RFRA was not challenged nor held unconstitutional solely on federalism grounds. That is the post hoc explanation of its proponents. But you are correct that RFRA as app to federal law comes up through the courts without a constitutional angle because no party will challenge it. It is the latest example of what is wrong with a system that requires the AG Office to defend federal law without serious consideration of whether it is actually constitutional or not
Marci Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -----Original Message----- From: David Griffiths <dav...@hotmail.com> Sender: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 19:51:21 To: religionlaw list<religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> Subject: RE: A John Paul Stevens Puzzle _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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.
