Art's example is a good one, but I have usually thought of military chaplins as
involving a special situation pursuant to which the EC is not violated (as
opposed to a situation in which the EC is violated, but justified by a
compelling interest in protecting the spiritual needs of military forc
Wouldn't this line of analysis lead to the conclusion that the government may
establish a religion so long as it can show that most constituents want an
established religion?
I don't think that community desires alone can ever be a compelling interest.
>>> Rick Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 7/22
When the Ct strikes down a law under the EC, it usually declares the law
unconstitutional w/out any type of "scrutiny." Why doesn't the Ct at least go
through the motions of applying the compelling interest test? Is the EC an
absolute, categorical rule prohibiting laws that establish religion?
Well, could you argue that supporting a quality education for all students is a
compelling interest that justifies direct funding of all schools, including
religious schools?
Or, as in a recent federal district ct case in Colorado, does compliance with
a state constitution barring funding
How about hiring chaplains for the armed forces?
In a message dated 7/22/07 5:34:54 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> The tough question is to come up with a concrete example of where some
> compelling interest would indeed be in play. Rick, what examples did you
> have in mind?
>
*
Rick asks an excellent question; the doctrinal answer seems to be
that some behavior -- such as coercion of religious practice -- is
categorically unconstitutional, with no strict scrutiny exception, but
the Court often talks about rights as being absolute and then turns
around and sets up some
A question for this august body of learned friends:
When a state violates the EC, is this absolutely unconstitutional or may the
state attempt to show a compelling interest to justify an establishment? Does
any SCt case clearly focus on this issue? Are there good law review articles
addrss
