RE: Liberty: A Vote or A Veto?
Nate-- Very interesting piece. I believe the vote, not a veto language originated in the writings of Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan who, departing from the Orthodox Jewish view that halacha [traditional Jewish law] was the sole standard for Jewish practice, said the past has a vote, not a veto. The analogy in the health care mandate situation, it seems to me, would be religious conscience has a vote, not a veto. Howard Friedman From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Nathan C. Walker [n...@whosegodrules.com] Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2013 3:22 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Liberty: A Vote or A Veto? Dear Religion Law Colleagues, I'm interested in your feedback about my article regarding the contraception mandate, Liberty: A Vote or A Veto? published by Sightings of the Martin Marty Center for the Advanced Study of Religion at the University of Chicago Divinity School. Here's an excerpt: * * * * * Liberty is a vote not a veto. Owners of for-profit companies have the freedom to vote their conscience, to speak their mind, to persuade and petition and parade in the public square. This free exercise of speech and religion does not give them the right to unilaterally veto the rights of their employees. Doing so would establish a de facto state religion, where corporations become the nation’s congregations and its owners the high priests. * * * * * I look forward to your input. Cheers, Nate Nathan C. Walker, co-editor of Whose God Rules?http://www.whosegodrules.com/ (Palgrave Macmillan 2011) Foreword by Tony Blair with contributions by Alan Dershowitz, Martha Nussbaum, Robert George, and Kent Greenawalt. Cornel West calls it provocative and pioneering. Resident Fellow, Harvard Divinity School, '13 Legal restrictions on religious expression Doctoral Candidate, Columbia University, '14 Interdisciplinary study of law, education religion Unveiling Freedom: Bans on Religious Garb. nathan_wal...@mail.harvard.edumailto:nathan_wal...@mail.harvard.edu Cell: (215) 701-9071 www.NateWalker.comhttp://www.natewalker.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.
Re: Liberty: A Vote or A Veto?
Owners of for-profit companies have the freedom to vote their conscience, to speak their mind, to persuade and petition and parade in the public square. This free exercise of speech and religion does not give them the right to unilaterally veto the rights of their employees. I find the argument hard to understand. Does my employer unilaterally veto my right to preventive health services (assuming I have such a right) by refusing to pay for my gym membership, which (as a middle aged man) is far more important to my health than contraception, and probably costs about as much per month? Does the government unilaterally veto my First Amendment rights by refusing to pay for my website, or by refusing to give me a free subscription to the Congressional Record? I understand that a person who is employed full-time, by an employer that has at least 50 employees, and that has a health-care plan that is not grandfathered, has a statutory right to employer-provided contraception. If what you're saying is that such a person's statutory right to free contraception is vetoed by the employer refusing to provide it, that's just a dramatic way of saying that the employer is refusing to provide it. Speaking for myself and emphatically not for my employer. Art Spitzer * Warning: the National Security Agency may be monitoring this communication.* On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Friedman, Howard M. howard.fried...@utoledo.edu wrote: Nate-- Very interesting piece. I believe the vote, not a veto language originated in the writings of Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan who, departing from the Orthodox Jewish view that halacha [traditional Jewish law] was the sole standard for Jewish practice, said the past has a vote, not a veto. The analogy in the health care mandate situation, it seems to me, would be religious conscience has a vote, not a veto. Howard Friedman -- *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [ religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Nathan C. Walker [ n...@whosegodrules.com] *Sent:* Saturday, June 15, 2013 3:22 PM *To:* religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu *Subject:* Liberty: A Vote or A Veto? Dear Religion Law Colleagues, I'm interested in your feedback about my article regarding the contraception mandate, Liberty: A Vote or A Veto? published by Sightings of the Martin Marty Center for the Advanced Study of Religion at the University of Chicago Divinity School. Here's an excerpt: * * * * * Liberty is a vote not a veto. Owners of for-profit companies have the freedom to vote their conscience, to speak their mind, to persuade and petition and parade in the public square. This free exercise of speech and religion does not give them the right to unilaterally veto the rights of their employees. Doing so would establish a de facto state religion, where corporations become the nation’s congregations and its owners the high priests. * * * * * I look forward to your input. Cheers, Nate Nathan C. Walker, co-editor of Whose God Rules?http://www.whosegodrules.com/ (Palgrave Macmillan 2011) Foreword by Tony Blair with contributions by Alan Dershowitz, Martha Nussbaum, Robert George, and Kent Greenawalt. Cornel West calls it provocative and pioneering. Resident Fellow, Harvard Divinity School, '13 Legal restrictions on religious expression Doctoral Candidate, Columbia University, '14 Interdisciplinary study of law, education religion Unveiling Freedom: Bans on Religious Garb. nathan_wal...@mail.harvard.edu Cell: (215) 701-9071 www.NateWalker.com http://www.natewalker.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.
Re: Liberty: A Vote or A Veto?
I think the language of veto really applies to an employer's firing an employee for legal behavior (or opinions) the employer doesn't like. Otherwise, I think Arthur is right. The question then becomes if the employers in effect have a right to nullify otherwise valid laws that clearly apply to them, as with compulsory insurance plans etc., and I'm inclined to think the answer should be no save for very special circumstances (and, for me, impingement on a very tender conscience about what one is subsidizing isn't one of them, since I don't see the moral difference between compulsory taxes and a compulsory private insurance plan. Sandy From: Arthur Spitzer [mailto:artspit...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 07:14 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Liberty: A Vote or A Veto? Owners of for-profit companies have the freedom to vote their conscience, to speak their mind, to persuade and petition and parade in the public square. This free exercise of speech and religion does not give them the right to unilaterally veto the rights of their employees. I find the argument hard to understand. Does my employer unilaterally veto my right to preventive health services (assuming I have such a right) by refusing to pay for my gym membership, which (as a middle aged man) is far more important to my health than contraception, and probably costs about as much per month? Does the government unilaterally veto my First Amendment rights by refusing to pay for my website, or by refusing to give me a free subscription to the Congressional Record? I understand that a person who is employed full-time, by an employer that has at least 50 employees, and that has a health-care plan that is not grandfathered, has a statutory right to employer-provided contraception. If what you're saying is that such a person's statutory right to free contraception is vetoed by the employer refusing to provide it, that's just a dramatic way of saying that the employer is refusing to provide it. Speaking for myself and emphatically not for my employer. Art Spitzer Warning: the National Security Agency may be monitoring this communication. On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Friedman, Howard M. howard.fried...@utoledo.edumailto:howard.fried...@utoledo.edu wrote: Nate-- Very interesting piece. I believe the vote, not a veto language originated in the writings of Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan who, departing from the Orthodox Jewish view that halacha [traditional Jewish law] was the sole standard for Jewish practice, said the past has a vote, not a veto. The analogy in the health care mandate situation, it seems to me, would be religious conscience has a vote, not a veto. Howard Friedman From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Nathan C. Walker [n...@whosegodrules.commailto:n...@whosegodrules.com] Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2013 3:22 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Liberty: A Vote or A Veto? Dear Religion Law Colleagues, I'm interested in your feedback about my article regarding the contraception mandate, Liberty: A Vote or A Veto? published by Sightings of the Martin Marty Center for the Advanced Study of Religion at the University of Chicago Divinity School. Here's an excerpt: * * * * * Liberty is a vote not a veto. Owners of for-profit companies have the freedom to vote their conscience, to speak their mind, to persuade and petition and parade in the public square. This free exercise of speech and religion does not give them the right to unilaterally veto the rights of their employees. Doing so would establish a de facto state religion, where corporations become the nation’s congregations and its owners the high priests. * * * * * I look forward to your input. Cheers, Nate Nathan C. Walker, co-editor of Whose God Rules?http://www.whosegodrules.com/ (Palgrave Macmillan 2011) Foreword by Tony Blair with contributions by Alan Dershowitz, Martha Nussbaum, Robert George, and Kent Greenawalt. Cornel West calls it provocative and pioneering. Resident Fellow, Harvard Divinity School, '13 Legal restrictions on religious expression Doctoral Candidate, Columbia University, '14 Interdisciplinary study of law, education religion Unveiling Freedom: Bans on Religious Garb. nathan_wal...@mail.harvard.edumailto:nathan_wal...@mail.harvard.edu Cell: (215) 701-9071tel:%28215%29%20701-9071 www.NateWalker.comhttp://www.natewalker.com/ ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edumailto: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
RE: Liberty: A Vote or A Veto?
Doesn’t this assume the conclusion? A RFRA claim isn’t an attempt to “nullify otherwise valid laws that clearly apply to them”; rather, it’s a claim that one law in fact doesn’t apply to them, because another law (RFRA) precludes it from applying. That’s no more a “nullification” than, say, a statutory self-defense defense is a “nullification” of the law of assault or homicide. Eugene From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Levinson, Sanford V Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 9:37 PM To: 'religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu' Subject: Re: Liberty: A Vote or A Veto? I think the language of veto really applies to an employer's firing an employee for legal behavior (or opinions) the employer doesn't like. Otherwise, I think Arthur is right. The question then becomes if the employers in effect have a right to nullify otherwise valid laws that clearly apply to them, as with compulsory insurance plans etc., and I'm inclined to think the answer should be no save for very special circumstances (and, for me, impingement on a very tender conscience about what one is subsidizing isn't one of them, since I don't see the moral difference between compulsory taxes and a compulsory private insurance plan. 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.
Re: Liberty: A Vote or A Veto?
Eugene is correct, as a formal matter, if the claim is a statute that recognizes the trump. The question remains, though, why being forced to pay taxes and thus finance immoral activities isn't covered. Sandy From: Volokh, Eugene [mailto:vol...@law.ucla.edu] Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 11:41 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: RE: Liberty: A Vote or A Veto? Doesn’t this assume the conclusion? A RFRA claim isn’t an attempt to “nullify otherwise valid laws that clearly apply to them”; rather, it’s a claim that one law in fact doesn’t apply to them, because another law (RFRA) precludes it from applying. That’s no more a “nullification” than, say, a statutory self-defense defense is a “nullification” of the law of assault or homicide. Eugene From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Levinson, Sanford V Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 9:37 PM To: 'religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu' Subject: Re: Liberty: A Vote or A Veto? I think the language of veto really applies to an employer's firing an employee for legal behavior (or opinions) the employer doesn't like. Otherwise, I think Arthur is right. The question then becomes if the employers in effect have a right to nullify otherwise valid laws that clearly apply to them, as with compulsory insurance plans etc., and I'm inclined to think the answer should be no save for very special circumstances (and, for me, impingement on a very tender conscience about what one is subsidizing isn't one of them, since I don't see the moral difference between compulsory taxes and a compulsory private insurance plan. 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.
Liberty: A Vote or A Veto?
Dear Religion Law Colleagues, I'm interested in your feedback about my article regarding the contraception mandate, Liberty: A Vote or A Veto? published by Sightings of the Martin Marty Center for the Advanced Study of Religion at the University of Chicago Divinity School. Here's an excerpt: * * * * * Liberty is a vote not a veto. Owners of for-profit companies have the freedom to vote their conscience, to speak their mind, to persuade and petition and parade in the public square. This free exercise of speech and religion does not give them the right to unilaterally veto the rights of their employees. Doing so would establish a de facto state religion, where corporations become the nation’s congregations and its owners the high priests. * * * * * I look forward to your input. Cheers, Nate Nathan C. Walker, co-editor of Whose God Rules? (Palgrave Macmillan 2011) Foreword by Tony Blair with contributions by Alan Dershowitz, Martha Nussbaum, Robert George, and Kent Greenawalt. Cornel West calls it provocative and pioneering. Resident Fellow, Harvard Divinity School, '13 Legal restrictions on religious expression Doctoral Candidate, Columbia University, '14 Interdisciplinary study of law, education religion Unveiling Freedom: Bans on Religious Garb. nathan_wal...@mail.harvard.edu Cell: (215) 701-9071 www.NateWalker.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.
RE: Liberty: A Vote or A Veto?
The anagram is unpersuasive. It suggests that it is permissible to vote to have the state deny a person rights, but not permissible for another person to choose privately not to subsidize the exercise of those rights -- rights which exist, after all, under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, against the state, rather than against others. Mark Mark S. Scarberry Professor of Law Pepperdine Univ. School of Law From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Nathan C. Walker Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2013 12:23 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Liberty: A Vote or A Veto? Dear Religion Law Colleagues, I'm interested in your feedback about my article regarding the contraception mandate, Liberty: A Vote or A Veto? published by Sightings of the Martin Marty Center for the Advanced Study of Religion at the University of Chicago Divinity School. Here's an excerpt: * * * * * Liberty is a vote not a veto. Owners of for-profit companies have the freedom to vote their conscience, to speak their mind, to persuade and petition and parade in the public square. This free exercise of speech and religion does not give them the right to unilaterally veto the rights of their employees. Doing so would establish a de facto state religion, where corporations become the nation's congregations and its owners the high priests. * * * * * I look forward to your input. Cheers, Nate Nathan C. Walker, co-editor of Whose God Rules?http://www.whosegodrules.com/ (Palgrave Macmillan 2011) Foreword by Tony Blair with contributions by Alan Dershowitz, Martha Nussbaum, Robert George, and Kent Greenawalt. Cornel West calls it provocative and pioneering. Resident Fellow, Harvard Divinity School, '13 Legal restrictions on religious expression Doctoral Candidate, Columbia University, '14 Interdisciplinary study of law, education religion Unveiling Freedom: Bans on Religious Garb. nathan_wal...@mail.harvard.edumailto:nathan_wal...@mail.harvard.edu Cell: (215) 701-9071 www.NateWalker.comhttp://www.natewalker.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.
