RE: Mark of the beast lawsuit by Amish

2008-11-14 Thread Michael R. Masinter
I referred to Bell Atlantic v. Twombly because plaintiffs have sued  
both USDA and Michigan officials under RFRA despite City of Boerne v.  
Flores.  The predicate for the RFRA claims is the conclusory  
allegation that Michigan is a puppet controlled by USDA, so that its  
actions properly can be imputed to the U.S. and brought within the  
surviving scope of RFRA.  I understand Twombly's murky discussion of  
pleading requirements to sometimes require more than a conclusory  
allegation to meet Rule 8(a)(2)'s requirement of an allegation that  
shows the pleader is entitled to relief.  Twombly seems to require the  
allegation of a plausible basis in fact for the asserted conclusion on  
which the right to relief hinges, at least when the conclusion alleged  
is contrary to common experience.

The USDA regs explicitly make the tagging optional; therefore  
Michigan, not USDA would seem responsible for Michigan's decision to  
require tagging, and if so, beyond the reach of RFRA.  The conclusory  
assertion that USDA is acting as puppeteer in the face of regulations  
that deprive them of that power strikes me as insufficient to meet  
Twombly's pleading requirements, as murky as they are. I have since  
read the USDA motion to dismiss; not suprisingly, like thousands of  
post Twombly motions to dismiss, it makes that very argument.

Michael R. Masinter  3305 College Avenue
Professor of Law Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314
Nova Southeastern University 954.262.6151 (voice)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]954.262.3835 (fax)

Visiting Professor of Law (2008-2009)305.284.3626 (voice)
University of Miami Law School   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1311 Miller Drive
Coral Gables, FL 33146


Quoting Marc Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> Plainly the use of id's on cattle is a mark of the beast.
> I am  puzzled by Professor Masinter's s reference to Twombly-i don't see
> the relevance of the reference.
> Marc Stern
>
> 
>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 2:03 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Re: Mark of the beast lawsuit by Amish
>
>
> Complaint:
>
> http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/satanfiling.pdf
>
> DOJ Brief:
>
> http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/beast.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Jean Dudley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>
>   http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/11/bush-administra.html
>
>From the Wired article:  "The Amish farmers claim  Michigan
>   regulations requiring them to use radio frequency identification
>   devices on their cattle "constitutes some form of a 'mark of the
>   beast' and/or represents an infringement of their 'dominion over
>   cattle and all living things' in violation of their fundamental
>   religious beliefs," according to the farmers' lawsuit filed in
>   September in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia."
>
>   Thoughts?
>
>   Jean
>   ___
>   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.


Re: Mark of the beast lawsuit by Amish

2008-11-14 Thread Jean Dudley
A careful examination of the quoted text reveals that it is specific  
to human beings, both the recipients of the mark and the originator:   
"And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and  
bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:  
17And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or  
the name of the beast, or the number of his name. 18Here is wisdom.  
Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it  
is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and  
six."

Personally, while I am definitely familiar with the text, I am at a  
loss how the Amish can stretch it to include RFID chips in their  
cattle.  Not withstanding, however, I don't think that biblical  
interpretation is at question here.  The pertinent  questions are "Is  
Michigan requiring the implementation of RFID tags in cattle, and, if  
so, are the Amish exempt from the requirement under Michigan  
religious freedom law?"

Jean


On Nov 14, 2008, at Fri, Nov 14,  11:33 AM, David E. Guinn wrote:

> The "mark of the beast" is drawn from Revelations 13:16-18 and  
> refers to Satan's mark (666).
>
> David E. Guinn, JD, PhD
>
> Recent Publications Available from SSRN at
> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=199608
>
>
>
>
>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Mark of the beast lawsuit by Amish
> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 11:23:10 -0800
> To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
>
> Getting my grammatical pedant on:  Shouldn't that be "mark in (or  
> on) the beast"?
>
> As for references to Smith and Twombly, I'm in the utter dark.  I'm  
> just a photographer, after all.
> On Nov 14, 2008, at Fri, Nov 14,  11:10 AM, Marc Stern wrote:
>
> Plainly the use of id's on cattle is a mark of the beast.
> I am  puzzled by Professor Masinter's s reference to Twombly-i  
> don't see the relevance of the reference.
> Marc Stern
>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:religionlaw- 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 2:03 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Re: Mark of the beast lawsuit by Amish
>
> Complaint:
>
> http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/satanfiling.pdf
>
> DOJ Brief:
>
> http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/beast.pdf
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Jean Dudley  
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/11/bush-administra.html
>
>  From the Wired article:  "The Amish farmers claim  Michigan
> regulations requiring them to use radio frequency identification
> devices on their cattle "constitutes some form of a 'mark of the
> beast' and/or represents an infringement of their 'dominion over
> cattle and all living things' in violation of their fundamental
> religious beliefs," according to the farmers' lawsuit filed in
> September in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia."
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Jean
> ___
> 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.
>
>
> Windows Live Hotmail now works up to 70% faster. Sign up today.
> ___
> 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 
messag

RE: Mark of the beast lawsuit by Amish

2008-11-14 Thread David E. Guinn

The "mark of the beast" is drawn from Revelations 13:16-18 and refers to 
Satan's mark (666).  





David E. Guinn, JD, PhD 


Recent Publications Available from SSRN at


http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=199608





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Mark of the beast lawsuit by Amish
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 11:23:10 -0800
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu


Getting my grammatical pedant on:  Shouldn't that be "mark in (or on) the 
beast"? 
As for references to Smith and Twombly, I'm in the utter dark.  I'm just a 
photographer, after all. 
On Nov 14, 2008, at Fri, Nov 14,  11:10 AM, Marc Stern wrote: Plainly the use 
of id's on cattle is a mark of the beast. I am  puzzled by Professor Masinter's 
s reference to Twombly-i don't see the relevance of the reference. Marc Stern
   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 2:03 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Mark of the beast lawsuit by Amish

 Complaint:

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/satanfiling.pdf

DOJ Brief:

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/beast.pdf




 On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Jean Dudley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/11/bush-administra.html

 From   the Wired article:  "The Amish farmers claimMichigan
regulations requiring them to use radio frequency   identification
devices on their cattle "constitutes some form of a 'mark of   the
beast' and/or represents an infringement of their 'dominion   over
cattle and all living things' in violation of their   fundamental
religious beliefs," according to the farmers' lawsuit filed   in
September in U.S. District Court for the District of   Columbia."

Thoughts?

Jean
___
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 [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] 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. 

_
Windows Live Hotmail now works up to 70% faster.
http://windowslive.com/Explore/Hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_faster_112008___
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: Mark of the beast lawsuit by Amish

2008-11-14 Thread Jean Dudley
Getting my grammatical pedant on:  Shouldn't that be "mark in (or on)  
the beast"?


As for references to Smith and Twombly, I'm in the utter dark.  I'm  
just a photographer, after all.

On Nov 14, 2008, at Fri, Nov 14,  11:10 AM, Marc Stern wrote:


Plainly the use of id's on cattle is a mark of the beast.
I am  puzzled by Professor Masinter's s reference to Twombly-i  
don't see the relevance of the reference.

Marc Stern

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:religionlaw- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman

Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 2:03 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Mark of the beast lawsuit by Amish

Complaint:

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/satanfiling.pdf

DOJ Brief:

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/beast.pdf




On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Jean Dudley  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/11/bush-administra.html

 From the Wired article:  "The Amish farmers claim  Michigan
regulations requiring them to use radio frequency identification
devices on their cattle "constitutes some form of a 'mark of the
beast' and/or represents an infringement of their 'dominion over
cattle and all living things' in violation of their fundamental
religious beliefs," according to the farmers' lawsuit filed in
September in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia."

Thoughts?

Jean
___
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.

RE: Mark of the beast lawsuit by Amish

2008-11-14 Thread Marc Stern
Plainly the use of id's on cattle is a mark of the beast.
I am  puzzled by Professor Masinter's s reference to Twombly-i don't see
the relevance of the reference.
Marc Stern



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 2:03 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Mark of the beast lawsuit by Amish


Complaint:

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/satanfiling.pdf

DOJ Brief:

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/beast.pdf





On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Jean Dudley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:


http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/11/bush-administra.html

 From the Wired article:  "The Amish farmers claim  Michigan
regulations requiring them to use radio frequency identification
devices on their cattle "constitutes some form of a 'mark of the
beast' and/or represents an infringement of their 'dominion over
cattle and all living things' in violation of their fundamental
religious beliefs," according to the farmers' lawsuit filed in
September in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia."

Thoughts?

Jean
___
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.

Re: Mark of the beast lawsuit by Amish

2008-11-14 Thread Douglas Laycock


Yes on the Pennhurst question.  Pennhurst holds that plaintiffs cannot sue 
state officials in their official capacity in federal court to enjoin 
violations of state law.   

I don't know if Michigan has waived that immunity, but I rather doubt it.  So 
plaintiffs would have to file in state court to assert the state law claim.   

Quoting "Michael R. Masinter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> I tried to find within the complaint nonconclusory allegations that
> USDA used its spending powers to compel Michigan to adopt mandatory
> tagging, but on what I concede to be a cursory read, I didn't see much
> there.  But I agree with Doug that if the allegation is true, RFRA
> should apply.
>
> Assuming Michigan construes its free exercise clause along the lines
> of Sherbert-Yoder, doesn't Pennhurst construe the eleventh amendment
> to bar federal courts from hearing claims against state officials for
> injunctive relief to compel compliance with the state constitution?
> Has Michigan waived that aspect of its eleventh amendment immunity?
>
> Michael R. Masinter  3305 College Avenue
> Professor of Law Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314
> Nova Southeastern University 954.262.6151 (voice)
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]954.262.3835 (fax)
>
> Visiting Professor of Law (2008-2009)305.284.3626 (voice)
> University of Miami Law School   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 1311 Miller Drive
> Coral Gables, FL 33146
>
>
> Quoting Douglas Laycock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>
>>
>> It isn't clear from the story whether this is something Michigan did
>>  wholly on its own, or whether it is a condition of some federal
>> grant although not formally mandated.  If it's a conditional
>> spending program, I would treat the feds as responsible.
>>
>> Michigan appears to have interpreted its own free exercise clause to
>>  mean something like Sherbert-Yoder instead of Smith, although the
>> cases are far from perfectly clear.
>>
>
>> Douglas Laycock
>> Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law
>> University of Michigan Law School
>> 625 S. State St.
>> Ann Arbor, MI  48109-1215
>>   734-647-9713
>>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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[1]
>
> 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
Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law
University of Michigan Law School
625 S. State St.
Ann Arbor, MI  48109-1215
  734-647-9713

Links:
--
[1] http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw___
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: Mark of the beast lawsuit by Amish

2008-11-14 Thread Marty Lederman
Complaint:

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/satanfiling.pdf

DOJ Brief:

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/beast.pdf




On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Jean Dudley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/11/bush-administra.html
>
>  From the Wired article:  "The Amish farmers claim  Michigan
> regulations requiring them to use radio frequency identification
> devices on their cattle "constitutes some form of a 'mark of the
> beast' and/or represents an infringement of their 'dominion over
> cattle and all living things' in violation of their fundamental
> religious beliefs," according to the farmers' lawsuit filed in
> September in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia."
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Jean
> ___
> 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.

Re: Mark of the beast lawsuit by Amish

2008-11-14 Thread Michael R. Masinter
I tried to find within the complaint nonconclusory allegations that  
USDA used its spending powers to compel Michigan to adopt mandatory  
tagging, but on what I concede to be a cursory read, I didn't see much  
there.  But I agree with Doug that if the allegation is true, RFRA  
should apply.

Assuming Michigan construes its free exercise clause along the lines  
of Sherbert-Yoder, doesn't Pennhurst construe the eleventh amendment  
to bar federal courts from hearing claims against state officials for  
injunctive relief to compel compliance with the state constitution?   
Has Michigan waived that aspect of its eleventh amendment immunity?

Michael R. Masinter  3305 College Avenue
Professor of Law Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314
Nova Southeastern University 954.262.6151 (voice)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]954.262.3835 (fax)

Visiting Professor of Law (2008-2009)305.284.3626 (voice)
University of Miami Law School   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1311 Miller Drive
Coral Gables, FL 33146


Quoting Douglas Laycock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

>
>
> It isn't clear from the story whether this is something Michigan did  
>  wholly on its own, or whether it is a condition of some federal   
> grant although not formally mandated.  If it's a conditional   
> spending program, I would treat the feds as responsible.
>
> Michigan appears to have interpreted its own free exercise clause to  
>  mean something like Sherbert-Yoder instead of Smith, although the   
> cases are far from perfectly clear.
>

> Douglas Laycock
> Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law
> University of Michigan Law School
> 625 S. State St.
> Ann Arbor, MI  48109-1215
>   734-647-9713
>



___
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: Mark of the beast lawsuit by Amish

2008-11-14 Thread Douglas Laycock


It isn't clear from the story whether this is something Michigan did wholly on 
its own, or whether it is a condition of some federal grant although not 
formally mandated.  If it's a conditional spending program, I would treat the 
feds as responsible. 

Michigan appears to have interpreted its own free exercise clause to mean 
something like Sherbert-Yoder instead of Smith, although the cases are far from 
perfectly clear. 

Quoting "Michael R. Masinter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> In the post Smith world, it's not obvious why the free exercise clause
> would forbid Michigan from requiring the use of RFID chips even if
> members of a particular faith think the chips constitute the mark of
> the beast.  In the post Bell Atlantic v. Twombly world, the argument
> that RFRA applies because Michigan is acting as a puppet of USDA even
> though USDA regs explicitly make participation in any federal
> identification program optional seems at first glance to be a stretch.
>
> Michael R. Masinter  3305 College Avenue
> Professor of Law Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314
> Nova Southeastern University 954.262.6151 (voice)
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]954.262.3835 (fax)
>
> Visiting Professor of Law (2008-2009)305.284.3626 (voice)
> University of Miami Law School   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 1311 Miller Drive
> Coral Gables, FL 33146
>
>
> Quoting Jean Dudley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/11/bush-administra.html[1]
>>
>>  From the Wired article:  "The Amish farmers claim  Michigan
>> regulations requiring them to use radio frequency identification
>> devices on their cattle "constitutes some form of a 'mark of the
>> beast' and/or represents an infringement of their 'dominion over
>> cattle and all living things' in violation of their fundamental
>> religious beliefs," according to the farmers' lawsuit filed in
>> September in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia."
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Jean
>> ___
>> 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[2]
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
>
>
> Michael R. Masinter  3305 College Avenue
> Professor of Law Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314
> Nova Southeastern University 954.262.6151 (voice)
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]954.262.3835 (fax)
>
> Visiting Professor of Law (2008-2009)305.284.3626 (voice)
> University of Miami Law School   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 1311 Miller Drive
> Coral Gables, FL 33146
>
>
> ___
> 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[3]
>
> 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
Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law
University of Michigan Law School
625 S. State St.
Ann Arbor, MI  48109-1215
  734-647-9713

Links:
--
[1] http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/11/bush-administra.html
[2] http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
[3] http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw___
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.

"A Holy Secular Institution"

2008-11-14 Thread Perry Dane


Hi all,
For anyone
interested, I've posted my upcoming Emory Law Journal article,
"A Holy Secular Instituition," dealing with the intersection of
the religious and secular dimensions of marriage, with particular
reference to the same-sex marriage debate, on SSRN.  To read the
abstract or download the article, go to

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1293946  The article might be of some
use, in particular, because, as I emphasize, its goal is less to score
points for one side or the other in the marriage debate than to try to
illuminate the playing field.
Take
care.



Perry

***
Perry Dane  
   
Professor of Law
Rutgers University 
School of Law -- Camden  
  

217 North Fifth
Street  

Camden, N.J. 08102 


[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bio:

www.camlaw.rutgers.edu/bio/925
SSRN author page:

www.ssrn.com/author=48596
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.

Re: Mark of the beast lawsuit by Amish

2008-11-14 Thread Michael R. Masinter
In the post Smith world, it's not obvious why the free exercise clause  
would forbid Michigan from requiring the use of RFID chips even if  
members of a particular faith think the chips constitute the mark of  
the beast.  In the post Bell Atlantic v. Twombly world, the argument  
that RFRA applies because Michigan is acting as a puppet of USDA even  
though USDA regs explicitly make participation in any federal  
identification program optional seems at first glance to be a stretch.

Michael R. Masinter  3305 College Avenue
Professor of Law Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314
Nova Southeastern University 954.262.6151 (voice)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]954.262.3835 (fax)

Visiting Professor of Law (2008-2009)305.284.3626 (voice)
University of Miami Law School   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1311 Miller Drive
Coral Gables, FL 33146


Quoting Jean Dudley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/11/bush-administra.html
>
>  From the Wired article:  "The Amish farmers claim  Michigan
> regulations requiring them to use radio frequency identification
> devices on their cattle "constitutes some form of a 'mark of the
> beast' and/or represents an infringement of their 'dominion over
> cattle and all living things' in violation of their fundamental
> religious beliefs," according to the farmers' lawsuit filed in
> September in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia."
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Jean
> ___
> 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.
>



Michael R. Masinter  3305 College Avenue
Professor of Law Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314
Nova Southeastern University 954.262.6151 (voice)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]954.262.3835 (fax)

Visiting Professor of Law (2008-2009)305.284.3626 (voice)
University of Miami Law School   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1311 Miller Drive
Coral Gables, FL 33146


___
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.


Mark of the beast lawsuit by Amish

2008-11-14 Thread Jean Dudley
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/11/bush-administra.html

 From the Wired article:  "The Amish farmers claim  Michigan  
regulations requiring them to use radio frequency identification  
devices on their cattle "constitutes some form of a 'mark of the  
beast' and/or represents an infringement of their 'dominion over  
cattle and all living things' in violation of their fundamental  
religious beliefs," according to the farmers' lawsuit filed in  
September in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia."

Thoughts?

Jean
___
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.