Re: Johnson Amendment E.O.

oun...@lists.ucla.edu <religionlaw-bounces@lists. > ucla.edu> on behalf of Alan E Brownstein <aebrownst...@ucdavis.edu> > *Sent:* Sunday, May 7, 2017 11:04:56 PM > > *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > *Subject:* Re: Johnson Amendment E.O. > > &

Re: Johnson Amendment E.O.

, 2017 11:04:56 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Johnson Amendment E.O. Tom, I understand the lines are difficult to draw and I certainly do not claim to have a fully developed framework for drawing them. And I have some sympathy for the position that w

Re: Johnson Amendment E.O.

May 4, 2017 5:52:49 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Johnson Amendment E.O. I don't have a problem with that general idea, Alan. In some cases where religious activity takes the form of speech, free exercise principles are most controlling and may call for distin

Re: Johnson Amendment E.O.

lt;religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> on behalf of Ira Lupu <icl...@law.gwu.edu> Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2017 7:08:00 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Johnson Amendment E.O. I am wondering how far Tom's notion of privilege for sermons (compared with all other communi

Re: Johnson Amendment E.O.

ownstein <aebrownst...@ucdavis.edu<mailto:aebrownst...@ucdavis.edu>> Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2017 2:01:34 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Johnson Amendment E.O. I understand the concern that content-based constraints prohibiting the endorsement of can

RE: Johnson Amendment E.O.

-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Eric J Segall [eseg...@gsu.edu] Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2017 9:03 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Johnson Amendment E.O. I am new to this issue so pardon what might be an ignorant ques

Re: Johnson Amendment E.O.

mailto:aebrownst...@ucdavis.edu>> Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2017 2:01:34 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Johnson Amendment E.O. I understand the concern that content-based constraints prohibiting the endorsement of candidates during sermons by clergy during worship se

Re: Johnson Amendment E.O.

cla.edu> on behalf of Alan E Brownstein <aebrownst...@ucdavis.edu> Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2017 5:30:53 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Johnson Amendment E.O. Whoops. I accidentally hit "send" too quickly on this post. I was going to ask you,

Re: Johnson Amendment E.O.

-- > - > -- > *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu <religionlaw-bounces@lists. > ucla.edu> on behalf of Alan E Brownstein <aebrownst...@ucdavis.edu> > *Sent:* Thursday,

Re: Johnson Amendment E.O.

ligionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu <religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> on behalf of Berg, Thomas C. <tcb...@stthomas.edu> Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2017 2:04:16 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Johnson Amendment E.O. Alan, do you think that "there can no spec

Re: Johnson Amendment E.O.

<religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> on behalf of Berg, Thomas C. <tcb...@stthomas.edu> Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2017 2:04:16 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Johnson Amendment E.O. Alan, do you think that "there can no special protection for religious s

Re: Johnson Amendment E.O.

u> Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2017 2:01:34 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Johnson Amendment E.O. I understand the concern that content-based constraints prohibiting the endorsement of candidates during sermons by clergy during worship services interfere with

RE: Johnson Amendment E.O.

: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Saperstein, David Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2017 2:54 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> Subject: Re: Johnson Amendment E.O. But he didn't need an EO to in

Re: Johnson Amendment E.O.

...@lists.ucla.edu <religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> on behalf of Laycock, H Douglas (hdl5c) <hd...@virginia.edu> Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2017 9:05:52 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Johnson Amendment E.O. Those are troubling hypotheticals. I don't think they

Re: Johnson Amendment E.O.

arty Lederman Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2017 1:55 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>> Subject: Re: Johnson Amendment E.O. Never mind!: https://takecareblog.com/blog/this-executive-ord

RE: Johnson Amendment E.O.

[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2017 1:55 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> Subject: Re: Johnson Amendment E.O. Never mind!: https://takecareblog.com/blog/this-executive-order-on-religion-is-

Re: Johnson Amendment E.O.

Never mind!: https://takecareblog.com/blog/this-executive-order-on-religion-is-thankfully-a-dud On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Marty Lederman < martin.leder...@law.georgetown.edu> wrote: > Just came across this from David Saperstein’s testimony >

RE: Johnson Amendment E.O.

mics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> Subject: Re: Johnson Amendment E.O. Just came across this from David Saperstein’s testimony<https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Saperstein_Testimony_05042017.pdf> today. He makes the point much better than I did--I would only add tha

Re: Johnson Amendment E.O.

Just came across this from David Saperstein’s testimony today. He makes the point much better than I did--I would only add that virtually all of his hypos could be extended beyond the church, to countless

RE: Johnson Amendment E.O.

, 2017 11:19 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> Subject: Re: Johnson Amendment E.O. Doug asks: "Is there any reason to think that the IRS is pursuing cost-free endorsements by secular non-profits? If not, there is no discrimination to

Re: Johnson Amendment E.O.

I'm afraid I don't quite understand Doug's other point, which appears to be that the no-political-activity condition should not be construed to extend to sermons (or Congress should amend the law to exclude sermons) because churches don't spend money on sermons. But of course churches spend money

Re: Johnson Amendment E.O.

Doug asks: "Is there any reason to think that the IRS is pursuing cost-free endorsements by secular non-profits? If not, there is no discrimination to trigger Marty’s Establishment Clause argument about current enforcement policy. I have never seen any account of such a case against a secular

Re: Johnson Amendment E.O.

n issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Johnson Amendment E.O. (This) one would hope. David B. Cruz Professor of Law University of Southern California Gould School of Law Los Angeles, CA 90089-0071 U.S.A. From: <religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> on behalf of Marty Lederman <martin.leder...@

Re: Johnson Amendment E.O.

n issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> Date: Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 8:08 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> Subject: Re: Johnson Amendment E.O. Well, if Hobby Lobby's dictum that RFRA radically altered the pre-Smith law w

Re: Johnson Amendment E.O.

> *From: *<religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> on behalf of Marty Lederman < > martin.leder...@law.georgetown.edu> > *Reply-To: *Law & Religion issues for Law Academics < > religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> > *Date: *Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 7:54 AM > *To: *Law

Re: Johnson Amendment E.O.

AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> Subject: Re: Johnson Amendment E.O. That, as the court of appeals explained, the only legal ramification of so speaking would be that the church would then be treated the same as everyone else who speaks li

Re: Johnson Amendment E.O.

That, as the court of appeals explained, the only legal ramification of so speaking would be that the church would then be treated the same as everyone else who speaks likewise--i.e., it'd get major tax benefits, but contributions wouldn't be tax-deductible. The fact that the state would not

Re: Johnson Amendment E.O.

In Branch Ministries, “the Church d[id] not maintain that a withdrawal from electoral politics would violate its beliefs.” 211 F.3d at 142. This fact played a role in the court’s “no substantial burden” reasoning. If a Church did so maintain today, Marty, what extra analysis would you

RE: Johnson Amendment E.O.

Unless there has been some recent change in IRS policy that I don’t know about and that Marty does not suggest, the Amendment is not limited to “express” endorsements. The IRS jawboning, which is its only enforcement effort, describes many things that it views as implicit endorsements, such as