I have been thinking that in Warnock the Circuit Court (8th) focusses on
endorsement because it was unlikely that the teacher could be coerced or
indoctrinated by the religious activity of the Principal at the meetings.
Indeed the facts belie it (he complains avidly, the court call him "strong
will
In Warnock v. Archer(6th Cir.8/24/2004),the Sixth Circuit held that a
teacher's rights were violated when he was as compelled to attend teacher
training courses that began with prayers. The Court emphasized that the
violation was not in the coercion to be present when prayers were offered,
but beca
Well, I can't speak for DOJ here, because I doubt that I've read all their
briefs, but I think the answer is "no." Section 3 does not have an
"individualized assessment" provision that instantiates Sherbert/Lukumi, nor
any of the other section 5 provisions found in section 2(b) of the land-use
sec
The washington post reports the US S Ct will take two case on displaying the 10 commandments -- after last year not accepting Judge Moore's petition.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26439-2004Oct12.html
Steve
--
Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-80
Marty---I haven't really been following the prison side on RLUIPA. Has the DOJ been
arguing--as on the land use side of RLUIPA--that it merely mirrors existing Free
Exercise doctrine?
Marci
___
To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe
Good. Just wanted to be sure.
Marc
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004
12:53 PM
To: Law
& Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Cert granted in
Cutter
yes
- Original Messag
Oops. This was intended only for Marty, not
for the list.
Marc Stern
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of marc stern
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004
12:39 PM
To: 'Law
& Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Cert granted in
Cutter
Mar
yes
- Original Message -
From:
marc
stern
To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law
Academics'
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 1:38
PM
Subject: RE: Cert granted in Cutter
Marty:
·
Are you allowed to participate, give
Marty:
·
Are
you allowed to participate, given you’re your service in the Justice Department
in drafting RLUIPA?
·
Marc
·
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004
8:30 AM
To:
In response to a couple of e-mail inquiries, a
clarification:
The petition in Cutter (http://www.goldsteinhowe.com/blog/files/Cutter.petition.pdf)
raises only the Establishment Clause question, because that was the only ground
on which the CTA6 declared section 3 of RLUIPA invalid. Ohio, h
My understanding of Nally is the same as that of Professor Laycock. That is certainly what I teach the M.Div. students when I teach my course on Legal Issues for the Minister once a year. At one time our degree was in counseling, the nomenclature was changed to Biblical counseling to make clear
11 matches
Mail list logo
