-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 3:23 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Justice Thomas in Newdow
In a message dated 6/17/2004 8:20:09 PM Central
Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Whatever Madison'
Founders
intended-and it seems to be what the Court thought in Yoder, pace Welsh-Seeger.
Marc Stern
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 2:10
PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Justice Thomas in
Newdow
In a
al federal arrangement, and enshrine, for the first
time, a national principle of religious freedom. Under this approach,
there was no incorporation. There was something altogether new.
Kurt Lash
Loyola Law School, Los Angeles
- Original Message -
From: "A.E. Brownstein" <
In a message dated 6/22/04 1:21:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
To bet everything on the FE clause is a risky proposition, perhaps even extreme.
And please correct me if I am wrong because I tell my students this--that nonreligious people cannot claim any Free Exercise righ
point of view, that is.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 3:23
AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Justice Thomas in
Newdow
In a message dated 6/17/2004 8:20:09
PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
In a message dated 6/21/2004 6:37:26 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I participated in a panel discussion for radio with the Superintendent from Elk Grove and he stated unequivocally and without hesitation that Elk Grove did not require students who were conscientiously oppose
In a message dated 6/21/2004 12:25:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There's a difference between having a right and having that right recognized. When I queried the Elk Grove folks about how a student might opt out, they said no student was allowed out. The promised to ge
Yes, I understand that the right to not say the pledge was established firmly in 1943 -- but there is no provision in California law nor in the Elk Grove district rules to honor the law.
There's a difference between having a right and having that right recognized. When I queried the Elk Grove fol
In a message dated 6/20/2004 12:39:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Perhaps I am wrong, but did not all the parties agree with the characterization of the circumstances in the original Newdow decision? That is, California requires a patriotic exercise, and Elk Grove's poli
In a message dated 6/18/2004 11:38:07 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
2. The framers may have intended to protect only Protestants, but the language they used protects all religion (why? suppose we discovered that Washington did not really consider Islam a religion).
It ap
In a message dated 6/18/2004 11:28:45 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Everyone notices when someone is gone for a particular ceremony --
every day. Or does not otherwise participate.
These may be facts that could be proven. Or perhaps Justice Kennedy will simply assume
In a message dated 6/18/2004 10:16:09 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think Ed cites important evidence, though I don't think it cuts in
the same direction he does.
Let's consider just the evidence Ed cites himself (using his
characterizations): 1) the colonies had "mo
Kurt,
Would it be fair to say that while that the principle of non-establishment
was still at issue in 1789 at the state level, the principle of generally
applicable free exercise rights (free exercise rights for everyone -- not
just Protestants.) was equally at issue at the state level. Your o
PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 9:27 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Justice Thomas in Newdow
In a message dated 6/18/2004 12:18:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Everyone notices when someone is gone for a particular ceremony --
ever
Dear Frances with an "e":
Of course, there are differences between private entities and government
ones, and I am fully conversant with those attributes. My point was to show
that one could in principle disagree with the claims of a practice, but out
of tolerance and the importance of sustaining
I hope that the secretary files a Title
Vii religious discrimination claim.
Marc
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Obrien
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 1:32
PM
To: Law
& Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Justice Thomas in
Ne
In a message dated 6/18/2004 2:33:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
She
asked one of the partners in the law firm whether he would be embarrassed if
she did not participate in the Pledge of Allegiance. A few days later
she was fired.
Of course, her firing from a
they are openly scorned and abused.
Bob O'Brien
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 12:27
PM
Subject: Re: Justice Thomas in
Newdow
In a message dated 6/18/2004 12:18:28 PM Eastern Daylight Ti
ct such choices.
Mark S. Scarberry
Pepperdine University School of Law
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 9:27
AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Justice Thomas in
Newdow
In a
message dated 6/18/2004 12:1
In a message dated 6/18/04 11:46:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
unless you have been told, as I was, by a junior high school teacher, that I should not bring my preferred religious text to school for reading during free time, and unless you have been told, as I was, by my h
One of my hobby horses, which I may have raised several years ago (sorry,
if I have) concerns late eighteenth/early nineteenth century claims that freedom
of religion mean no discrimination between Protestants (see Joseph Story, Daniel
Webster). Why is this off the table at present.
1. Tur
In a message dated 6/18/2004 12:18:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Everyone
notices when someone is gone for a particular ceremony -- every day.
Or does not otherwise participate.
These may be facts that could be proven. Or perhaps Justice Kennedy
will simply
In a message dated 6/18/04 11:42:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, like the Christian who must tolerate the distracting presence of nudy bars on our interstates as he or she makes her way to church on Sunday mornings, I tolerate the Pledge every morning prior to the start
On Friday, June 18, 2004, at 11:49 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I had missed this element. That is, the requirement that students "publicly opt out." I suppose there may be a different kind of coercion at play when one must actively associate oneself with one's ideas and ideals in order to h
In a message dated 6/18/2004 11:18:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sorry,
Jim, but of course it is coercive to force an elementary or middle or high
school student to publicly opt out of a REQUIREMENT.
I had missed this element. That is, the requirement that stud
In a message dated 6/18/2004 11:11:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thanks,
Jim. You just proved my argument. That YOU don't see the coercion
doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It merely shows that if you are a part of the
majority (I know, I know, "Define it" "OK,
k
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 9:37
AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: Justice
Thomas in Newdow
In a message dated 6/18/04 5:02:57 AM Eastern Daylight
Time,[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Sorry, Jim, but of course it is coercive to force an elementary or middle or high school student to publicly opt out of a REQUIREMENT.
It is not just evangelical Christians who have a hard time of it in school. Anyone who seeks to do something different does.
Steve
The Elk Grove School Distri
I think Ed cites important evidence, though I don't think it cuts in
the same direction he does.
Let's consider just the evidence Ed cites himself (using his
characterizations): 1) the colonies had "mostly disestablished" by
1778, 2) two years before the constitution was adopted, a "modest r
In a message dated 6/18/04 10:49:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There never was, in this case, a rationally justifiable fear that one who wanted not so to pledge was forced to do so.
Thanks, Jim. You just proved my argument. That YOU don't see the coercion doesn't mean
In a message dated 6/18/2004 10:38:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And, Jim
Henderson, your sarcasm does little to advance your
argument."Actually, with respect to the pledge. . . perhaps the
Supreme Court retrenched and I missed that case. . . . But
I'm l
In a message dated 6/18/04 5:02:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The "lunatic fringe" certainly seems to include a lot of intelligent scholars:
As human beings so frequently demonstrate, intelligence (is there a pun in here somewhere?) can certainly be misused in the servic
1. Intentions both with respect to the
original meaning of establishment clause and the due process clause are
vague. I suspect no general consensus existed as to what the establishment
clause meant in 1791 (if the what the average member of a state legislature
would think the only good evi
In a message dated 6/18/2004 3:26:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm still looking for the process by which any kid in the Elk Grove school district in California can opt out of this state- and district-required exercise, short of suing. Is there really such an opt-out p
I've kept a list of various authorities who have at least questioned whether
incorporating the Establishment Clause makes any logical sense. The
"lunatic fringe" certainly seems to include a lot of intelligent scholars:
Akhil Reed Amar, The Bill of Rights as a Constitution, 100 Yale L.J. 1131,
In a message dated 6/17/2004 4:49:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The Civil War Amendments rewrote the Constitution. People are entitled to protection against establishment period. Limiting the states is what happened with our second Constitution. Broadening the federal p
In a message dated 6/17/2004 4:39:04 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However, the Pledge of Allegience--from which kids can opt
out--violates no one's free exercise.
I'm still looking for the process by which any kid in the Elk Grove school district in California can opt out
In a message dated 6/17/2004 8:20:09 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Whatever Madison's reasons for doing so, I believe that most scholars
would agree that, in 1791, there was deep disagreement about the value
of state religious establishments. It is quite likely that many
Doug Laycock is right to suggest that the federalism case for the
establishment clause is at least as strong in regard to other rights
listed in the Bill. For example, when Congress passed the alien and
sedition acts, Madison argued that the acts, among other things,
violated the rights of the
kh, Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 2:54 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Justice Thomas in Newdow
It seems to me that Justice Thomas's position -- or for that
matter, the Chief's similar position in Wallace v. Jaffree in
___
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Steven Jamar
Sent: Thu 6/17/2004 1:48 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Justice Thomas in Newdow
> "bedrock." Still, is there a reason why we should not concede that he
> is -- or, at least, MAY be -- correct?
rc stern
> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 2:28 PM
> To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
> Subject: RE: Justice Thomas in Newdow
>
>
> Isn't it the case that whether Thomas is correct or not
> depends in part on whether only the text of the constitut
I don't think Thomas disbelieves that incorporation has occurred (or
"happened"), and that has included the establishment clause. I think he is
questioning whether it is justified. After all, in the same 1940s in which
Everson came down the pike so did the Japanese internment case. I don't
think
21 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Justice Thomas in Newdow
The LA Times story is available on Westlaw for those who would
like to read it without giving their phone number and income to the LA
Times. Expletives deleted.
Obviously the way
The LA Times story is available on Westlaw for those who would
like to read it without giving their phone number and income to the LA
Times. Expletives deleted.
Obviously the way you would explain what is wrong with Thomas's
opinion on this list is different from how you would
"bedrock." Still, is there a reason why we should not concede that he
is -- or, at least, MAY be -- correct?
Best,
Rick Garnett
The Civil War Amendments rewrote the Constitution. People are entitled
to protection against establishment period. Limiting the states is what
happened with our seco
Dear all,
I apologize in advance, if I missed the list's discussion of Justice
Thomas's views regarding the incorporation of the Establishment
Clause. For what it's worth, I've been surprised by the vigor with which
several prominent scholars have disapproved these views. Jack Balkin
remarked
47 matches
Mail list logo
