Isn't part of the explanation for Stevens' apparently conflicting stances in
Boerne and O Centro that: in the former case, the govt was trying to attack the
constitutionality of RFRA as applied to the states, whereas in the latter the
govt party chose not to attack the constitutionality of RFRA's application to a
federal statute? The defendant hallucinogenic tea-drinking group obviosuly did
not raise the EC issue either because RFRA was their best argument (although
they surely could also have succeeded under Lukumi if they had taken the free
exercise clause route?). Therefore the issue of RFRA's EC implications was
presumably never even argued before the Supreme Court in O Centro. This made it
easier (necessary?) for Stevens J to forget his dicta in Boerne.
David
David Griffiths
PhD Candidate
Faculty of Law
University of Auckland
New Zealand
dh.griffi...@auckland.ac.nz
_______________________________________________
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.
