|
In a message dated 3/2/2005 3:35:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If I'm reading Mr. Henderson correctly, he is actually arguing that the artist who carved them is wrong about what they represent? If the artist who carved the frieze isn't the authoritative source on what the objects in it are supposed to represent, who on earth IS authoritative on it? I adopt Ed Brayton's rule of decision for all constitutional questions. What did the author's of the texts intend? Not what does Justice Fill-in-the-Blank think that evolving notions of decency require. What is intended by the dog-goned guy (gal) who crafted the matter in dispute.
But of course, I'm sure the response will be that principles governing the interpretation of art (fixed and determinative) do not restrict the actions of justices interpreting the Constitution (breathing and chameleon-like).
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
|
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 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.
