(no subject)

[hamilton02 at aol.com]

Of course lobbying by religious entities does not make any law unconstitutional by itself.  Such a view could
only come from a view that there is not much religious lobbying.  Not so.  Few are aware
of how much legislation is a result of religious lobbyists, even legislation that is not on its face related
to religion.  Or of how much of that legislation is not in the larger public interest, e.g., the Catholic
Church paying high lobbyist fees to kill child sex abuse statute of limitations reform.

Marci







Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Yeshiva University
55 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003


-----Original Message-----
From: Caren Dubnoff <cdubnoff at holycross.edu>
To: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 1:40 pm
Subject: (no subject)



But Wallace v Jaffree and Edwards v Aguillard were dealing with policies
laimed to advance religion. It seems to me the problem here is
onflating policy that promotes religion – for example the posting of
he Ten Commandments – with policy that religious individuals favor. I
on’t recall the Court ever saying that a policy that resulted from the
obbying of one or more groups of religious individuals violates the
stablishment Clause. I of course could be wrong. 
Caren Dubnoff
ssociate Professor
epartment of Political Science
ollege of the Holy Cross
______________________________________________
o post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
o subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password,=2
0see 
ttp://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
nyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
ead the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
essages to others.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20081204/7b1d115d/attachment.htm