Organizing to Oppose Military Recruiters on Campus

JMHACLJ at aol.com JMHACLJ at aol.com
Wed Dec 7 20:00:13 PST 2005


 
In a message dated 12/7/2005 3:58:07 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, RJLipkin  
writes:

(1) Any  institution--religious or not--must either follow the conditions of 
a  non-coercive conditional grant or accept the loss of funds as a  
consequence? and (2) Is tax exempt status included in (1), and if not,  why not?


There's a lot of there there.
 
I suppose that I think the answer, in the Pennhurst Schools, Dole, and Gag  
Rule cases, is that institutions that seek a conditional grant must accept the  
conditions or forego the funds.  Do you have a particular set of  
circumstances in mind to test the contours?  
 
I think that the Court in its current blush and over the history of the  
Burger and Rehnquist Court's would have been most likely to view an exemption  
from taxation as a a benefit from the government.  After all, there is  something 
to that mindset that justifies the conclusion that BJU should suffer  loss of 
exemption from taxation because of its discriminatory policies.   Whether 
that take is justified is another thing entirely; I would be pleased to  have 
offered here any writings of the Framers that indicate that their frame of  
reference included a view that churches were taxabe entities.
 
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20051207/75238e56/attachment.htm


More information about the Conlawprof mailing list