Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Dissent And Disestablishment: The Church/State Settlement Of The New American Republic, Carl H. Esbeck
Dissent And Disestablishment: The Church/State Settlement Of The New American Republic, Carl H. Esbeck
Faculty Publications
This paper has two aims. They are more in the nature of history than law. The first aim is to show that since the fourth century Western civilization has presupposed that there are not one but two sovereigns. Each has a jurisdiction of legitimate operation, and while there are areas of shared cognizance, there are other subject matter areas in which each is noncompetent to perform the tasks of the other. The second aim of this paper is to uncover historical figures that advanced a proposition concerning religious freedom that became the American church-state settlement.
Two Wrongs Make A Right: Hybrid Claims Of Discrimination, Ming Hsu Chen
Two Wrongs Make A Right: Hybrid Claims Of Discrimination, Ming Hsu Chen
Publications
This Note reinterprets and recontextualizes the pronouncement in Employment Division v. Smith (Smith II) that exemptions from generally applicable laws will not be granted unless claims of free exercise are accompanied by the assertion of another constitutional right. It argues that when Arab American Muslims, and others who are of minority race and religion, bring claims for exemption from generally applicable laws on the basis of free exercise and equal protection principles, they ought to be able to invoke Smith II's hybridity exception, thus meriting heightened judicial scrutiny and increased solicitude from courts.
Assimilation, Toleration, And The State's Interest In The Development Of Religious Doctrine, Richard Garnett
Assimilation, Toleration, And The State's Interest In The Development Of Religious Doctrine, Richard Garnett
Journal Articles
Thirty-five years ago, in the context of a church-property dispute, Justice William Brennan observed that government interpretation of religious doctrine and judicial intervention in religious disputes are undesirable, because when civil courts undertake to resolve [doctrinal] controversies..., the hazards are ever present of inhibiting the free development of religious doctrine and of implicating secular interests in matters of purely ecclesiastical concern. This statement, at first, seems wise and fittingly cautious, even unremarkable and obvious. On examination, though, it turns out to be intriguing, elusive, and misleading. Indeed, Justice Brennan's warning presents hazards of its own, and its premises - if …