What they had was the reality of politics and the forces arrayed against them. As one said to me, if it doesn't make a difference why try for a constitutional amendment to delete it and fix it permanently?
In federal court, substantial burden has been a difficult hurdle for claimants. Marci A. Hamilton Verkuil Chair in Public Law Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School Yeshiva University @Marci_Hamilton On Dec 2, 2013, at 2:09 PM, Christopher Lund <ed9...@wayne.edu> wrote: > Sure, but what evidence did they have? That is, what evidence did they have > that any of the differences in phrasing--"burden," "substantial burden," or > "restriction on religious liberty,"--would matter in deciding cases? > > Again I may be wrong about this and I really would like to be corrected if I > am. But I have seen no evidence that these differences have practical payoff. > > On Dec 2, 2013, at 1:45 PM, Marci Hamilton <hamilto...@aol.com> wrote: > >> The Texas municipal league and civil rights groups -- especially those >> protecting children's and women's and gay rights -- would disagree w the >> notion "substantial" is irrelevant. And the TX legislature had no interest, >> or so I am told by those groups on the ground in Texas. I don't want the >> listserv to have the impression that the state RFRA battles are being >> fought solely by law professors and religious lobbyists. The civil rights >> groups that initially backed RFRA >> have caught up to the agendas behind the veil >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Marci A. Hamilton >> Verkuil Chair in Public Law >> Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School >> Yeshiva University >> @Marci_Hamilton >> >> >> >> On Dec 2, 2013, at 12:28 PM, "Douglas Laycock" <dlayc...@virginia.edu> wrote: >> >>> Apologies to anyone getting this twice; I think it bounced the first time. >>> >>> What I said is in the second letter (link below) and summarized in the >>> e-mail to which Marci responded. We supported the bill as drafted, without >>> “substantial;” I also suggested that the committee restore “substantial” if >>> it were bothered by the omission. I think most of my co-signers would have >>> agreed with that suggestion, but I don’t know that, because they were not >>> asked to sign the second letter. I said it didn’t matter much because the >>> substantiality of the burden would affect the inevitable balancing of >>> burden against government interest; Chris Lund’s recent post better >>> documents that explanation. >>> >>> Douglas Laycock >>> Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law >>> University of Virginia Law School >>> 580 Massie Road >>> Charlottesville, VA 22903 >>> 434-243-8546 >>> >>> From: hamilto...@aol.com [mailto:hamilto...@aol.com] >>> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 10:18 AM >>> To: dlayc...@virginia.edu; religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu >>> Subject: Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing >>> "substantial" as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Douglas Laycock <dlayc...@virginia.edu> >>> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>; >>> hamilton02 <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/texasreligfreedamdt2013senat > _______________________________________________ > 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.
