rfra and original intent

[tom berg]

  This is my first posting on this group, so I apologize
if there are any glitches.  Kurt Lash's posting today
reinforces why I have problems with his "no power"
account of the 1789 First Amendment.  Under that account,
not only does the Free Exercise Clause not require any
constitutional exemptions, but the Religion Clauses
actually forbid legislative exemptions.  That I find
impossible to square with the historical evidence:  the
exemption of conscientious objectors by Congress;
Washington's letter to Quakers endorsing military
exemptions; and the fact that even the leading opponent
of the proposed constitutional clause on militia
exemptions said the issue should be left to the
discretion of the government.  Michael McConnell laid
these out in his Harvard article; and I have not seen
anyone refute these as support for permissive (as opposed
to mandatory) exemptions.

----------------------
tom berg
tcberg at samford.edu