Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
2007 National Lawyer’S Convention The Federalist Society And Its Federalism And Separation Of Powers Practice Groups Present A Panel Debate On Federalism: Religion, Early America And The Fourteenth Amendment, John Eastman, Marci Hamilton, William H. Pryor Jr.
2007 National Lawyer’S Convention The Federalist Society And Its Federalism And Separation Of Powers Practice Groups Present A Panel Debate On Federalism: Religion, Early America And The Fourteenth Amendment, John Eastman, Marci Hamilton, William H. Pryor Jr.
University of Massachusetts Law Review
Transcript of the Federalist Society and its Federalism and Separation of Powers Practice Groups panel debate at the 2007 National Lawyers Convention including panelists Dean John Eastman of Chapman University School of Law, Professor Marci Hamilton of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, and moderated by Hon. William H. Pryor Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
In Impartiality We Trust: A Commentary On Government Aid And Involvement With Religion, Thomas J. Cleary
In Impartiality We Trust: A Commentary On Government Aid And Involvement With Religion, Thomas J. Cleary
University of Massachusetts Law Review
Ultimately, because true neutrality is not possible, nearly all government interaction with religion is to some degree friendly or hostile. One could argue, therefore, that government interaction with religion is inherently friendly or hostile in nature. As a consequence, establishing neutrality as the ideal misses the mark and has produced a swinging pendulum in the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence. At one end of its arc the pendulum produces hostility towards religion and at the other end of the arc it produces friendliness towards religion. This is reflected in case law and in both early and modern government practices. Ultimately, the pendulum …
The New American Privacy, Richard J. Peltz-Steele
The New American Privacy, Richard J. Peltz-Steele
Faculty Publications
The European Union sparked an intercontinental furor last year with proposed legislation to supersede the 1995 Data Protection Directive (DPD). The EU Parliament approved legislation in a 49-3 committee vote in October. The text, which is not yet published in its current draft at the time of this writing, may yet be amended before being accepted by the union’s 28 member states. The legislation is billed a money saver because it would harmonize EU member states’ data protection laws, which have diverged under the DPD umbrella. The business community is not convinced, fearful that costly new demands will strain balance …