(no subject)

[Paul Horwitz]

Marci, I'm confused about the argument in the first few sentences of your comment.  I agree that lobbying by religious entities does not make any law unconstitutional; I would omit the "by itself" and add "period."  But why does that imply, as you suggest in your second sentence, that one who holds this view perforce believes that there is not much religious lobbying?  And what is the import of that sentence?  Are you suggesting that *substantial* religious lobbying might make an otherwise constitutional law unconstitutional?
 
Also, without wanting to be too cute about it, I'm confused about the reference to "legislation that is not on its face related to religion."  Religion is or can be a comprehensive worldview.  Isn't any and all legislation therefore potentially related to religion?
 
Paul Horwitz
University of Alabama School of Law   



To: cdubnoff at holycross.edu; conlawprof at lists.ucla.eduSubject: Re: (no subject)Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 15:15:50 -0500From: hamilton02 at aol.comOf course lobbying by religious entities does not make any law unconstitutional by itself.  Such a view couldonly come from a view that there is not much religious lobbying.  Not so.  Few are awareof how much legislation is a result of religious lobbyists, even legislation that is not on its face relatedto religion.  Or of how much of that legislation is not in the larger public interest, e.g., the CatholicChurch paying high lobbyist fees to kill child sex abuse statute of limitations reform.Marci

Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public LawBenjamin N. Cardozo School of LawYeshiva University55 Fifth AvenueNew York, NY 10003-----Original Message-----From: Caren Dubnoff <cdubnoff at holycross.edu>To: conlawprof at lists.ucla.eduSent: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 1:40 pmSubject: (no subject)
But Wallace v Jaffree and Edwards v Aguillard were dealing with policies
claimed to advance religion. It seems to me the problem here is
conflating policy that promotes religion – for example the posting of
the Ten Commandments – with policy that religious individuals favor. I
don’t recall the Court 
ever saying that a policy that resulted from the
lobbying of one or more groups of religious individuals violates the
Establishment Clause. I of course could be wrong. 

Caren Dubnoff
Associate Professor
Department of Political Science
College of the Holy Cross
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof

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.



Trim your tree and your spending! Get the AOL Holiday Shopping Toolbar for money saving offers and gift ideas. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20081204/192f8095/attachment.htm