Re: RFRA, the Establishment Clause, and saving constructions

The reason not to construe RFRA to apply to all secular philosophical objectors is that it's just plain crazy as a matter of policy. RFRA (which we would have to rename FRA after such a construction) applies to all of federal law. So this construction would give the holder of every crackpot

RE: RFRA, the Establishment Clause, and saving constructions

, the Establishment Clause, and saving constructions The reason not to construe RFRA to apply to all secular philosophical objectors is that it's just plain crazy as a matter of policy. RFRA (which we would have to rename FRA after such a construction) applies to all of federal law. So this construction

Re: RFRA, the Establishment Clause, and saving constructions

, the Establishment Clause, and saving constructions The reason not to construe RFRA to apply to all secular philosophical objectors is that it's just plain crazy as a matter of policy. RFRA (which we would have to rename FRA after such a construction) applies to all of federal law. So

Re: RFRA, the Establishment Clause, and saving constructions

Academics Subject: Re: RFRA, the Establishment Clause, and saving constructions The reason not to construe RFRA to apply to all secular philosophical objectors is that it's just plain crazy as a matter of policy. RFRA (which we would have to rename FRA after such a construction) applies to all

Re: RFRA, the Establishment Clause, and saving constructions

...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marci Hamilton Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 8:14 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Cc: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: RFRA, the Establishment Clause, and saving constructions Chip has cut

Re: RFRA, the Establishment Clause, and saving constructions

Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: RFRA, the Establishment Clause, and saving constructions The reason not to construe RFRA to apply to all secular philosophical objectors is that it's just plain crazy as a matter of policy. RFRA (which we would have to rename FRA after

Re: RFRA, the Establishment Clause, and saving constructions

Religion issues for Law Academics *Subject:* Re: RFRA, the Establishment Clause, and saving constructions The reason not to construe RFRA to apply to all secular philosophical objectors is that it's just plain crazy as a matter of policy. RFRA (which we would have to rename FRA after

Re: RFRA, the Establishment Clause, and saving constructions

Two additional thoughts: 1. While the Court certainly could take the approach Eugene suggests, does anyone think the Court will do so? In light of the fact that the Court recently and unanimously embraced the position in Hosanna-Tabor that religion gets special treatment under the Constitution,

RE: RFRA, the Establishment Clause, and saving constructions

for Law Academics Subject: Re: RFRA, the Establishment Clause, and saving constructions Eugene writes: Even in the face of this caselaw, and the argument that such preference for religion makes the statute unconstitutional, the Court can't read RFRA the same way [as courts have read the title

RFRA, the Establishment Clause, and saving constructions

I appreciate Jim's argument, and also the arguments that the problem with the exemption isn't discrimination in favor of religion, but rather the burden on third parties, regardless of whether the exemption is only for the religious. (I hope to respond to those arguments soon.)