Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

2007

Legal Writing and Research

Legislatures

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Law

God Vs. The Gavel: A Brief Rejoinder, Douglas Laycock May 2007

God Vs. The Gavel: A Brief Rejoinder, Douglas Laycock

Michigan Law Review

I recently reviewed God vs. the Gavel by Professor Marci Hamilton, and she published a brief response. My review briefly summarized the book and then made three principal points, addressing Hamilton's institutional competence thesis, her "no-harm" principle, and the remarkable number of legal and factual errors in the book. In this reply, I will review each of these points in turn.


A Syllabus Of Errors, Douglas Laycock Apr 2007

A Syllabus Of Errors, Douglas Laycock

Michigan Law Review

Modern American society is pervasively regulated. It is also religiously diverse to a degree that is probably unprecedented in the history of the world. It is inevitable that some of these diverse religious practices will violate some of these pervasive regulations, and equally inevitable that if we ask whether all these regulations are really necessary, sometimes the answer will be no. If we take free exercise of religion seriously, sometimes it will make sense to exempt sincere religious practices from generally applicable laws - but only some laws, and only some applications. Hardly anyone thinks that human sacrifice should be …


A Response To Professor Laycock, Marci A. Hamilton Apr 2007

A Response To Professor Laycock, Marci A. Hamilton

Michigan Law Review

Almost a hundred years ago, the American Association of University Professors established guidelines for civility among scholars, saying that academic exchanges "should be set forth with dignity, courtesy, and temperateness of language." I agree wholeheartedly with these principles, and I will not succumb to the temptation to respond in kind to Professor Laycock's review. Tone is much less important than having a frank exchange of views. It is well known that Professor Laycock and I have very different perspectives on the proper interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause. His review and my response should be an opportunity for us to …