overnment censorship--whether by courts or
by school boards, and whether the speech is secular or religious.
Kurt Lash
Loyola Law School (L.A.)
PS: There is, of course, a serious issue regarding the degree to which
members of an an audience may prevent a speaker from speaking, or a
ceremony f
tic risk of suggesting implied federal power over religion--and
especially if they wished to keep such matters under local control--
they were wise to keep God in the state constitutions, and not in the
federal.
Kurt Lash
Loyola Law School, L.A.
Content-Type: multipart
Amendments.
. . at least until the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Kurt Lash
Loyola Law School, L.A.
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="-1107107937"
---1107107937
Content-Type: text/plain; charse
ish common
law, it would have happened in 1868, not 1791.
If anyone is interested (aren't we all avoiding exam grading?), I
discuss some of this in "The Second Adoption of the Establishment
Clause: The Rise of the Ninestablishment Principle," 27 Ariz. St. L.J.
1085 (1995).
Kurt L
al federal arrangement, and enshrine, for the first
time, a national principle of religious freedom. Under this approach,
there was no incorporation. There was something altogether new.
Kurt Lash
Loyola Law School, Los Angeles
- Original Message -
From: "A.E. Brownstein" <
Non-establishment was an idea that was growing. Again, I believe the
principle was broadly embraced as a national right by 1868. At the
time of the Founding, however, Ed's own evidence suggests that the
framers knew the principle of non-establishment was rejected by a
number of states, a
e over the "original"
meaning of the establishment clause. One can hardly fault Justice
Thomas for joining the debate on the Court's own terms.
Unfortunately, as Steve Smith might say, this debate is doomed to
failure, for it seeks an answer that the people themselves were not
prepared
