There is no "all" in the legislative process. There are only competing interests and conflicting sides. I am not going to belabor this for this exchange, but as someone who was as intimately involved in this as Doug, but on the opposite side, his description encompasses some but not all of what was happening. He can certainly speak for those who started altogether on his side even if they split asunder later. That would be the Coalition and the civil rights groups.
He cannot speak authoritatively for those who were on the other side, particularly when they ultimately prevailed. Marci Marci A. Hamilton Verkuil Chair in Public Law Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School Yeshiva University @Marci_Hamilton On Aug 1, 2013, at 9:48 PM, Marc Stern <ste...@ajc.org> wrote: > An additional fact: the civil rights issue came into public view after the > ACLU wrote a letter to Congress-whether to the whole house or the judiciary > committee I don't recall- spelling out in detail the cases in which civil > liberties and religious liberty claims clashed. It was that letter that > sparked the nadler amendment and the breakup of the coalition that had > earlier supported RFRA. > Marc > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Douglas Laycock [mailto:dlayc...@virginia.edu] > Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 09:30 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>; > hamilto...@aol.com <hamilto...@aol.com> > Subject: Re: Contraception mandate > > RLUIPA does not apply to fair housing laws because it applies only to land > use regulation and institutionalized persons, and it exprssly defines land > use regulation as zoning and landmarking. Period. No mystery to explain. > > My recollection is that that definition was added late in the process. I have > not checked that. > > Before that amendment, neither I nor any other supporter assured opponents > that RLPA would not apply to fair housing laws. The whole fight was fueled by > fair housing laws. > > There were negotiations about exempting large landlords and protecting small > landlords. But these negotiations quickly broke down because the two sides > were too far apart on what the size limit should be. > > RLPA had other opponents, but the civil rights issue is what killed it. It is > not true that it was doomed by its overbreadth. It was not even obvious at > the time that it was doomed by the civil rights fight. > > The Nadler Amendment to exclude civil rights claims was defeated in the House > 234-190. The unamended bill then passed the House 306-118. That lopsided yes > vote hardly suggests a doomed bill. Skeptics can find these votes at 145 > Cong. Rec. H5607-08. The bill then died in the Senate without a vote. > > Both sides in the debate over the Nadler Amendment, and in the earlier > debates in committee, were fighting about a live issue. No one thought they > were making post-enactment legislative history for RFRA. They were all acting > on a common understanding about what the language copied from RFRA meant. > > On Thu, 1 Aug 2013 20:20:28 -0400 (EDT) > hamilto...@aol.com wrote: >> >> I was not particularly interested in solely Doug's statements at the time, >> but rather his reasoning in his new piece. Marc and now Eugene have >> personalized this. >> There is no need for that. >> >> >> Here is a fact: Many following enactment of RLUIPA have stated >> unequivocally that the land use provisions were not intended to apply to the >> fair housing (i.e., civil rights) laws. >> Since the only legis history on RLUIPA was RLPA, that assumption (that the >> civil rights laws were beyond the new statute) had to come from the RLPA >> proceedings. >> What is the missing piece that explains how Doug and Marc have explained the >> history? >> >> >> >> >> Marci >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Marci A. Hamilton >> Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law >> Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law >> Yeshiva University >> 55 Fifth Avenue >> New York, NY 10003 >> (212) 790-0215 >> http://sol-reform.com >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Volokh, Eugene <vol...@law.ucla.edu> >> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> >> Sent: Thu, Aug 1, 2013 7:56 pm >> Subject: RE: Contraception mandate >> >> >> >> Indeed, Marci didn’t say Doug was “lying,” but when one says >> of a first-hand witness that the “history, as I knew it, was distinctive >> from his account,” and “Not sure how to square [Doug’s past reassurances] w >> Doug's current statements,” the implicit accusation seems to me to be pretty >> clear. >> >> But I should think that this could be clearly resolved: If Marci wants to >> produce some quotes from Doug that are at variance with his current >> statements, that would be very interesting. But until any such quotes are >> produced, I’m inclined to trust Doug. >> >> And I agree that we should discuss facts on the listserv without stooping to >> namecalling. >> >> Eugene >> >> >> >> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu >> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of hamilto...@aol.com >> Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 4:41 PM >> To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu >> Subject: Re: Contraception mandate >> >> >> Marc- I didn't say Doug was "lying." I said that the history, as I knew >> it, was distinctive from his account. I think we can discuss the facts >> >> on the listserv without having to stoop to such namecalling. >> >> >> >> Marci >> >> >> >> Marci A. Hamilton >> Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law >> Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law >> Yeshiva University >> 55 Fifth Avenue >> New York, NY 10003 >> (212) 790-0215 >> http://sol-reform.com >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Marc Stern <ste...@ajc.org> >> To: religionlaw <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> >> Sent: Thu, Aug 1, 2013 7:34 pm >> Subject: Re: Contraception mandate >> >> Saw it. In the next post, she accuses doug of lying to left wing groups >> about RLPA and civil rights. I've responded defending Doug. >> Marc >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. > > Douglas Laycock > Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law > University of Virginia Law School > 580 Massie Road > Charlottesville, VA 22903 > 434-243-8546 > _______________________________________________ > 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. _______________________________________________ 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.
