Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Digital Commons Network

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 4 of 4

Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network

Antidisestablishmentarianism: Why Rfra Really Was Unconstitutional, Jed Rubenfeld Aug 1997

Antidisestablishmentarianism: Why Rfra Really Was Unconstitutional, Jed Rubenfeld

Michigan Law Review

Two months ago, the Supreme Court struck down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), handing down its most important church-state decision, and one of its most important federalism decisions, in fifty years. Through RFRA, Congress had prohibited any state actor from "substantially burden[ing] a person's exercise of religion" unless imposing that burden was the "least restrictive means" of furthering "a compelling governmental interest." RFRA was a response to Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, in which the Supreme Court abandoned the very same compelling interest test that RFRA mandated. Smith, overturning decades-old precedent, held …


Jack Rakove's Rendition Of Original Meaning, Raoul Berger Jul 1997

Jack Rakove's Rendition Of Original Meaning, Raoul Berger

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.


Interprovincial Sovereign Immunity Revisited, Janet Walker Apr 1997

Interprovincial Sovereign Immunity Revisited, Janet Walker

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

The conventional wisdom has been that the Canadian provincial Crowns are immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of other Canadian provinces just as they are immune from the jurisdiction of foreign courts. This reflects the old views that the provinces are like foreign countries for the purposes of the conflict of laws and that court jurisdiction over the Crown is purely a creature of statute. Recent recognition of the constitutional bases for court jurisdiction and the need to reassess conflict of laws rules in light of the principles of Canadian federalism invites us to revisit interprovincial sovereign immunity, especially …


United States V. Lopez: Theoretical Bang And Practical Whimper? An Illustrative Analysis Based On Lower Court Treatment Of The Child Support Recovery Act, Sara L. Gottovi Jan 1997

United States V. Lopez: Theoretical Bang And Practical Whimper? An Illustrative Analysis Based On Lower Court Treatment Of The Child Support Recovery Act, Sara L. Gottovi

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.