Authority of sources

[Steven Jamar]

Mr. Garman,

Some of us have read a large amount of history -- some of us were  
history majors in college.  And some of us have read a great deal of  
writings on religion and law and the history of religion in the US  
and such since then. And a few on this list have even written  
thoughtful works on these issues.

Some of us come to different conclusions from you about what the  
historical record shows or at least the clarity with which is shows it.

Some of us do not read the grammar as you do.  Words have meaning and  
grammar sometimes controls meaning, but in the law, as elsewhere,  
sometimes the meaning is not fully captured by the words or grammar.

Many of us consider history to be relevant and statements by the  
founders to be relevant to interpreting the Constitution today, but  
many of us do not consider it to be determinative, as you seem to do.

That the judges are often poor historians and manipulate the record  
for their ends is perhaps somewhat distressing, but hardly news or  
even remarkable.  Historians generally have their own axes to grind  
too and view the same facts has having different meanings or  
explanations or causes or reasons or implications which are at odds  
with other equally expert historians.

At least some of us have viewed the historical records around the  
Constitution and have seen in it that one of the clear intents was  
that it be interpreted in light of actual circumstances and that it  
be a living document that is applied as times and circumstances  
change.  Some view this as anathema.  Some of us view this as a very  
good thing.

Though we all are prone to tirades from time to time on this list,  
most of the regular contributors are pretty sophisticated lawyers and  
have studied these issues to a degree that would probably surprise  
you and have thought about them and fought about them long and hard  
-- at least in general approaches.

Your command of the historical record is impressive and certainly  
exceeds mine and I find your selection of information to post  
interesting, and I generally agree with the thrust of your position  
on separation.  But none of this is sufficient to persuade me that  
either I should defer to your interpretation based on your reading of  
history nor that I should bow in the same way you do to history.

Steve

On Aug 6, 2005, at 5:11 PM, Gene Garman wrote:

> Volokh, Eugene wrote:
>     Mr. Garman:  Here's a tip -- when someone disagrees with you,  
> especially someone who has been working in a field for ten years,  
> it's usually *not* because he has difficulty understanding.   
> Rather, it's because he understands things but draws different  
> implications from them than you do.
>
>
> Mr. Volokh,
>
> As for years, I have been involved in study of the issue of  
> religion and government ever since majoring, over forty years ago,  
> in religion and history at Baylor University, which has an  
> institute of church and state. I make no claim to being a
> Leo Pfeffer or a Leonard W. Levy, but I have read their work and I  
> am a graduate of a Baptist theological seminary, well versed in the  
> issue of religion and government, including the history connecting  
> the two, which is why I easily refuted and rebutted Justice William  
> Haven't-done-sufficient-research Rehnquist's 1985 dissent in  
> Wallace v. Jaffree:
>
> Read Gene Garman's essay in the May/Jun 1999 issue of Liberty  
> magazine. It documents Justice William H. Rehnquist's abuse of the  
> Establishment Clause and its history. Click on the following url:  
> http://www.libertymagazine.org/article/articleview/162/1/41
>
> I also spent enough time in law school to know that American  
> history is probably not taught in any law school. What I see in  
> some of the responses on your religionlaw listserve is a  
> significant lack of appreciation for the role religion history  
> played in the development of the constitutional principle adopted  
> in the Constitution.

-- 
Prof. Steven D. Jamar                                     vox:   
202-806-8017
Howard University School of Law                           fax:   
202-806-8428
2900 Van Ness Street NW                             
mailto:sjamar at law.howard.edu
Washington, DC  20008           http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/ 
pages/jamar

"Face violence if necessary, but refuse to return violence.  If we  
respect those who oppose us, they may achieve a new understanding of  
the human relations involved."

Martin Luther King, Jr.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20050806/2174871f/attachment.htm