Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
Life And Death Decision-Making: Judges V. Legislators As Sources Of Law In Bioethics, Charles Baron
Life And Death Decision-Making: Judges V. Legislators As Sources Of Law In Bioethics, Charles Baron
Charles H. Baron
In some situations, courts may be better sources of new law than legislatures. Some support for this proposition is provided by the performance of American courts in the development of law regarding the “right to die.” When confronted with the problems presented by mid-Twentieth Century technological advances in prolonging human life, American legislators were slow to act. It was the state common law courts, beginning with Quinlan in 1976, that took primary responsibility for gradually crafting new legal principles that excepted withdrawal of life-prolonging treatment from the application of general laws dealing with homicide and suicide. These courts, like the …
Baker V. State And The Promise Of The New Judicial Federalism, Charles Baron, Lawrence Friedman
Baker V. State And The Promise Of The New Judicial Federalism, Charles Baron, Lawrence Friedman
Charles H. Baron
In Baker v. State, the Supreme Court of Vermont ruled that the state constitution’s Common Benefits Clause prohibits the exclusion of same-sex couples from the benefits and protections of marriage. Baker has been praised by constitutional scholars as a prototypical example of the New Judicial Federalism. The authors agree, asserting that the decision sets a standard for constitutional discourse by dint of the manner in which each of the opinions connects and responds to the others, pulls together arguments from other state and federal constitutional authorities, and provides a clear basis for subsequent development of constitutional principle. This Article explores …
Between Law And Religion: Procedural Challenges To Religious Arbitration Awards (Video), Michael Helfand
Between Law And Religion: Procedural Challenges To Religious Arbitration Awards (Video), Michael Helfand
Michael A Helfand
No abstract provided.
A Liberalism Of Sincerity: The Role Of Religion In The Public Square, Michael Helfand
A Liberalism Of Sincerity: The Role Of Religion In The Public Square, Michael Helfand
Michael A Helfand
This article considers the extent to which the liberal nation-state ought to accommodate religious practices that contravene state law and to incorporate religious discourse into public debate. To address these questions, the article develops a liberalism of sincerity based on John Locke’s theory of toleration. On such an account, liberalism imposes a duty of sincerity to prevent individuals from consenting to a regime that exercises control over matters of core concern such as faith, religion, and conscience. Liberal theory grounds the legitimacy of the state in the consent of the governed, but consenting to an intolerant regime is illegitimate because …
What Is A "Church"?: Implied Consent And The Contraception Mandate, Michael Helfand
What Is A "Church"?: Implied Consent And The Contraception Mandate, Michael Helfand
Michael A Helfand
This Article considers the “religious employer” exception to the “contraception mandate” – that is, the “preventative care” requirements announced by Department of Health and Human Services pursuant to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This exception has triggered significant litigation with a variety of employers claiming that they have been excluding from the “religious employer” classification in violation of both the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In considering these claims, this Article applies an “implied consent” framework to these cases, which grounds the authority of religious institutions in the presumed consent of their members. On such …
Religion's Footnote Four: Church Autonomy As Arbitration, Michael A. Helfand
Religion's Footnote Four: Church Autonomy As Arbitration, Michael A. Helfand
Michael A Helfand
While the Supreme Court’s decision in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC has been hailed as an unequivocal victory for religious liberty, the Court’s holding in footnote four – that the ministerial exception is an affirmative defense and not a jurisdictional bar – undermines decades of conventional thinking about the relationship between church and state. For some time, a wide range of scholars had conceptualized the relationship between religious institutions and civil courts as “jurisdictional” – that is, scholars converged on the view that the religion clauses deprived courts of subject-matter jurisdiction over religious claims. In turn, courts could not adjudicate religious disputes …