5:58 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: The President and the Pope
Hmm -- since the civil rights movement was at the very least
politically controversial in the 1960s, it seems to me hard to
distinguish that from the current situation for constitutional purposes
Suppose President
Bush bribes a few legislators in order to get the last votes necessary to pass a
constitutional amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman. Could
he defend his actions by pointing out that Seward may have used briberty to
procure the last crucial votes necessary
with Bush's request (and that certainly appears to be
> precisely what Bush wants). I think that that difference
> matters, at least as a matter of constitutional principle.
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Volokh, Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTE
ene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 5:08 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: The President and the Pope
Hmm -- I haven't gotten the same sense; might I ask which
particular presidential initiative (as opposed to broad policy goals
relat
EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 5:40 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: The President and the Pope
So
let me state a more general principle: A president should ask a
religious leader for support on a political issue only if the issue is
not partisan or the president firmly believes
m Michael
> Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 1:57 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: RE: The President and the Pope
>
>
> There is a difference between asking the Pope to support
> broad policy goals and asking the Pope to support a
> particular
ugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 11:32 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: The President and the Pope
A question: Say that in the 1960s, the President told a group of white
Protestant leaders that they needed to tell their congregations to take
:25 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for
Law Academics
Subject: Re: The President and the
Pope
The
dilemma for the American bishops is not whether Kerry should be taking
communion. He should not. The dilemma is whether the Church should
withhold communion in light of his refusal to a
] On Behalf Of Mark Graber
> Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 2:40 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: The President and the Pope
>
>
> I do think the different roles of a national executive is a
> constitutional point, though not a point of constitutional
> law. At
n to take a stand in favor of civil rights and against
racism?
Eugene
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Graber
> Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 6:54 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: The Presid
church,
urged the person to take a stand in favor of civil rights and against
racism?
Eugene
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Graber
> Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 6:54 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subje
Title: Message
I'm sorry, but I just don't quite
understand. What is it that's supposedly permissible under this model, and
supposedly impermissible?
Also, I take it that much Christian political rhetoric takes the
form: "Good Christians ought to [oppose racism / support sexual ab
In a message dated 6/15/2004 3:43:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Since Christian
ministers differed on each of these issues (in the old South Christian
ministers maintained Bibilical support for slavery; in the South of 1963
Chritian ministers continued to main
Title: Message
Eugene offered:
> Sorry to sound like a broken
record, but I wonder how this would have played out in other contexts. For
instance, the abolitionist movement, the civil rights movement, and various
anti-war and other movements have involved political-religious alliances on
be a different matter.
David
- Original Message -
From:
Mark Tushnet
To: Law & Religion issues for Law
Academics
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 1:07
PM
Subject: Re: The President and the
Pope
I wonder. If (an important qualification) there'
t.
Eugene
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mark
Tushnet
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 10:46 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: The President and the Pope
Not to ride a hobby-hor
political, moral, or social
debate. Likewise, it seems to me, here.
Eugene
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of marc sternSent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004
10:24 AMTo: 'Law & Religion issues for Law
MAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Tuesday, June
15, 2004 12:21 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: The
President and the Pope
Sorry to
sound like a broken record, but I wonder how this would have played out
in other conte
Title: Message
Sorry to sound like a broken record, but I
wonder how this would have played out in other contexts. For instance, the
abolitionist movement, the civil rights movement, and various anti-war and other
movements have involved political-religious alliances on controversial pub
OTECTED]
On Behalf Of Volokh,
EugeneSent: Tuesday, June
15, 2004 12:21 PMTo:
Law & Religion issues for Law
AcademicsSubject: RE: The President and the
Pope
Sorry to sound like a broken record, but I wonder how this would have played
out in other contexts.
The President and the
Pope
Sorry to sound like a
broken record, but I wonder how this would have played out in other
contexts. For instance, the abolitionist movement, the civil rights
movement, and various anti-war and other movements have involved political-religious
alliances on controver
It seems quite dangerous to a
republic for its leaders to encourage and promote the formation of
political-religious alliances on controversial public policy
questions. To assert, even obliquely, that to be a good Catholic,
one should vote Republican (for example), seems to invite the kind of
rel
Might this be a relevant constitutional point, though not a point of
constitutional law.
The president plays many different roles. Sometimes more partisan roles
are appropriate. So there is nothing unpresidential about a post 1896
president urging Americans to elect Republicans to Congress (but
Title: Re: The President and the Pope
Point taken.
Frank
On 6/15/04 12:02 AM, "Paul Finkelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Frank, I think your point misses the issue. It is not about whether particular Catholics follow one rule or the next -- whether they use birth contro
Frank, I think your point misses the issue. It is not about whether particular
Catholics follow one rule or the next -- whether they use birth control in
their lives, or support choice, or support the death penalty, or think toruture
is a good public policy. My point is not about what the poli
definitely "no," even when people who dislike the President might imagine that the President's side would make Establishment Clause objections had the tables been turned (an objection that would be just as unsound as the objection to the President's current actions), and even w
I was trying to make the same point as David, but with a little levity.
(The point was: this stuff cuts both ways, so let's move on).
You guys are wound up a little too tight for me. So much for the stereotype
of "laid back Californians." :-)
Frank
On 6/14/04 10:48 PM, "David Cruz" <[EMAIL PR
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Volokh, Eugene wrote:
> Now I don't want to constrain Paul's "imagination," "fascinat[ion]," or
> sense of "irony" -- all three of which are fine things to have, and give
> ourselves a lot of pleasure. But as best I can tell, Paul's posts are
> largely ways to express his c
to the President's current actions), and even when the President is
stressing one aspect of the religious group's views and not another aspect.
Eugene
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul
On 6/14/04 8:11 PM, "Paul Finkelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It is fascinating to see Bush pick and choose which Catholic
> doctrine he likes; I am sure, however, that His Holiness can see through all
> of this.
You're absolutely right. Picking and choosing Catholic doctrines one likes
is
ssage-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of Paul Finkelman
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 6:11 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: The President and the Pope
I
wonder how Bush would respond if the Bishops all said that no
Interesting questions, which would be even more so if Bush were Catholic; I take it
that in this situation he's wondering to what extent the bishops will promote the
teachings of their own Church.
As a (somewhat) controversial aside, the issues Paul mentions here, though important,
do not rise
D]
On Behalf Of Paul FinkelmanSent: Monday, June 14, 2004 6:11
PMTo: Law & Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject:
Re: The President and the Pope
I
wonder how Bush would respond if the Bishops all said that no Catholic voter
should support a man who 1) vigorously endorses the death penalt
here.
- Original Message -
From: Richard Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Monday, June 14, 2004 5:51 pm
Subject: Re: The President and the Pope
Mark:
I would have thought that it was the other way around on
the
"problematic" score, no? I
My intuition is that openness matters, in constraining what
a politician will say. But I agree that we're dealing with
quite a marginal issue here.
- Original Message -
From: Richard Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Monday, June 14, 2004 5:51 pm
Subject: Re: The Presid
Mark:
I would have thought that it was the other way around on the "problematic" score, no?
If Bush is looking for electoral support, wouldn't it be more advantageous to make a
public statement about the matter, rather than making what looks like a rather
innocuous comment to a Vatican official
I have the feeling that this thread may have played itself out, but one
matter hasn't come up -- whether there's a difference between a public
statement soliciting support from religious leaders, etc., and a private
conversation in which such support is solicited (and whether, in a world
of lea
I do NOT find it persuasive, however, when someone
proclaims "TheChurch/TheChurches should stay out of politics",
and fails to explain why issues he differs with are "politics"
and those he espouses are "not politics". I can only feel that
the "wall of separation" is differentially permeable. (Th
14, 2004 12:52
PM
Subject: Re: The President and the
Pope
I don't wish to become entangled in this increasingly ad
hominem debate; and I suppose I regret starting the thread, seeing as how
the question appears to have been willfully misconstrued and turned to other
ends. Bu
I remember John Kennedy assuring the public during his presidential campaign
that he would not take orders from the Pope if he ever had to choose between
the Constitution and Roman Catholic doctrine. I find a candidate/official's
views on the interrelationship between religious institutions and hi
On Monday, June 14, 2004, at 02:04 PM, Will Linden wrote:
Or if in 1967, the excommunication of Leander Perez has been preceded by a presidential colloquy seeking papal support for civil rights campaigns. (Sorry, but for years I have been driven up the wall by increasingly incoherent responses
: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 1:06 PM
Subject: Re: The President and the Pope
Hmm. I wonder if the visceral response of various list members would be the
same if:
1. Bush were requesting a Saudi imam to so speak out
2. Or an Iranian Ayatollah
3. Or the D
Or if in 1967, the excommunication of Leander Perez
has been preceded by a presidential colloquy seeking papal support for
civil rights campaigns. (Sorry, but for years I have been driven up the
wall by increasingly incoherent responses on why That Was
Different).
At 01:06 PM 6/14/04 -0400, you
ut this listserv for many years has
been uncomfortable with this (religious) President. Googling can unearth
that fact.
- Original Message -
From: Marty Lederman
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 12:52 PM
Subject: Re: The President and the Pope
I d
Hmm. I wonder if the visceral response of various list members would be the same if:
1. Bush were requesting a Saudi imam to so speak out
2. Or an Iranian Ayatollah
3. Or the Dalai Lama
4. Or the religious leader of a pro-Israeli-settlements sect
5. Or Pat Robertson
6. Or Rev. Sinkford (head of t
aw
Academics
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 12:38
PM
Subject: Re: The President and the
Pope
I have understood the distinction from the beginning of this
thread. I was just surprised that you "approved of" Kerry violating his
own Church's norms by receiving com
same (of course, recognizing that there
have been grave mistakes as well).
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 12:27
PM
Subject: Re: The President and the
Pope
In a message dated 6/14/2004 11:49:23 AM Easter
In a message dated 6/14/2004 11:49:23 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
did not
force you to discuss the denial of communion aspect of the story.You did
that yourself when you said:"This does not mean that I would hesitate
to vote against a president whoasked the Po
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: The President and the Pope
In a message dated 6/14/2004 10:50:31 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But that is the dliemma discussed by the President and the Pope, so it
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 7:03 AMTo:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: The President and the
Pope
In a message dated 6/14/2004 8:45:50 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm asking wh
A question: Say that in the 1960s, the President told a group of white Protestant
leaders that they needed to tell their congregations to take seriously Christ's
teachings of human dignity, and to renounce racism and support civil rights. Or say
that in 2004 in an alternate universe, President
In a message dated 6/14/2004 10:50:31 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But that
is the dliemma discussed by the President and the Pope, so it
haseverything to do with the peculiar question discussed on this
listserv.
My understanding of Marty's
question wa
In a message dated 6/14/2004 10:53:37 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In what
sense has the President asked the Pope to pressure the Bishops to embrace some
moral norm?
Although Jim does not
say that I asserted this, just for the record, I never did. My p
I am perplexed. In what sense has the President asked the Pope to
pressure the Bishops to embrace some moral norm? As I understand it, the
United States Catholic Conference, with one voice, rejects the moral propriety
of killing unborn children (abortion). Are there known dissenters from
4 10:36 AM
Subject: Re: The President and the Pope
In a message dated 6/14/2004 10:23:48 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Just so I understand, you approve of Catholic politicians taking communion
against the express wishes of their Church and you would base your vote on
it?
The d
In a message dated 6/14/2004 10:23:48 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Just so I understand, you approve of Catholic politicians
taking communion against the express wishes of their Church and you would base
your vote on it?
The dilemma for the American bish
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 9:02 AM
Subject: Re: The President and the
Pope
In a message dated 6/14/2004 8:45:50 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
I'm asking whether such conduct would
In a message dated 6/14/2004 8:45:50 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm asking whether such conduct would be appropriate for a
President who took his constitutional obligations
seriously.
Does this
ask for our intuitions on the appropriateness of such conduct
58 matches
Mail list logo
