NC Governor calls for suspending the Constitution -- you know, just a little bit-- or --Perdue se trouve perdueHer words, as reported on the blog of the Raleigh News-Observer:You have to have more ability from Congress, I think, to work together and to get over the partisan bickering and focus on fixing things. I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just
Michael McConnell's "The Origins and Historical Understanding of Free Exercise of Religion" is a magnificently researched compendium of the early religious history of Anglo-America, and, as such, a valuable antidote to the silly oversimplifications often served up by the Court on the subject, usually in opinions by Justice Hugo Black.But as far as achieving its principle goal, however -- what do
Smith discussion, continued from classWhat follows is first and foremost for my current students in Con Law II, whose attention is being directed to it via Blackboard, but I post it here for the general public. Comments and questions may be sent to me by email; students may send comments and questions by email or on Blackboard.I. "Parade of horribles"In a Scalia-written opinion, when you edit out
Again, re Smith: Prof. McConnell wants to know why not go to historical evidence of the meaning of the Free Exercise Clause? Quite apart from the fact that his own major article disproves his understanding of that meaning, here's a hot quote from Reynolds v. U.S. about Founding-era thinking about the application of Free Exercise to polygamy, the particular action for which a Free Exercise conduct
This article describes some local Free Exercise violations that really are Free Exercise violations, even under Smith; that is, they have nothing to with claims to personal religious exemptions from otherwise-valid laws, but rather with flagrantly discriminatory laws, or else with laws that, while perhaps capable of neutral and general application (say, against congestive parking), are being
SCForum and Ron Paul's Constitutional Problems
Although Ron Paul probably thinks harder about the Constitution than any candidate, that's only good if you don't get the answers majorly screwed up. RP commits two major screw-ups: he seems to think only the anti-Federalists count as "Framers" (they actually opposed ratification of the Const. b/c it gave us, ahem, big govt); and he thinks the Const
Although Ron Paul probably thinks harder about the Constitution than any candidate, that's only good if you don't get the answers majorly screwed up. RP commits two major screw-ups: he seems to think only the anti-Federalists count as "Framers" (they actually opposed ratification of the Const. b/c it gave us, ahem, big govt); and he thinks the Const