I assume this is correct under the facts here — but if it were on the seal
continuously from 100+ years ago, I assume it would be ok. But here, with it
being off, then being put back on, it gets the feel religious
motivation/intent/purpose, running afoul of Lemon.
Thoughts?
http://www.latimes
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2016/04/making-sense-of-
supplemental-filings-in.html
--
Ira C. Lupu
F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law, Emeritus
George Washington University Law School
2000 H St., NW
Washington, DC 20052
(202)994-7053
Co-author (with Professor Robert Tuttle) of "Secular Gover
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2014/02/compendium-of-posts-on-hobby-lobby-and.html
___
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/religion
sorry, meant this one:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2016/04/making-sense-of-supplemental-filings-in.html
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Marty Lederman
wrote:
>
> http://balkin.blogspot.com/2014/02/compendium-of-posts-on-hobby-lobby-and.html
>
___
To