Re: Locke v. Davey Question

for Law Academics Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 1:08 PM Subject: RE: Locke v. Davey Question Awile ago Doug Laycock asked: To particularize the question, what do they do with Gonzaga? My research assistant called Gonzaga and asked what they do there aboutstate-fu

RE: Locke v. Davey Question

DuncanSent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 9:51 AMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Locke v. Davey QuestionThis is a factual question about Washington's denial of Promise Scholarship funding to students, like Josh Davey, who are pursuing a degree in "devotional theology."D

Re: Locke v. Davey Question

Presumably, the problem in Locke was his acknowledgement that he was pursuing an MDiv. David - Original Message - From: Rick Duncan To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 12:08 PM Subject: RE: Locke v. Davey Question Awile ago Do

Locke v. Davey Question

This is a factual question about Washington's denial of Promise Scholarship funding to students, like Josh Davey, who are pursuing a degree in "devotional theology."Does anyone know whether Promise Scholars at Catholic universities in Washington are denied funding if they major in theology or

RE: Locke v. Davey Question

, January 11, 2006 9:51 AMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Locke v. Davey Question This is a factual question about Washington's denial of Promise Scholarship funding to students, like Josh Davey, who are pursuing a degree in "devotional theology." Does anyone know wheth

RE: Locke v. Davey Question

Subject: RE: Locke v. Davey Question To particularize the question, what do they do with Gonzaga? Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (phone) 512-471-6988 (fax) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL

RE: Locke v. Davey Question

AM To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics' Subject: RE: Locke v. Davey Question In the amicus brief that Doug Laycock, Greg Baylor, and I filed in Davey, we argued that this kind of determination (whats objective enough and whats too devotional) would entangle the state in discretionary

Re: Locke v. Davey Question

it were, then several of the Court's own constitutional doctrines would have been subject to the same objection for the past several decades. - Original Message - From: Rick Duncan To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 1:12 PM

Re: Locke v. Davey Question

vide in its state-run schools. Perhaps that exclusion is a Free Exercise violation, as Scalia argued. But the problem is not in the indeterminacy of the line-drawing. If it were, then several of the Court's own constitutional doctrines would have been subject to the same objection for the past several

Re: Locke v. Davey Question

sumably the scholarship could be used there.- Original Message - From: Rick Duncan To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 2:25 PM Subject: Re: Locke v. Davey QuestionMarty's post is a very interesting and helpful one. But Washington claime

Re: Locke v. Davey Question

sion might be. - Original Message - From: Rick Duncan To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 3:59 PM Subject: Re: Locke v. Davey Question Thanks, Marty. This is helpful. But one problem with the Washington program w

RE: Locke v. Davey Question

512-232-1341 (phone) 512-471-6988 (fax) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marty LedermanSent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 4:02 PMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: Locke v. Davey Question Well, I think I see where the confusion lies

Re: Locke v. Davey Question

nstruction. - Original Message - From: Douglas Laycock To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 5:25 PM Subject: RE: Locke v. Davey Question This is a statute that was written for convenient administration; it is much easier

Re: Locke v. Davey Question

Academics Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 3:59 PM Subject: Re: Locke v. Davey Question Thanks, Marty. This is helpful. But one problem with the Washington program was that it did allow funds to be used for religious instruction. Josh Davey could have dropped his major, taken exactly the same

RE: Locke v. Davey Question

for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: Locke v. Davey Question I agree 100% with Doug's first paragraph-- the program comes perilously close to being an unconstitutional condition because the exclusion is not at all tailored to the religious courses, and thus Davey is put to the ridiculous choice

RE: Locke v. Davey Question

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 5:59 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Locke v. Davey Question Marty may be right about the Washington constitution. But the statute seems to enact

Re: Locke v. Davey Question

I would like to inject my situation in North Carolina into the picture. The North Carolina statute looks at the institution, not what the student is studying. Originally, "pervasively sectarian" institutions were prohibited from participating by court decree. Accounting majors at sectarian