Re: Home Schooling and Real Covenants
Apropos of nothing in particular, this keeps showing up in my mail summary as "Home Schooling and Real Coven(s)". ___ 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.
Re: Home Schooling and Real Covenants
Works for me. ;-)On 1/4/06, Will Linden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Apropos of nothing in particular, this keeps showing up in my mail summaryas "Home Schooling and Real Coven(s)".___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo 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. -- Vance R. KovenBoston, MA USA[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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.
RE: Home Schooling and Real Covenants
Remember your second grade teacher you thought was a witch…..? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Vance R. Koven Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 12:22 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Home Schooling and Real Covenants Works for me. ;-) On 1/4/06, Will Linden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Apropos of nothing in particular, this keeps showing up in my mail summary as "Home Schooling and Real Coven(s)". ___ 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. -- Vance R. Koven Boston, MA USA [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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.
Re: Property Law and Religious Liberty/Constituional Law
Not sure whether it's the "whole point," but certainly restoring the pre-Smith balancing of interests was a major point. That said, RFRA and RLUIPA are two very different statutes, and each has its idiosyncrasies. For example, the only part of RLUIPA governing land use that would apply to an individual's exercise of religion (as opposed to religious institutions) is section 1(a), which has a number of important limitations, including the jurisdictional ones of government funding or interstate commerce, and the substantive one of individualized assessment. While the facts Rick stated don't touch on these points, it seems likelier than not that a system of private covenants in a market-priced housing development wouldn't meet any of these requirements. There hasn't been enough litigation under RLUIPA at this point to reach a firm conclusion on whether "anything I do for a religious reason" meets the admittedly broad definition of "exercise of religion," or whether banning someone from housing a remote relative is a "substantial" burden on exercise. My purely personal guess is that a court would apply an extrastatutory "sniff test" to the practice and decide whether it was in any way targeted to religious practices or whether granting the RLUIPA exemption would drive a truck through the regulatory scheme. As I said, I wouldn't be embarrassed to make the RLUIPA argument, I just wouldn't necessarily expect to sail home on it.VanceOn 1/4/06, Andrew Wyatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "but in Mrs. Moore's case, that merely amounts to doing something for religious reasons that other people wouldn't be allowed to do for secular reasons." Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the whole point of statutes like RLUIPA and RFRA? Take the UDV case, for example: Neither the church nor the government disputes that a citizen would be forbidden from importing and ingesting a Schedule I substance for *secular* reasons. I'm less familiar with RLUIPA, but one could imagine a Muslim prisoner requesting to take evening meals in his cell during Ramadan—a privilege no other prisoner has. I was under the impression that such statutes were specifically passed to provide a religious exception to generally applicable laws, regulations, or rules. Andrew Wyatt IANAL -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Vance R. Koven Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 2:03 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Property Law and Religious Liberty/Constituional Law Okay, I'll bite. Isn't the problem with Shelley (and the religion case it cited, Cantwell v. Connecticut) that even if you prevail and show that state court enforcement of the covenant is state action for 14th amendment purposes, you still have all the problems of bringing religious discrimination cases under the 14th Amendment--specifically, that per Smith the state *can* abridge free exercise if done under guise of a generally applicable law? At that point, all the state (or the private litigant under the covenant) would have to show is that it's rationally related to a legitimate regulatory objective, and cite frat parties and the like. Maybe, of course, there's no rational basis for such a regulation that restricts who, rather than how many, people can reside in the same home, but that's an issue apart from any connection to religion (at least under the facts stated). What RLUIPA gets you is strict scrutiny when the land use regulation inhibits religious exercise; but in Mrs. Moore's case, that merely amounts to doing something for religious reasons that other people wouldn't be allowed to do for secular reasons. While building a church and having religious services is pretty much a unique occupation of religious organizations, housing friends and "distant" relatives isn't. While I wouldn't necessarily be embarrassed to make the argument that RLUIPA might apply to Mrs. Moore, I woudn't necessarily expect to win the case. Of course, there's always the Ninth Amendment and Mrs. Moore's right to privacy, which is now a 14th amendment due process issue for the states, if anyone here thinks the courts retain a taste for emanations of penumbras (or was that penumbras of emanations?). Vance On 1/4/06, Rick Duncan < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Here is a fun religious liberty/con law issue from my Property course syllabus. We read Moore v. City of East Cleveland, the SDP case in which the Court struck down a restrictive zoning ordinance that defined single family residential use in a way which prohibited a grandmother from living with her two grandsons (from separate branches of her family tree). You all know the case. Well, suppose that instead of a restrictive zoning ordinance (which, of course, would be unconstitutional under Moore), Mrs. Moore was sued by a HOA to enforce a running covenant restricting her use of her own home to single family residential purpos
FL SCt strikes down vouchers
Decision at this link: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2006/sc04-2323.pdf Anthony R. Picarello, Jr. President & General Counsel The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty 1350 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 605 Washington, DC 20036-1735 Phone: (202) 349-7203 Fax: (202) 955-0090 ___ 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.
Florida voucher case
Note that this opinion did not turn on any church-state issues, but rather on the court's holding that the voucher program fostered "plural, nonuniform systems of education" and thus violated the provision in the Florida constitution requiring the State to provide a "uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high quality system of free public schools..." This is all still very interesting, though, particularly since there's a decent argument that the U.S. Supreme Court's aid cases, particularly the earlier ones, were also in some, if only implicit, sense as much about defending the public school system as they were about drawing a line between church and state. Those words "plural" and "uniform" also have deep resonance here. Though vouchers, etc., do (maybe for the better) challenge the privileged status of the public school system, those of us who are relatively strict separationists would still tend to believe that, in the long run, they threaten to flatten genuine pluralism by drawing religious schools more tightly into the bosom of state regulatory control. Perry *** Perry Dane Professor of Law Rutgers University School of Law -- Camden 217 North Fifth Street Camden, NJ 08102 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.camlaw.rutgers.edu/bio/925/ Work: (856) 225-6004 Fax: (856) 969-7924 Home: (610) 896-5702 *** ___ 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.
