California seal cross

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

Marty Lederman on understanding the supplemental briefs in Zubik

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

Understanding the Zubik supplemental briefs

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

Re: Understanding the Zubik supplemental briefs

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