In a message dated 7/26/2005 10:53:47 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This was
so even though jury had meant a group of 12 ever since the 14th
century. If "jury" isn't a fixed concept, I would suggest
that "establishment" isn't either.
Wouldn't it make more sen
Before we conclude that some
language is so definite that it does not lend itself to interpretation, I
suggest looking again at the 1970 case of Williams v. Florida. It held
that the 6th Amendment's requirement for a trial by "jury" in criminal cases
does not necessarily require that the
A. Jim Henderson. Well not quite. I guess Jim claims to know what they mean, and is not really claiming the prerogative claimed by Humpty Dumpty to define words any old way his fancy suits him. Now there's glory for you! But some others of us also think we know what they mean and see things di
Here, for 100 points, is today's religion and the Constitution
trivia:
"Words mean precisely what I say they mean."
Name the speaker:
A. Jim Henderson
B. James Madison
C. Humpty Dumpty
D. Thomas Jefferson
Remember always through out A and D. So is it James Madison who
demands that
The area of religion and law presents a challenge to the notion of
rule of law. The phrase "rule of law", like the term "law" itself,
becomes increasing problematic the more rigorously one tries to
define or otherwise delimit it. This is a problem philosophers
always seem to have with law
I am grateful to Mark Scarberry for his thoughtful and learned
discussion. So the question is this: If Mark were a nominee for
judicial office, would it be legitimate to ask him the kind of question
that would elicit just this thoughtful and learned response.
Incidentally, I don't really think t
The story, that Judge Roberts said he would
recuse himself from cases involving various issues, appears to be untrue. See http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/26/politics/politicsspecial1/26roberts.html.
An excerpt:
"An opinion-page article in The Los Angeles
Times on Monday by Jonathan Turley,
It has been said, in part: "Whether Judge Roberts is a reader of Finnis or
not, I think when he refers to following the rule of law he means that he will
follow the law as enacted rather than substituting for it his view of what is
just."
Comment: Enacted by WHOM? This is the most important qu
As John Finnis notes in *Natural Law and Natural Rights* (Clarendon Press,
Oxford, 1980) ("NLNR"), Catholic natural law theory does not hold that an
unjust law is not in any sense a law. Rather, an unjust law is not a law in
the focal sense of law, and thus it does not embody the central case
refer
In deference to the repeated requests of our moderator, I'll let
Professor Lipkin have the last word. I guess I'll just have to run
the continued risk that, in my future secret meetings with either the
social conservatives or the small "l" libertarians, I might get thrown
out of there.
Sam Ventol
In a message dated 7/26/2005 10:44:54 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My sense
is that most of the opposition to overruling Bowers was basedon a
perception that the Court was acting lawlessly (a peception Idon't
necessarily share), and a concern that the precedent
My apologies! I misspelled the name: It's Brian Z. Tamanaha, On the
Rule of Law: History, Politics, Theory (Cambridge 2004))
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marc Stern
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 12:36 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for
What is the name of the book? Barnes and Noble has nothing by Tanhanaha.
Marc Stern
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sanford
Levinson
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 1:26 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject
Law & Religion issues for Law
>Academics
>To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
>Subject: RE: "The Faith Of John Roberts"
>Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 11:56:56 -0500
>
>For what it's worth:
>
>1. Senator Durbin's office (whose interview with Roberts led to the
"Judge Roberts said repeatedly that he would follow the rule of
law," Mr. Shoemaker said.
But, of course, one of the central teachings of the Roman Catholic
Church, going back to St. Augustine is that that which is truly immoral
or unjust is not law at all. The "rule of law" is a fatally ambi
iginal report was accurate:
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050726-121131-2535r.htm
Jonathan Turley's column is not accurate," Durbin press secretary Joe
Shoemaker said, adding that his boss never asked that question and Judge
Roberts never said he would recuse himself in such a c
For what it's worth:
1. Senator Durbin's office (whose interview with Roberts led to the
original report) now disputes that the original report was accurate:
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050726-121131-2535r.htm
Jonathan Turley's column is not accurate," Durbin
Title: Message
Folks: As I
mentioned, let's please focus our discussions as much as possible on the law of
government and religion, rather than on libertarian theory more
broadly.
The list
custodian
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
O
In a message dated 7/26/2005 11:15:31 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
By the way, most social liberals who consider themselves
libertarian do not support gun rights, school choice, low taxes, freedom
of contract and other economic liberties, etc. So even if I am n
Ed Brayton wrote on 07/26/2005 10:33:00 AM:
> I would submit that the founders believed that all rights are recognized
> but not created. The founding premise of this nation is that we are
all
> endowed with rights which pre-exist governments and that the purpose
for
> which governments are fo
Rick Duncan wrote:
To foillow up on my response to Marc's question about the 9th
Amendment, it seems to me that good examples of unenumerated liberties
within the meaning of the 9th Amendment are school choice laws enacted
in the states and state RFRAs. When states act to protect
liberty--eit
To foillow up on my response to Marc's question about the 9th Amendment, it seems to me that good examples of unenumerated liberties within the meaning of the 9th Amendment are school choice laws enacted in the states and state RFRAs. When states act to protect liberty--either through state constit
Interesting article in the LA Times
about how John Roberts would handle a situation where the law requires
him to issue a judgment that violates the teachings of his faith. If
their account of the conversation is true (and we all know the mainstream
media ALWAYS gets its facts straight before tal
Sorry to be a bother, but please recall that this is a list
aimed at the discussion (from an academic perspective) of the law of
government and religion. Questions about how Judge Roberts' appointment
may affect Religion Clauses doctrine are on-topic; questions about how
the nomination may
Marc: My understanding of the Ninth Amendment is that it was not intended to empower federal courts to protect unenumerated (certain but not all) rights based upon the judges' personal views of which rights deserve protection and which do not. Frankly, that would be a stain on liberty, since it wou
Samuel V wrote:
Anybody, not just a libertarian, can contend that the government
should support certain liberties, but admit that these liberties are
not necessarily protected by the Constitution. So, such a person (if
he or she is a strict constructionist) would support Constitutiional
decis
On 7/26/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> During
> my lifetime such social conservatives as Pat Buchanan, William Bennett,
> Phyllis Schafly, various clergy persons, and so forth have all supported the
> majority's right to criminalize homosexuality. Just review cable TV shows
> di
Bobby Lipkin says that I can't be what I say I am, because a "libertarian/social conservative" is an oxymoron (kind of like Subtantive Due Process, maybe?).
Almost no one is a 100% libertarian. Lots of liberals who consider themselves libertarian support all sorts of laws restricting economic lib
In a message dated 7/26/2005 10:06:35 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On
homosexuality, most social conservatives do not favor lawsprohibiting
sodomy, but they do resist employment and housing lawswhich require them
to "accept" the "lifestyle."
Contention
I look forward to a brief by Jim calling on
the Court to restore the scope of 11th Amendment to the narrow
limit imposed by its original text.
Marc
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 9:44
AM
To: religi
On 7/26/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How in the world can a libertarian be a social conservative?
Actually, a libertarian view would be very consistent with social
conservativism. On what issues do you think they are inconsistent?
On homosexuality, most social con
In a message dated 7/26/2005 9:45:08 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
would only have said, the meaning of the words of the Constitution belong
to the people who ratified it . . . .
Is there any dispositive
evidence that in some univocal sense of "the p
I don't think Jim and I are as far apart as he may think here -- but language is hard to get right in this sort of dialogue. I do not think the donative meaning of each word should change with time. For example, the intellectual property clause would be very difficult to apply today if we used the
Rick:
The Ninth Amendment refers to rights not in the constitution and asserts these
belong to the people (or the states).But the substance of these are not to use
your phrase “expressed in the Constitution.” Is it your view that the
Ninth Amendment is a nullity, or just that the rights i
In a message dated 7/26/2005 9:30:16 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I agree
that one should use an author's intent to help define words and find
meaning. But the words of a document such as the Constitution do not
belong just to the person who first drafted the
In a message dated 7/25/2005 11:21:17 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
am a
libertarian/social conservative (I like the liberties that are expressed in
the Constitution, the ones I have trouble with are the deadly ones
the liberals on the Court have
invented),
I agree that one should use an author's intent to help define words and find meaning. But the words of a document such as the Constitution do not belong just to the person who first drafted them or who transcribed them or even to the body that collectively wrote them. The words of the Constitut
One very obvious way to understand what the Constitution's religion commandments
mean is to ask the primary source individual who helped write them. The words
"no religious test shall ever be required" (Art. 6., Sec. 3.) and "no law
respecting an establishment of religion" are as understandable
I liked this line in the editorial in Richmond
Times-Dispatch today and am passing the
editorial along:
"Calling the Scouts a religious organization is like calling
General Motors a supplier of brake pads."
http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArt
39 matches
Mail list logo
