Just FY (forgive me if I missed an earlier reference)....I believe there is such a bill in Wisconsin as well ?
Sent from my iPhone On Dec 2, 2013, at 10:18 AM, "hamilto...@aol.com<mailto:hamilto...@aol.com>" <hamilto...@aol.com<mailto:hamilto...@aol.com>> wrote: Thanks, Doug. The letter in support of the new TRFRA amendment bill, which would have omitted "substantial" as a modifier, does not mention the removal of "substantial," but is in support of the bill. If there is anyone who signed it who opposes removal of "substantial," please let me know. Otherwise, I will assume all signatories have endorsed the removal of "substantial" as a modifier for "burden." No need to respond if you support the bill as worded. Thanks all 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<http://sol-reform.com/> [http://sol-reform.com/fb.png]<https://www.facebook.com/professormarciahamilton?fref=ts> [http://www.sol-reform.com/tw.png] <https://twitter.com/marci_hamilton> -----Original Message----- From: Douglas Laycock <dlayc...@virginia.edu<mailto:dlayc...@virginia.edu>> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>>; hamilton02 <hamilto...@aol.com<mailto:hamilto...@aol.com>> Sent: Sun, Dec 1, 2013 11:37 am Subject: Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing "substantial" as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs The presence or absence of the word "substantial" was briefly addressed in a follow-up letter here: http://www.law.virginia.edu/pdf/faculty/laycock/texasreligfreedamdt2013senate2corrected.pdf I defended the word's omission. I also suggested that the Committee add it if they thought it mattered. My apologies for the delay. There was an initial miscommunication with our tech people, and by the time they got this posted, I was caught up in Town of Greece and completely forgot to go back to this. On Sun, 1 Dec 2013 11:00:33 -0500 (EST) hamilto...@aol.com<mailto:hamilto...@aol.com> wrote: >Thanks Marty! > > >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: Marty Lederman ><lederman.ma...@gmail.com<mailto:lederman.ma...@gmail.com>> >To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics ><religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>> >Sent: Sun, Dec 1, 2013 9:44 am >Subject: Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing "substantial" as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs > > >I assume this is the letter, although it does not specifically address the removal of "substantial": > >http://txvalues.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Professor-Support-Texas-Religious-Freedom-Amedment-Senate-version.pdf > > > > >On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 9:03 AM, ><hamilto...@aol.com<mailto:hamilto...@aol.com>> wrote: > >When a new TRFRA was introduced in Texas earlier this year, I was told that there was a letter submitted signed by approximately 16 law professors >who supported the removal of "substantial" from the typical RFRA analysis. Doug had said on this list that he would send it to me several months ago, but >I have never received it. I assume several on this list signed it. Could someone please forward it to me? It is, essentially, a public document, having been distributed >to Texas legislators. > > >KY actually did pass such a law so I assume this is a new trend. I am hearing from many civil rights groups who are deeply concerned about such a law, and I would like >to explain to them the reasoning behing making a de minimis burden the trigger for strict scrutiny. > > >Thanks-- 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 > > > > >_______________________________________________ >To post, send message to >Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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.
