Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- City of Boerne v. Flores (2)
- Congress (2)
- Establishment Clause (2)
- Religious Freedom Restoration Act (2)
- State action (2)
-
- United States Supreme Court (2)
- Adjudication (1)
- Article III (1)
- Bill of Rights (1)
- Cooper v. Aaron (1)
- Craig v. Boren (1)
- Discrimination (1)
- Due Process Clause (1)
- Epistemic idea (1)
- Equal Protection Clause (1)
- Free Speech Clause (1)
- Griswold v. Connecticut (1)
- Judicial review (1)
- Justified sanction (1)
- Liberty schema (1)
- Morality (1)
- Roe v. Wade (1)
- Texas v. Johnson (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Rights Against Rules: The Moral Structure Of American Constitutional Law, Matthew D. Adler
Rights Against Rules: The Moral Structure Of American Constitutional Law, Matthew D. Adler
Michigan Law Review
The Bill of Rights, by means of open-ended terms such as "freedom of speech," "equal protection," or "due process," refers to moral criteria, which take on constitutional status by virtue of being thus referenced. We can disagree about whether the proper methodology for judicial application of these criteria is originalist or nonoriginalist. The originalist looks, not to the true content of the moral criteria named by the Constitution, but to the framers' beliefs about that content; the nonoriginalist tries to determine what the criteria truly require, and ignores or gives less weight to the framers' views. Bracketing this disagreement, however, …
A Response To Professor Rubenfeld, Jonathan D. Hacker
A Response To Professor Rubenfeld, Jonathan D. Hacker
Michigan Law Review
Professor Jed Rubenfeld has offered in these pages an ingenious explanation for why the Supreme Court was right to strike down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in City of Boerne v. Flores. Rubenfeld finds in the First Amendment's Establishment Clause a historical and inherent principle he calls "antidisestablishmentarianism": a prohibition on acts of Congress that "disestablish" religion in the several states. Rubenfeld reads the Establishment Clause as proscribing not only congressional acts that "establish" religion but also all congressional acts that "dictate a position on religion for states," including laws designed to ensure that states abide by the requirements …
Reply: Did The Fourteenth Amendment Repeal The First?, Jed Rubenfeld
Reply: Did The Fourteenth Amendment Repeal The First?, Jed Rubenfeld
Michigan Law Review
To get right to the point: Mr. Hacker does not disagree that the Establishment Clause would, in the absence of the Fourteenth Amendment, have prohibited Congress from passing a nationwide religion law like RFRA. He believes, however, that the Fourteenth Amendment has in part repealed the First. Of course, he doesn't want to say repealed. The language of repeal is not pleasant to the ears of those who would like to forget about First Amendment antidisestablishmentarianism. The Fourteenth Amendment did not "repeal any aspect of the text of the [Establishment] Clause," Hacker says, but only "change[d] profoundly the meaning of …