RFRA objection to Sentencing Guidelines that provide fordownward departure when a defendant has providedsubstantial assistance

[James Maule]

I thought that the Amish don't use interstates because vehicles
incapable of going 40 mph are barred therefrom. In other words, the
Amish use roads. Or is there a tenet in Amish theology that treats
interstates differently? This is not a disagreement with Rick's point,
just a query that could lead to a suggestion that the Amish analogy is
different.



Jim Maule
Professor of Law, Villanova University School of Law
Villanova PA 19085
maule at law.villanova.edu
http://vls.law.vill.edu/prof/maule
President, TaxJEM Inc (computer assisted tax law instruction)
(www.taxjem.com)
Publisher, JEMBook Publishing Co. (www.jembook.com)
Owner/Developer, TaxCruncherPro (www.taxcruncherpro.com)
Maule Family Archivist & Genealogist (www.maulefamily.com)




>>> conlawprof at YAHOO.COM 09/06/02 10:37AM >>>
I don't really see any substantial burden here. If the
state provides a payment for anyone who kills a wolf
and delivers the pelt to a govt. office, I can't claim
a burden on religious exercise merely because my
religion forbids me from killing animals. I am free to
obey God and don't suffer any penalty for my
obedience.

Similarly, if the state provides a free rock concert
to celebrate the 4th of July, there is no burden on
those whose religion forbids them to listen to rock.
No one is forcing them to listen to rock. They are
free to choose whether to attend the concert or not.
The state is imposing no pressure on them one way or
the other. True, they miss out on free entertainment,
but only because they freely choose to obey their
religious duties.

Similarly, the Amish are not burdened merely because
govt. provides a large benefit--in the form of free
interstate highways--that the Amish faith forbids them
to use. It is their free choice to use the highways or
not. They choose not. No burden.

Am I missing something?

Cheers, Rick Duncan

--- "Volokh, Eugene" <VOLOKH at mail.law.ucla.edu> wrote:
>     In U.S. v. Tabas, 2002 WL 2004270 (3rd Cir. May
> 7), the defendant
> claimed that "Sentencing Guideline 5K1.1, which
> provides for downward
> departure when a defendant has provided substantial
> assistance, burdens
> his [RFRA] and First Amendment rights to the free
> exercise of religion
> because a Rabbi advised him that it is forbidden for
> a Jew to inform
> against others."  Assume that Tabas indeed sincerely
> believes that he is
> religiously forbidden from informing against others,
> and that's the only
> form of substantial assistance that the government
> gave him a chance to
> provide.  What should the result be?  (The court
> didn't reach the merits
> of the question.)
>
>     Eugene
>


=====
"Do you not think an angel rides in the whirlwind and directs the
storm."
    --President George W. Bush (quoting John Page)

"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow Galahad or
Mordred; middle things are gone."  -C.S. Lewis

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com