For what it's worth, I want to endorse the comments of Mark Graber and Marty re
the dispositive importance of the fact that we're living in a welfare state
that was probably literally unimaginable to Madison and his friends.
Rehnquist's dissent in Thomas makes this point.
Also for what it's
Agreed, Rick, my formulation was an oversimplified caricature--of course no
one is advocating for a blanket right to "opt out of the welfare state" or
to categorically avoid "sharing in its burdens." I even think it's
possible to explain why the church in H-T should be allowed to do what
other
Mark, this is certainly true, and important:
"The Remonstrance was written at a time when states did not provide
extensive benefits to most people or at least was not omnipresence in all
aspects of their lives. Not a penny shall go to a church is a lot harder
to figure out when lots of
Dear Marty,
I agree, certainly, that "thoughtful justification" is always important and
welcome. For what it's worth, though, I think it overstates the matter a
bit to characterize the religious-institutionalism arguments as pressing a
blanket right to "opt out of the welfare state" or even to
6 5:49 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Excluding religious institutions from public safety benefits I
don't have time to engage in a sustained discussion but feel compelled to
confess that I am astonished to see such a facile (and highly debatable) claim
for orig
...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2016 8:48 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Excluding religious institutions from public safety benefits
Paul and I have had a cordial exchange off-list that cleared up any
misunderstanding on our part. As we all know, emails
Whether formally or implicitly, isn't the
opt-out-while-demanding-scarce-benefits-problem solved by some version of
the symmetry principle? The Amish are prevented from claiming the full
cloak of protections involved in incorporation and employment law if they
don't want to pay payroll taxes.
, January 18, 2016 9:23 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Excluding religious institutions from public safety benefits
Mark, this is certainly true, and important:
"The Remonstrance was written at a time when states did not pr
, 2016 6:36 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Excluding religious institutions from public safety benefits
Dear Marty,
I agree, certainly, that "thoughtful justification" is always important and
welcome. For what it's worth, though, I think it overstat
a.edu] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2016 9:23 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Excluding religious institutions from public safety benefits
Mark, this is certainly true, and important:
"The Remonstr
As is obvious, all "neutrality" principles depend on agreement on the baseline.
When I was teaching courses on the Constitution and the welfare state, I often
began with the UAW food stamp case, in which the majority solemnly asserted
that Congress was simply trying to "level the playing
> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
> on behalf of Volokh, Eugene [vol...@law.ucla.edu]
> Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2016 12:46 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: RE: Excluding religious institutions from public
law-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
> on behalf of Volokh, Eugene [vol...@law.ucla.edu]
> Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2016 12:46 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: RE: Excluding religious institutions from public safety benefits
&g
Of Alan E Brownstein
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2016 12:38 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Excluding religious institutions from public safety benefits
It might also be relevant to note that at least for many congregations,
pre-school
la.edu [mailto:religionlaw-
> boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Graber, Mark
> Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2016 11:15 AM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
> Subject: RE: Excluding religious institutions from public safety benefits
>
> For the
2016 4:28 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Excluding religious institutions from public safety benefits
So if there is a gang violence problem at schools, and the
government gives grants to schools with the most serious problems to hire a
securit
of Volokh, Eugene [vol...@law.ucla.edu]
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2016 12:46 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Excluding religious institutions from public safety benefits
I suppose it’s possible, but it doesn’t seem that likely. From
what I’ve
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
> on behalf of Volokh, Eugene [vol...@law.ucla.edu]
> Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2016 12:46 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: RE: Excluding religious institutions from public sa
Finkelman, Paul [mailto:paul.finkel...@albanylaw.edu]
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2016 12:28 PM
To: Volokh, Eugene <vol...@law.ucla.edu>; Law & Religion issues for Law
Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Excluding religious institutions from public safety benefits
Do
The petition for cert says the grant could only be used to pay for scrap rubber
and delivery costs-- not even for site prep or any kind of labor. There is no
need to audit the church's finances but only to trace these particular funds.
It would be easy to structure this as a draft payable to
<religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
on behalf of Patrick Gillen <pgille...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2016 5:49 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Excluding religious institutions from public safety benefits
I don't have time to engage in a sust
mobileAdd to SkypeYou'll need Skype CreditFree via Skype
From: "Volokh, Eugene" <vol...@law.ucla.edu>
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2016 6:25 PM
Subject: RE: Excluding religious inst
...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Finkelman
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2016 9:22 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Excluding religious institutions from public safety benefits
without getting too far into the details here; there are many
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Excluding religious institutions from public safety benefits
Neither Eugene's or Alan's questions invite quick or easy answers, but here's a
start:
1. Eugene's examples all involve health and safety. None can be diverted to
religiou
, January 16, 2016 6:25 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Excluding religious institutions from public safety benefits
I’m not sure how upgrading the playground will make it
materially more usable as space for worship and religious instruction. Few
institut
gt; these contexts but not in others.
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu <religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
on behalf of Ira Lupu <icl...@law.gwu.edu>
Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2016 12:13 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re
I wonder if I might offer a modest (well maybe not so modest) amendment to
Eugene's excellent hypotheticals.
Say that the government adopted a package bill. It provided that:
A. Houses of worship and directly affiliated schools and day care centers:
Need not comply with many land use
Neither Eugene's or Alan's questions invite quick or easy answers, but
here's a start:
1. Eugene's examples all involve health and safety. None can be diverted
to religious use; all make religious use, and all other uses of the
property, healthier or safer. Compare Mitchell v. Helms -- in-kind
cla.edu>
Subject: Re: Excluding religious institutions from public safety benefits
Neither Eugene's or Alan's questions invite quick or easy answers, but here's a
start:
1. Eugene's examples all involve health and safety. None can be diverted to
religious use; all make religious use, and all
oun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
> on behalf of Volokh, Eugene [vol...@law.ucla.edu]
> Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2016 6:25 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: RE: Excluding religious institutions from public safety benefit
30 matches
Mail list logo
