RE: RFRA, the Establishment Clause, and saving constructions

2013-12-03 Thread Alan Brownstein
& Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: RFRA, the Establishment Clause, and saving constructions Eugene writes: "Even in the face of this caselaw, and the argument that such preference for religion makes the statute unconstitutional, the Court can't read RFRA the same way [as co

Re: RFRA, the Establishment Clause, and saving constructions

2013-12-03 Thread James Oleske
Two additional thoughts: 1. While the Court certainly could take the approach Eugene suggests, does anyone think the Court will do so? In light of the fact that the Court recently and unanimously embraced the position in Hosanna-Tabor that religion gets special treatment under the Constitution, an

Re: RFRA, the Establishment Clause, and saving constructions

2013-12-03 Thread Marty Lederman
t; > *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto: > religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Marci Hamilton > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 03, 2013 8:14 AM > > *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > *Cc:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics >

Re: RFRA, the Establishment Clause, and saving constructions

2013-12-03 Thread Marci Hamilton
aring of the belief by a larger group. > Yet RFRA has not been terribly burdensome for the government, as best I can > tell. Why would allowing similarly crackpot (or noncrackpot) secular > philosophical objections to be covered suddenly cause much bigger problems? > >

Re: RFRA, the Establishment Clause, and saving constructions

2013-12-03 Thread Volokh, Eugene
is instead compelled to read it in a way that makes it unconstitutional? Eugene From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marci Hamilton Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 8:14 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Cc: Law & Reli

Re: RFRA, the Establishment Clause, and saving constructions

2013-12-03 Thread Marci Hamilton
t;> >> >> Eugene >> >> >> >> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu >> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ira Lupu >> Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 7:45 AM >> >> >> To: Law & Re

Re: RFRA, the Establishment Clause, and saving constructions

2013-12-03 Thread Ira Lupu
*Ira Lupu > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 03, 2013 7:45 AM > > *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > *Subject:* Re: RFRA, the Establishment Clause, and saving constructions > > > > The reason not to construe RFRA to apply to all secular philosophical > obje

RE: RFRA, the Establishment Clause, and saving constructions

2013-12-03 Thread Volokh, Eugene
n issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: RFRA, the Establishment Clause, and saving constructions The reason not to construe RFRA to apply to all secular philosophical objectors is that it's just plain crazy as a matter of policy. RFRA (which we would have to rename FRA after such a const

Re: RFRA, the Establishment Clause, and saving constructions

2013-12-03 Thread Ira Lupu
The reason not to construe RFRA to apply to all secular philosophical objectors is that it's just plain crazy as a matter of policy. RFRA (which we would have to rename FRA after such a construction) applies to all of federal law. So this construction would give the holder of every crackpot philo

RFRA, the Establishment Clause, and saving constructions

2013-12-02 Thread Volokh, Eugene
I appreciate Jim's argument, and also the arguments that the problem with the exemption isn't discrimination in favor of religion, but rather the burden on third parties, regardless of whether the exemption is only for the religious. (I hope to respond to those arguments soon.)