Law Commons^™

The Congressional Chaplaincies, Christopher C. Lund

Christopher C Lund

Twenty five years ago, in Marsh v. Chambers, the Supreme Court considered the congressional chaplaincies, and concluded that they were not “an ‘establishment’ of religion or a step toward establishment,” but instead were “simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country.” That latter phrase has been repeated hundreds of times in cases and law review articles; it suggests that the chaplaincies are uninteresting and uncontroversial and that they have been so throughout our history.

The Court in Marsh looked only briefly at the history of the chaplaincies. But a deeper look at that history …

Does The Constitutional Norm Of Separation Of Church And State Justify The Denial Of Tax Exemption To Churches That Engage In Partisan Political Speech?, Johnny Buckles

Johnny Buckles

The Internal Revenue Service is aggressively investigating churches for their alleged political endorsements of candidates in the 2008 presidential election. At issue is whether these churches have violated section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, which imposes a ban on electioneering by churches and other charities as a condition of maintaining federal income tax exemption. The ban has been justified as necessary to ensure the proper separation of church and state. This article critically analyzes this rationale for the ban. Four major variants of the separationist argument are articulated and thoroughly analyzed in the context of relevant Supreme Court case …

Mis-Under-Standing Freedom From Religion: Two Cents On Madison's Three Pence, Kyle Duncan

Kyle Duncan

Forty years ago in Flast v. Cohen, the Supreme Court created, for Establishment Clause cases only, a dramatic exception to a bedrock principle of standing doctrine, based on one catchy phrase from a famous historical document—James Madison’s 1785 Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments. The Court has been notoriously bad at Establishment Clause history, but Flast seemed to push the envelope. Yet neither the Court nor commentators seemed to question Flast’s historical credentials over the last four decades. Recently, the Supreme Court took up the standing question again in Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. Unhappily, the justices’ various …

State Funding Of Devotional Studies: A Failed Jurisprudence That Has Lost Its Moorings, Mark Strasser

Mark Strasser

The Court’s attitude toward the public funding of devotional studies can best be described as ambivalent. Not long ago, devotional studies were viewed as one of the few kinds of study that the state clearly could not fund. Then, the Court did an about-face, implying that public funding of devotional studies does not violate constitutional guarantees, because that kind of study cannot be distinguished for constitutional purposes from other kinds of permissibly funded areas of study. Still more recently, the Court has changed course yet again, suggesting that states may but need not refuse to fund such studies, reverting to …