For this argument to stand up, one has to conclude that any conflict between the possible meaning of the First Amendment trumps possible meanings of the Fourteenth Amendment. I thought the rule of construction was that the latter in time trumps the former in time.
There is no doubt -- recall Incorporation -- that the Fourteenth Amendment invites some new thinking and reworking of pre-Fourteenth Amendment rights, privileges, powers, immunities, and the whole nine yards. But of course this means that the latter in time can trump the former in time. -----Original Message----- From: Volokh, Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 7:21 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Lesser protection for religious advocacy The Fourteenth Amendment doesn't justify speech restrictions in the cause of fighting racism any more than it justifies unreasonable searches for evidence of racist crimes, or abolition of jury trials in prosecutions for lynchings. And, here, the Establishment Clause, which speaks (at most) to the views that *the government* may express says nothing to authorize the government to suppress *private persons'* religious messages. Eugene _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
