Religion Law Commons^™

Why Basic Liberties Are Bilateral, James W. Nickel

Articles

No abstract provided.

The Establishment Clause As A Structural Restraint On Governmental Power, Carl H. Esbeck

Faculty Publications

This Article inquires into whether the singular purpose of the Establishment Clause is to secure individual rights, as is conventionally believed, or whether its role is more properly understood as a structural restraint on governmental power. If the Clause is indeed structural in nature, then its task is to negate from the purview of civil governance all matters "respecting an establishment of religion." Conceptualizing the role of the Establishment Clause as either rights-securing or structural has profound consequences for the nation's constitutional settlement concerning the interrelationship of government and religion.

Religious Freedom As If Religion Matters: A Tribute To Justice Brennan, Stephen L. Carter

Philip A. Hart Memorial Lecture

On April 22, 1998, Professor of Law, Stephen L. Carter of Yale Law School, delivered the Georgetown Law Center’s eighteenth Annual Philip A. Hart Memorial Lecture: "Religion-Centered Free Exercise: A Tribute to Justice Brennan."

Stephen L. Carter is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law at Yale, where he has taught since 1982. Among his courses are law and religion, the ethics of war, contracts, evidence, and professional responsibility. His most recent book is The Violence of Peace: America’s Wars in the Age of Obama (2011). Among his other books on law and politics are God’s Name in Vain: The …

The Status Of Constitutional Religious Liberty At The End Of The Millennium, Kurt T. Lash

Law Faculty Publications

I have the privilege of introducing the 1998 Bums Lecture Symposium- Religious Liberty in the Next Millennium: Should We Amend the Religion Clauses of the United States Constitution? My role in this Symposium is to acquaint you with the religion clauses of the Constitution- where they came from- where they've been- and where they seem to be today. Our Symposium contributors, Professors Kent Greenawalt and Robert George will discuss just where they think the religion clauses should go in the future.

Power And The Subject Of Religion, Kurt T. Lash

Law Faculty Publications

Under the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Nevertheless, congressional actors have on occasion enacted laws that expressly make religion the subject of legislation. Many scholars justify these laws on the grounds that Congress at the time of the Founding had an implied power to legislate on religion if necessary and proper to an enumerated end.

Professor Lash argues that the "implied power" theory cannot withstand historical scrutiny. Whatever "implied power" arguments may have emanated from the original Constitution, those arguments were foreclosed by the adoption of the …

Congressional Alternatives In The Wake Of City Of Boerne V. Flores: The (Limited) Role Of Congress In Protecting Religious Freedom From State And Local Infringement, Daniel O. Conkle

Articles by Maurer Faculty

This article discusses and analyzes City of Boerne v. Flores, the Supreme Court's 1997 decision invalidating the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) as applied to state and local governments, and it explores a variety of ways in which Congress might respond to Boerne with legislation that might survive constitutional scrutiny. In particular, the article addresses the following statutory possibilities: more narrowly tailored legislation grounded on Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment; RFRA-like legislation grounded on Congress's power over interstate commerce or its power to implement treaties; and spending-power legislation imposing RFRA-like conditions on the receipt of federal funding …

Judicial Supremacy And The Settlement Function, Robert F. Nagel

Publications

No abstract provided.

Should The Religion Clauses Of The Constitution Be Amended?, Kent Greenawalt

Faculty Scholarship

Our subject, whether the religion clauses of the federal constitution should be amended, goes to the heart of relations between government and the practice of religion in our society. These relations deeply affect the health of both religion and government. When public officials persecute some religions and embrace others, the risks are political tyranny and rigid, unthinking, unfeeling, vapid religion. No one wishes that fate for us.

When most people ask whether the religion clauses should be amended, they are really asking whether judicial interpretations have become so misguided that Congress and state legislatures should intervene and invoke the cumbersome …