I will just note that Congress has the
discretion to decide how to handle the matter. You just don’t agree with
the approach that Congress took. From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Read the legislative history behind RFRA
from beginning to end -- the administration of illegal drugs to children
by religious groups is not there. It is a wholesale
reconstruction of history to believe that Congress considered the issue in
any way, shape, or form. The vast majority, i.e., over 95%, of the
legislative history involves castigating the Supreme Court for Smith. The
practical consequences of RFRA were never approached, because Congress's
purpose was to reverse a Supreme Court decision, without any meaningful
consideration of what that would accomplish at a policy level. Now, there
are post hoc justifications for RFRA proffered all around, but they do not
displace what Congress actually considered and actually knew at the time it was
enacted. As to policy choices, it is my view
that RFRA is unsound constitutionally and policy-wise, but the latter does
not undermine the former. And, yes, the placement of a drug on
Schedule I does, indeed, end the discussion when the drug is being
administered to minors. The fact the drugs were delivered in a religious
context does not change the extraordinary interest of the children. Marci In a message dated 2/23/2006 2:36:19 P.M.
Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|
_______________________________________________ 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.