Federal Law Protections for Religious Liberty
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
The Founders and the Freedom of Religion: an Introduction
The Founders and the Freedom of Religion: An Introduction Religion has always been important in America. During the colonial and Revolutionary eras, religion permeated the lives of Americans. Blue laws kept the Sabbath holy and consumption laws limited the actions of everyone. Christianity was one of the few links that bound American society together from Maine to Georgia. The Bible, in addition to being the divine word of God that would guide people through life's journey to the next world, served as a textbook for history, a source book for morals, a primer for mothers to teach their children how to read, and a window through which to view and understand human nature. Because religion and morality were seen as necessary components of stable society, colonial and Revolutionary governments supported religion. Clergymen were among the most influential members of the community and many of them actively participated in government. The liberal religious traditions embodied in the charters and fundamental laws of Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, and the Carolinas read very much like the declarations of indulgences promulgated by Charles II and James II that were so bitterly denounced by the Anglican clergy and members of Parliament. Like a magnet, however, these liberal policies attracted Dissenters to these religiously benevolent colonies. Although colonists often emigrated to the New World to escape religious persecution, many new Americans readily discriminated against others on the basis of religion. Nine of the thirteen American colonies authorized established churches--the Congregational Church in New England and the Anglican Church in the Middle and Southern colonies. -
The Judicial Power and the Inferior Federal Courts: Exploring the Constitutional Vesting Thesis
GEORGIA LAW REVIEW VOLUME 46 FALL 2011 NUMBER 1 ARTICLES THE JUDICIAL POWER AND THE INFERIOR FEDERAL COURTS: EXPLORING THE CONSTITUTIONAL VESTING THESIS A. Benjamin Spencer* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................... ........ 2 II. THE PLAN OF THE CONVENTION ......................... 6 A. THE DEBATES IN THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787.......7 B. THE DEBATES IN THE STATE CONVENTIONS ............. 14 C. THE FEDERALIST PAPERS...........................24 III. THE TRADITIONAL VIEW OF THE JUDICIAL POWER...............36 A. THE UNDERSTANDING OF CONGRESS ................... 37 B. THE VIEW OF THE COURT. ........................... 42 IV. A POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE VIEW OF THE JUDICIAL POWER ..................................... 46 V. CONCLUSION ........................................ 66 * Visiting Professor, University of Virginia School of Law; Professor of Law, Washington & Lee University School of Law. I am thankful to the University of Virginia for its generous grant assistance that supported my work on this Article. Thanks also go to Michael Collins and Caprice Roberts for their helpful comments and suggestions. 1 2 GEORGIA LAWREVIEW [Vol. 46:1 The legislative department is everywhere extending the sphere of its activity and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex.' I. INTRODUCTION Although the Constitution vests the "[J]udicial Power" of the United States in the Supreme Court and in any inferior courts that Congress establishes, 2 both Congress3 and the Court4 have long propounded the traditional view that the inferior courts may be deprived cognizance of some of the cases and controversies that fall within that power.5 Is this view fully consonant with the I THE FEDERALIST No. 48, at 279 (James Madison) (Am. Bar Ass'n 2009). 2 U.S. CONST. art. -
Beyond Diversity and Inclusion: Understanding and Addressing Ableism, Heterosexism, and Transmisia in the Legal Profession: Comm
American Journal of Law & Medicine, 47 (2021): 76-87 © 2021 The Author(s) DOI: 10.1017/amj.2021.3 Beyond Diversity and Inclusion: Understanding and Addressing Ableism, Heterosexism, and Transmisia in the Legal Profession: Comment on Blanck, Hyseni, and Altunkol Wise’s National Study of the Legal Profession Shain A. M. Neumeier† and Lydia X. Z. Brown†† I. INTRODUCTION Far too many—if not most—of us in the legal profession who belong to both the disability and LGBTQþ communities have known informally, through our own experi- ences and those of others like us, that workplace bias and discrimination on the basis of disability, sexuality, and gender identity is still widespread. The new study by Blanck et al. on diversity and inclusion in the U.S. legal profession provides empirical proof of this phenomenon, which might otherwise be dismissed as being based on anecdotal evidence.1 Its findings lend credibility to our position that the legal profession must make systemic changes to address workplace ableism, heterosexism, and transmisia.2 They also suggest †Committee for Public Counsel Services, Mental Health Litigation Division. (The contents of this article are published in the author’s personal capacity.) ††Georgetown University, Disability Studies Program, [email protected]. With thanks to Sara M. Acevedo Espinal, Jennifer Scuro, and Jess L. Cowing for support. 1Peter Blanck, Fitore Hyseni & Fatma Artunkol Wise, Diversity and Inclusion in the American Legal Profession: Discrimination and Bias Reported by Lawyers with Disabilities and Lawyers Who Identify as LGBTQþ,47Am. J.L. & Med. 9, 9 (2021) [hereinafter Blanck, et al., Discrimination and Bias]. -
Inventing the Federal District Courts of the Twentieth Century for the District of Columbia and the Nation
"Uncle Sam Modernizes His Justice": Inventing the Federal District Courts of the Twentieth Century for the District of Columbia and the Nation JUDITH RESNIK* The celebration of the 200th birthday of the courts of the District of Columbia offers an opportunity to focus on the diversification and proliferationof the federal institutions of judging. During the twentieth century, the federal courts and Con- gress worked together to create a host of statutory federal judges, including magis- trate and bankruptcy judges who serve through appointmentsfrom Article III judges, as well as administrative law judges and hearing officers working within agencies. In addition to inventing this array of judicial officers, the federal judiciary also redefined the work of judging to include efforts to settle cases and to influence congressionaldeployment and allocation ofjurisdiction. The innovations have many sources. One is doctrinal. The authority of statutory judges stems from a rereadingofArticle III to license a great deal offederal adjudication without Article Ill's structuralprotections. As litigantschallenged the devolution ofjudicial power their claims became an occasion to explore the import of judicial independence. In general, the life-tenured judiciary permitted (and sometimes welcomed) congressional generation of many adjudicativeforms, seen not to pose a threat to "Article III values." The doctrine in turn was crafted in the face of pressures f-om an expanding federal docket that requiredsome form of change. The particularprograms chosen were based in part on perceptions of the lessening utility of adjudicatory methods, in part on a sense of varying levels of import of cases within the federal docket, and in part on incentives created by legal rules andpractices. -
ESPINOZA, JERI ANDERSON, and JAIME SCHAEFER, Petitioners, V
No. 18-1195 ================================================================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- KENDRA ESPINOZA, JERI ANDERSON, and JAIME SCHAEFER, Petitioners, v. MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, and GENE WALBORN, in his official capacity as DIRECTOR of the MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Respondents. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Writ Of Certiorari To The Montana Supreme Court --------------------------------- --------------------------------- BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS --------------------------------- --------------------------------- MICHAEL BINDAS ERICA J. SMITH INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE RICHARD D. KOMER* 600 University Street INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE Suite 1730 901 North Glebe Road Seattle, WA 98101 Suite 900 (206) 957-1300 Arlington, VA 22203 [email protected] (703) 682-9320 [email protected] TIMOTHY D. KELLER [email protected] INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE 398 South Mill Avenue WILLIAM W. M ERCER Suite 301 HOLLAND & HART LLP Tempe, AZ 85281 401 North 31st Street (480) 557-8300 Suite 1500 [email protected] Billings, MT 59103 (406) 252-2166 [email protected] *Counsel of Record ================================================================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i QUESTION PRESENTED Does it violate the Religion Clauses or Equal Pro- tection Clause of the United States Constitution to in- validate -
Canon Law Repeal Canon 19891
CANON LAW REPEAL CANON 19891 Canon 11, 19922 A canon to repeal certain canon law. The General Synod prescribes as follows: 1. This canon may be cited as "Canon Law Repeal Canon 1989". 2. A reference in this or in any other canon to the Canons of 1603 is a reference to the Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical agreed upon by the bishops and clergy of the Province of Canterbury in the year of Our Lord 1603 and known as the Canons of 1603 and includes any amendments thereto having force or effect in any part of this Church. 3. (1) Subject to the provisions of the Constitution and the operation of any other canon of the General Synod, all canon law of the Church of England made prior to the Canons of 1603, in so far as the same may have any force, shall have no operation or effect in a diocese which adopts this canon. (2) Nothing in subsection (1) deprives a bishop holding office as a metropolitan and bishop of a diocese, or as the bishop of a diocese, of any inherent power or prerogative, or limit any inherent power or prerogative, that was vested in the metropolitan and bishop of that diocese, or the bishop of that diocese, as the case may be, as holder of those offices or of that office immediately before this canon came into force in that diocese. 4. (1) Subject to this section, the canons numbered 1 to 13 inclusive, 15, 16, 38 to 42 inclusive, 44, 48, 59, 65, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77 to 98 inclusive, 105 to 112 inclusive, 113 (other than the proviso thereto) and 114 to 141 inclusive of the Canons of 1603, in so far as the same may have any force, shall have no operation or effect in a diocese which adopts this canon. -
Harmony of the Law - Volume 4
Harmony of the Law - Volume 4 Author(s): Calvin, John (1509-1564) Calvin, Jean (1509-1564) (Alternative) Bingham, Charles William (Translator) Publisher: Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library Description: Calvin©s Harmony of the Law is his commentary on the books Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Whereas the majority of Calvin©s commentaries are chronologically arranged--beginning with the first verse in a book, and ending with the last--Harmony of the Law is arranged topically, for Calvin believed that his topical arrangement would better present the various doctrines of "true piety." A remarkable commentary, Harmony of the Law contains Calvin©s discus- sion of the Ten Commandments, the usefulness of the law, and the harmony of the law. Harmony of the Law instructs readers in both the narrative history of the Old Testament and the practical importance and use of the Old Testament teachings. Harmony of the Law is highly recommended, and will demonstrate to a reader why Calvin is regarded as one of the best commentators of the Reformation. Tim Perrine CCEL Staff Writer Subjects: The Bible Works about the Bible i Contents Harmony of the Law, Part 4 1 A Repetition of the Same History (continued) 2 Deuteronomy 1:6-8 2 Numbers 9:17-23 3 Exodus 40:36-38 6 Numbers 10:29-36 7 Numbers 11:1-35 11 Numbers 12:1-16 32 Numbers 13:1-33 41 Deuteronomy 1:19-25 45 Numbers 14:1-9 52 Deuteronomy 1:26-33 57 Numbers 14:10-38 60 Deuteronomy 1:34-36,39,40 72 Numbers 14:39-45 74 Deuteronomy 1:41-46 77 Deuteronomy 9:22-24 79 Deuteronomy -
La W School Graduation to Be Held June 11
Vol. 6, No.5 BOSTON COLLEGE LAW SCHOOL June 1962 LAW REVIEW STAFF HONORED LAW SCHOOL GRADUATION AT PUBLICATIONS DINNER TO BE HELD JUNE 11 BostQn College will confer eight hon Nations since 1958, will receive a doctor orary degrees UPQn leaders in science, of laws degree. government, medicine, the theatre, re Sir Alec Guiness, Academy Award ligion, banking, literature and educatiQn winning actor, will receive a doctor of at its commencement June 11. fine arts degree. Dr. DeHev W. Bronk, president of Ralph Lowell, chairman of the board, the RQckefeller Institute, will be com Boston Safe Deposit and Trust Co. and mencement speaker and receive an 'One of Boston's first citizens in civic, honorary doctor of science, Very Rev. educational, social welfare and business Michael P. Walsh, S.]., president 'Of affairs, will receive a dQctQr of laws the university, has announced. degree. Dr. Br'Onk is also president of the Phyllis McGinley, winner of the National Academy of Sciences and Pulitzer Prize for Poetry in 1961 , will former president of Johns Hopkins Uni be awarded a doctor 'Of letters degree. versity. Dr. Christopher J. Duncan of Newton, Ralph J. Bunche, under secretary fQr special political affairs at the United (Continued on Page Four) CERTIFICATE OF MERIT WINNERS CHARLES TRETTER--SBA Pres. Nine student members of the Boston ville, N.Y.; John M. Callahan, Hadley, College Industrial and Commercial Law Mass.; Paul G. Delaney, Waterbury, Review' staff were cited at the Annual Conn.; David H. Kravetz, Winthrop, SUZANNE LATAIF--Sec. Publications Banquet held at the law Mass.; Morton R. -
Stability and Development in Canon Law and the Case of "Definitive" Teaching
Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2001 Stability and Development in Canon Law and the Case of "Definitive" Teaching Ladislas M. Örsy Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] Vol. 76 Notre Dame Law Review, Page 865 (2001). Reprinted with permission. © Notre Dame Law Review, University of Notre Dame. This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/569 76 Notre Dame L. Rev. 865-879 (2001) This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Religion Law Commons STABILITY AND DEVELOPMENT IN CANON LAW AND THE CASE OF "DEFINITIVE" TEACHING Ladislas Orsy, SJ!:~ The beginning of knowledge is wonder, wonder provoked by a puzzle whose pieces do not seem to fit together. We do have such an on-going puzzle in canon law; it is the prima facie conflict between the demand of stability and the imperative of development. Stability is an essential quality of any good legal system because a community's lav{s are an expression of its identity, and there is no identity without permanency. Many times we hear in the United States that we are a country held together by our laws. Although the statement cannot be the full truth, it is obvious that if our laws ever lost their stability, the nation's identity would be imperiled. In a relig ious community where the source of its identity is in the common memory of a divine revelation, the demand for stability is even stronger. -
Religion–State Relations
Religion–State Relations International IDEA Constitution-Building Primer 8 Religion–State Relations International IDEA Constitution-Building Primer 8 Dawood Ahmed © 2017 International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA) Second edition First published in 2014 by International IDEA International IDEA publications are independent of specific national or political interests. Views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the views of International IDEA, its Board or its Council members. The electronic version of this publication is available under a Creative Commons Attribute-NonCommercial- ShareAlike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0) licence. You are free to copy, distribute and transmit the publication as well as to remix and adapt it, provided it is only for non-commercial purposes, that you appropriately attribute the publication, and that you distribute it under an identical licence. For more information on this licence visit the Creative Commons website: <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/> International IDEA Strömsborg SE–103 34 Stockholm Sweden Telephone: +46 8 698 37 00 Email: [email protected] Website: <http://www.idea.int> Cover design: International IDEA Cover illustration: © 123RF, <http://www.123rf.com> Produced using Booktype: <https://booktype.pro> ISBN: 978-91-7671-113-2 Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 3 Advantages and risks ............................................................................................... -
General Synod - Canon Law Repeal Canon 1989 Adopting Ordinance 1993
General Synod - Canon Law Repeal Canon 1989 Adopting Ordinance 1993 No 30, 1993 An Ordinance to adopt General Synod Canon No 11, 1992. Whereas - A. The Canon Law Repeal Canon 1989 (the “Canon”) was made by the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Australia in 1992. B. The text of the Canon is set out in the Schedule. C. It is expedient that the Canon be adopted by the Synod of the Diocese on the terms set out in this ordinance. Now the Synod of the Diocese of Sydney Ordains as follows - Citation 1. This ordinance may be cited as the “General Synod - Canon Law Repeal Canon 1989 Adopting Ordinance 1993.” Adoption of the Canon 2. The Canon is adopted. Canons of 1603 3. Canons 9, 10, 13, 48, 59, 71, 75 and 80 to 84 inclusive of the Canons of 1603 will apply in this Diocese. Interpretation 4. The Interpretation Ordinance 1985 is amended by the insertion of the following new clause after clause 11 - “Canons of 1603 12. A reference in this ordinance or in any other ordinance to the Canons of 1603 is a reference to the Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical agreed upon by the bishops and clergy of the Province of Canterbury in the year of Our Lord 1603 and known as the Canons of 1603 and includes any amendments thereto having force or effect in any part of This Church in this Diocese.” Schedule A canon concerning authority on certain matters. The General Synod prescribes as follows - 1. This canon may be cited as “Canon Law Repeal Canon 1989”. -
15-108 Puerto Rico V. Sanchez Valle (06/09/2016)
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2015 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO v. SANCHEZ VALLE ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO No. 15–108. Argued January 13, 2016—Decided June 9, 2016 Respondents Luis Sánchez Valle and Jaime Gómez Vázquez each sold a gun to an undercover police officer. Puerto Rican prosecutors indict ed them for illegally selling firearms in violation of the Puerto Rico Arms Act of 2000. While those charges were pending, federal grand juries also indicted them, based on the same transactions, for viola tions of analogous U. S. gun trafficking statutes. Both defendants pleaded guilty to the federal charges and moved to dismiss the pend ing Commonwealth charges on double jeopardy grounds. The trial court in each case dismissed the charges, rejecting prosecutors’ ar guments that Puerto Rico and the United States are separate sover eigns for double jeopardy purposes and so could bring successive prosecutions against each defendant. The Puerto Rico Court of Ap peals consolidated the cases and reversed. The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico granted review and held, in line with the trial court, that Puerto Rico’s gun sale prosecutions violated the Double Jeopardy Clause.