >>  take credit for a good explanation of why it is clearly
> >> unconstitutional.
> >>
> >> http://www-personal.umich.edu/~laycockd/
> >>
> >> The breadth of agreement that this one was unconstitutional, which
> >> extends far beyond the signers of this letter, is encouraging.
> >>
> >> Douglas Laycock
> >> Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law
> >> University of Michigan Law School
> >> 625 S. State St.
> >> Ann Arbor, MI  48109-1215
> >>  734-647-9713___
> >> 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.
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Douglas Laycock
> Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law
> University of Michigan Law School
> 625 S. State St.
> Ann Arbor, MI  48109-1215
>   734-647-9713
>
> ___
> 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 m

RE: Connecticut bill

[James Maule]

It is possible that they weren't thinking.

Jim Maule

-Original Message-
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu 
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Alan Leigh Armstrong
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 7:52 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Connecticut bill

The fun is in the matters that are close to the line.

"Whenever the law draws a line, there will be cases very near each  
other on opposite sides. The precise course of the line may be  
uncertain, but no one can come near it without knowing that he does  
so" Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. U.S. v. Wurzbach (1930) 280 US 396.

On the other hand there are those cases that are so far from the line  
that, even if you are on the side of the offending party, you wonder:  
"WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?"

Alan Armstrong

Law Office of Alan Leigh Armstrong
Serving the Family and Small Business Since 1984
18652 Florida St., Suite 225
Huntington Beach CA 92648-6006
714-375-1147  Fax 714-782 6007
a...@alanarmstrong.com
alanarmstrong@verizon.net
KE6LLN
All documents prepared on Macintosh computers to look better



On Mar 10, 2009, at 3:40 PM, Steven Jamar wrote:

> Well done, Doug et al.
>
> While the signers of the letter disagree on a topic or two in the  
> area of religious freedom and constitutional interpretation of the  
> religion clauses, there is a huge breadth of space over which they  
> and I suspect nearly all constitutional law experts agree.  This is  
> clearly one of the easy ones.
>
> Con Law books emphasize boundaries and hard cases.  I regularly try  
> to draw my students back to thinking about just how much is in fact  
> settled and how clearly constitutional most of the efforts of  
> Congress, the Court, the Executive, and the states in fact are.   
> While the areas of dispute are oftentimes very important, we can  
> sometimes (and maybe generally do) exaggerate their importance  
> because they are the hot issues of the moment.  This bill, the  
> response to it, and Doug's letter serve to remind us that we agree  
> on much.
>
> They also serve to remind us that even in settled, clear areas,  
> people, whether well-meaning or otherwise, can act improperly and  
> that indeed the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Wendell  
> Phillips (1811-84) http://www.bartleby.com/73/1073.html (often  
> attributed to Thomas Jefferson, though no one has found where he  
> said or wrote it).
>
> Thanks.
>
> Steve
>
>
> -- 
> Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox:  202-806-8017
> Associate Director, Institute of Intellectual Property and Social  
> Justice http://iipsj.org
> Howard University School of Law   fax:  202-806-8567
> http://iipsj.com/SDJ/
>
>
>
> "Nothing that is worth anything can be achieved in a lifetime;  
> therefore we must be saved by hope."
>
> Reinhold Neibuhr
>
>
>
> On Mar 10, 2009, at 5:29 PM, Douglas Laycock wrote:
>
>> Earlier today we discussed a bill in Connecticut to impose  
>> Protestant forms of church governance on the Catholic Church.  The  
>> bill has been pulled and tomorrow's hearing has been cancelled,  
>> apparently due to a flood of calls to legislators.  Church leaders  
>> in Connecticut are not convinced that the issue is fully dead.   
>> Maybe they are right; maybe they are just being cautious.
>>
>> If the link below actually works, you can find there a copy of the  
>> bill, and a copy of a letter that twelve of us sent to the  
>> Committee Co-Chairs.  We cannot take credit for killing the bill;  
>> they apparently pulled it before our letter was delivered.  I hope  
>> we can take credit for a good explanation of why it is clearly  
>> unconstitutional.
>>
>> http://www-personal.umich.edu/~laycockd/
>>
>> The breadth of agreement that this one was unconstitutional, which  
>> extends far beyond the signers of this letter, is encouraging.
>>
>> Douglas Laycock
>> Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law
>> University of Michigan Law School
>> 625 S. State St.
>> Ann Arbor, MI  48109-1215
>>   734-647-9713
>>
>> ___
>> 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.
>
> _

Re: Connecticut bill

[Douglas Laycock]

Thanks, Steve. 

I was one of those people who once attributed "eternal vigilance is the price 
of liberty" to Jefferson.  In belatedly tracking down a footnote, I found an 
earlier source than Wendell Phillips for the core of the idea, if not the pithy 
and commonly remembered phrasing. 

"The condition upon which god hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; 
which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime 
and the punishment of his guilt." 

   John Philpot Curran, Speech upon the Right of 
Election of the Lord Mayor of Dublin, July 10, 1790 

This according to Bartlett's 16th edition. 

Quoting Steven Jamar :

> Well done, Doug et al.
>
> While the signers of the letter disagree on a topic or two in the 
> area  of religious freedom and constitutional interpretation of the 
> religion  clauses, there is a huge breadth of space over which they 
> and I  suspect nearly all constitutional law experts agree.  This is 
> clearly  one of the easy ones.
>
> Con Law books emphasize boundaries and hard cases.  I regularly try 
> to  draw my students back to thinking about just how much is in fact  
> settled and how clearly constitutional most of the efforts of  
> Congress, the Court, the Executive, and the states in fact are.  
> While  the areas of dispute are oftentimes very important, we can 
> sometimes  (and maybe generally do) exaggerate their importance 
> because they are  the hot issues of the moment.  This bill, the 
> response to it, and  Doug's letter serve to remind us that we agree 
> on much.
>
> They also serve to remind us that even in settled, clear areas,  
> people, whether well-meaning or otherwise, can act improperly and 
> that  indeed the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Wendell 
> Phillips  (1811?84) http://www.bartleby.com/73/1073.html[1] (often 
> attributed to  Thomas Jefferson, though no one has found where he 
> said or wrote it).
>
> Thanks.
>
> Steve
>
> -- 
> Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox:  202-806-8017
> Associate Director, Institute of Intellectual Property and Social  
> Justice http://iipsj.org[2]
> Howard University School of Law   fax:  202-806-8567
> http://iipsj.com/SDJ/[3]
>
> "Nothing that is worth anything can be achieved in a lifetime;  
> therefore we must be saved by hope."
>
> Reinhold Neibuhr
>
>
>
> On Mar 10, 2009, at 5:29 PM, Douglas Laycock wrote:
>
>> Earlier today we discussed a bill in Connecticut to impose  
>> Protestant forms of church governance on the Catholic Church.  The  
>> bill has been pulled and tomorrow's hearing has been cancelled,  
>> apparently due to a flood of calls to legislators.  Church leaders  
>> in Connecticut are not convinced that the issue is fully dead.   
>> Maybe they are right; maybe they are just being cautious.
>>
>> If the link below actually works, you can find there a copy of the  
>> bill, and a copy of a letter that twelve of us sent to the Committee 
>>  Co-Chairs.  We cannot take credit for killing the bill; they  
>> apparently pulled it before our letter was delivered.  I hope we can 
>>  take credit for a good explanation of why it is clearly  
>> unconstitutional.
>>
>> http://www-personal.umich.edu/~laycockd/[4]
>>
>> The breadth of agreement that this one was unconstitutional, which  
>> extends far beyond the signers of this letter, is encouraging.
>>
>> Douglas Laycock
>> Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law
>> University of Michigan Law School
>> 625 S. State St.
>> Ann Arbor, MI  48109-1215
>>  734-647-9713___
>> 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[5]
>>
>> 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.
>
>

Douglas Laycock
Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law
University of Michigan Law School
625 S. State St.
Ann Arbor, MI  48109-1215
  734-647-9713

Links:
--
[1] http://www.bartleby.com/73/1073.html
[2] http://iipsj.org/
[3] http://iipsj.com/SDJ/
[4] http://www-personal.umich.edu/~laycockd/
[5] http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw___
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.

Re: Connecticut bill

[Alan Leigh Armstrong]

The fun is in the matters that are close to the line.

"Whenever the law draws a line, there will be cases very near each  
other on opposite sides. The precise course of the line may be  
uncertain, but no one can come near it without knowing that he does  
so…." Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. U.S. v. Wurzbach (1930) 280 US 396.

On the other hand there are those cases that are so far from the line  
that, even if you are on the side of the offending party, you wonder:  
"WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?"

Alan Armstrong

Law Office of Alan Leigh Armstrong
Serving the Family and Small Business Since 1984
18652 Florida St., Suite 225
Huntington Beach CA 92648-6006
714-375-1147  Fax 714-782 6007
a...@alanarmstrong.com
alanarmstrong@verizon.net
KE6LLN
All documents prepared on Macintosh computers to look better



On Mar 10, 2009, at 3:40 PM, Steven Jamar wrote:

> Well done, Doug et al.
>
> While the signers of the letter disagree on a topic or two in the  
> area of religious freedom and constitutional interpretation of the  
> religion clauses, there is a huge breadth of space over which they  
> and I suspect nearly all constitutional law experts agree.  This is  
> clearly one of the easy ones.
>
> Con Law books emphasize boundaries and hard cases.  I regularly try  
> to draw my students back to thinking about just how much is in fact  
> settled and how clearly constitutional most of the efforts of  
> Congress, the Court, the Executive, and the states in fact are.   
> While the areas of dispute are oftentimes very important, we can  
> sometimes (and maybe generally do) exaggerate their importance  
> because they are the hot issues of the moment.  This bill, the  
> response to it, and Doug's letter serve to remind us that we agree  
> on much.
>
> They also serve to remind us that even in settled, clear areas,  
> people, whether well-meaning or otherwise, can act improperly and  
> that indeed the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Wendell  
> Phillips (1811–84) http://www.bartleby.com/73/1073.html (often  
> attributed to Thomas Jefferson, though no one has found where he  
> said or wrote it).
>
> Thanks.
>
> Steve
>
>
> -- 
> Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox:  202-806-8017
> Associate Director, Institute of Intellectual Property and Social  
> Justice http://iipsj.org
> Howard University School of Law   fax:  202-806-8567
> http://iipsj.com/SDJ/
>
>
>
> "Nothing that is worth anything can be achieved in a lifetime;  
> therefore we must be saved by hope."
>
> Reinhold Neibuhr
>
>
>
> On Mar 10, 2009, at 5:29 PM, Douglas Laycock wrote:
>
>> Earlier today we discussed a bill in Connecticut to impose  
>> Protestant forms of church governance on the Catholic Church.  The  
>> bill has been pulled and tomorrow's hearing has been cancelled,  
>> apparently due to a flood of calls to legislators.  Church leaders  
>> in Connecticut are not convinced that the issue is fully dead.   
>> Maybe they are right; maybe they are just being cautious.
>>
>> If the link below actually works, you can find there a copy of the  
>> bill, and a copy of a letter that twelve of us sent to the  
>> Committee Co-Chairs.  We cannot take credit for killing the bill;  
>> they apparently pulled it before our letter was delivered.  I hope  
>> we can take credit for a good explanation of why it is clearly  
>> unconstitutional.
>>
>> http://www-personal.umich.edu/~laycockd/
>>
>> The breadth of agreement that this one was unconstitutional, which  
>> extends far beyond the signers of this letter, is encouraging.
>>
>> Douglas Laycock
>> Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law
>> University of Michigan Law School
>> 625 S. State St.
>> Ann Arbor, MI  48109-1215
>>   734-647-9713
>>
>> ___
>> 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.

___
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

Re: Connecticut bill

[Steven Jamar]

Well done, Doug et al.

While the signers of the letter disagree on a topic or two in the area  
of religious freedom and constitutional interpretation of the religion  
clauses, there is a huge breadth of space over which they and I  
suspect nearly all constitutional law experts agree.  This is clearly  
one of the easy ones.


Con Law books emphasize boundaries and hard cases.  I regularly try to  
draw my students back to thinking about just how much is in fact  
settled and how clearly constitutional most of the efforts of  
Congress, the Court, the Executive, and the states in fact are.  While  
the areas of dispute are oftentimes very important, we can sometimes  
(and maybe generally do) exaggerate their importance because they are  
the hot issues of the moment.  This bill, the response to it, and  
Doug's letter serve to remind us that we agree on much.


They also serve to remind us that even in settled, clear areas,  
people, whether well-meaning or otherwise, can act improperly and that  
indeed the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Wendell Phillips  
(1811–84) http://www.bartleby.com/73/1073.html (often attributed to  
Thomas Jefferson, though no one has found where he said or wrote it).


Thanks.

Steve

--
Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox:  202-806-8017
Associate Director, Institute of Intellectual Property and Social  
Justice http://iipsj.org

Howard University School of Law   fax:  202-806-8567
http://iipsj.com/SDJ/

"Nothing that is worth anything can be achieved in a lifetime;  
therefore we must be saved by hope."


Reinhold Neibuhr



On Mar 10, 2009, at 5:29 PM, Douglas Laycock wrote:

Earlier today we discussed a bill in Connecticut to impose  
Protestant forms of church governance on the Catholic Church.  The  
bill has been pulled and tomorrow's hearing has been cancelled,  
apparently due to a flood of calls to legislators.  Church leaders  
in Connecticut are not convinced that the issue is fully dead.   
Maybe they are right; maybe they are just being cautious.


If the link below actually works, you can find there a copy of the  
bill, and a copy of a letter that twelve of us sent to the Committee  
Co-Chairs.  We cannot take credit for killing the bill; they  
apparently pulled it before our letter was delivered.  I hope we can  
take credit for a good explanation of why it is clearly  
unconstitutional.


http://www-personal.umich.edu/~laycockd/

The breadth of agreement that this one was unconstitutional, which  
extends far beyond the signers of this letter, is encouraging.


Douglas Laycock
Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law
University of Michigan Law School
625 S. State St.
Ann Arbor, MI  48109-1215
  734-647-9713___
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.

Connecticut bill

[Douglas Laycock]

Earlier today we discussed a bill in Connecticut to impose Protestant forms of 
church governance on the Catholic Church.  The bill has been pulled and 
tomorrow's hearing has been cancelled, apparently due to a flood of calls to 
legislators.  Church leaders in Connecticut are not convinced that the issue is 
fully dead.  Maybe they are right; maybe they are just being cautious. 

If the link below actually works, you can find there a copy of the bill, and a 
copy of a letter that twelve of us sent to the Committee Co-Chairs.  We cannot 
take credit for killing the bill; they apparently pulled it before our letter 
was delivered.  I hope we can take credit for a good explanation of why it is 
clearly unconstitutional.   

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~laycockd/[1] 

The breadth of agreement that this one was unconstitutional, which extends far 
beyond the signers of this letter, is encouraging.  

Douglas Laycock
Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law
University of Michigan Law School
625 S. State St.
Ann Arbor, MI  48109-1215
  734-647-9713

Links:
--
[1] http://www-personal.umich.edu/~laycockd/___
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.