Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- City of Boerne v. Flores (2)
- Employment Division v. Smith (2)
- Free Exercise Clause (2)
- Abington School District v. Schempp (1)
- Article V (1)
-
- Brown v. Board of Education (1)
- Case-by-case determination (1)
- Catholicism (1)
- Christian academy (1)
- Compelled confession (1)
- Congress (1)
- Day school (1)
- Dickerson v. United States (1)
- Dormant Commerce Clause (1)
- Engel v. Vitale (1)
- Enumerated powers (1)
- Establishment Clause (1)
- Evangelical (1)
- Everson v. Board of Education (1)
- Ex Parte McCardle (1)
- Falwell (Jerry) (1)
- Fifth Amendment (1)
- In re Young (1)
- Lemon test (1)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1)
- Marbury v. Madison (1)
- Michigan v. Tucker (1)
- Miller v. French (1)
- Miranda v. Arizona (1)
- Mitchell v. Helms (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
A Political History Of The Establishment Clause, John C. Jeffries Jr., James E. Ryan
A Political History Of The Establishment Clause, John C. Jeffries Jr., James E. Ryan
Michigan Law Review
Now pending before the Supreme Court is the most important church-state issue of our time: whether publicly funded vouchers may be used at private, religious schools without violating the Establishment Clause. The last time the Court considered school aid, it overruled precedent and upheld a government program providing computers and other instructional materials to parochial schools. In a plurality opinion defending that result, Justice Thomas dismissed as irrelevant the fact that some aid recipients were "pervasively sectarian." That label, said Thomas, had a "shameful pedigree." He traced it to the Blaine Amendment, proposed in 1875, which would have altered the …
How To Apply The Religious Freedom Restoration Act To Federal Law Without Violating The Constitution, Gregory P. Magarian
How To Apply The Religious Freedom Restoration Act To Federal Law Without Violating The Constitution, Gregory P. Magarian
Michigan Law Review
Learned commentators have called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 ("RFRA" or "the Act") "perhaps the most unconstitutional statute in the history of the nation" and "the most egregious violation of the separation of powers doctrine in American constitutional history." In the 1997 case of City of Boerne v. Flores, the Supreme Court struck down the Act in its applications to state and local governments, declaring that "RFRA contradicts vital principles necessary to maintain separation of powers and the federal balance." The Act's applications to federal law, however, survived Boerne, which means that plaintiffs with religious freedom claims against …
Miranda, The Constitution, And Congress, David A. Strauss
Miranda, The Constitution, And Congress, David A. Strauss
Michigan Law Review
Are Miranda warnings required by the Constitution, or not? If they are, why has the Supreme Court repeatedly said that the rights created by Miranda are "not themselves rights protected by the Constitution"? If not, why can't an Act of Congress, such as 18 U.S.C. 3501, declare them to be unnecessary? These were the central questions posed by United States v. Dickerson. It is not clear that the majority opinion ever really answered them. The majority said that "Miranda is constitutionally based," that Miranda has "constitutional underpinnings," that Miranda is "a constitutional decision," and that Miranda "announced a constitutional rule." …