The First Amendment and rejection of apotentialcountyDirectorof
stevenjamar at gmail.com
Wed Nov 22 13:45:45 PST 2006
I think Eugene is pretty much right on this, but was it really his
views or his connection with the religion here? How do we handle
mixed cases? Favor the speech or favor the bar on religious tests?
It certainly makes sense to favor the religious interpretation when
it gets mixed in, I think.
Also, after Lawrence isn't there a bit of an overtone of substantive
due process here that says the action taken needs to have some
legitimate interest and connection to the achievement of that
interest and the person being hired should be judged on doing the
job, not on particular views?
On Nov 22, 2006, at 4:30 PM, Volokh, Eugene wrote:
> It may well be that the government ought not consider an
> applicant's purely theological views (e.g., on the trinity or even on
> the existence of God) even for a high decisionmaking positions.
> But if
> the government may consider an applicant's views on secular questions,
> such as how homosexuality should be treated by society, whether
> should be legal, whether some war is just or not, can it really be
> foreclosed from considering those views when the views are "religious
> views" in the sense of being articulated in religious terms? To
> to the Lumpkin case, if the mayor is generally entitled to select
> Rights Commission members based partly on their judgments about
> homosexuality is morally proper, is the mayor nonetheless foreclosed
> from removing Lumpkin for Lumpkin's religiously framed statements
> to the
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
>> [mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 1:27 PM
>> To: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>> Subject: Re: The First Amendment and rejection of
>> apotentialcountyDirectorof Schools
>> Isn't religion different because you can't require a religious test
>> for holding office? And religion is not just subsumed under
>> I think a person's views can be the basis of selection for
>> this position, but aren't religious views put off limits by
>> the constitution?
>> Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox:
>> Howard University School of Law fax:
>> 2900 Van Ness Street NW
>> mailto:stevenjamar at gmail.com
>> Washington, DC 20008 http://iipsj.com/SDJ/
>> "If a man empties his purse into his head, no man can take it
>> away from him. An investment in knowledge always pays the
>> best interest."
>> Benjamin Franklin
>> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu To
>> subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
>> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be
>> viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read
>> messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives;
>> and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
>> messages to others.
> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed
> as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages
> that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members
> can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017
Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567
2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:stevenjamar at gmail.com
Washington, DC 20008 http://iipsj.com/SDJ/
"Nothing that is worth anything can be achieved in a lifetime;
therefore we must be saved by hope."
More information about the Conlawprof