Breaking news in federal RFRA case

[Hamilton02 at aol.com]

Read the legislative history behind RFRA from beginning to end -- the  
administration of illegal drugs to children by religious groups is not  there.  It 
is a wholesale reconstruction of history to  believe that Congress considered 
the issue in any way, shape, or  form.  The vast majority, i.e., over 95%, of 
the legislative history  involves castigating the Supreme Court for Smith.  The 
practical  consequences of RFRA were never approached, because Congress's 
purpose was to  reverse a Supreme Court decision, without any meaningful 
consideration of what  that would accomplish at a policy level.  Now, there are post 
hoc  justifications for RFRA proffered all around, but they do not displace 
what  Congress actually considered and actually knew at the time it was enacted.  
 
As to policy choices, it is my view that RFRA is unsound  constitutionally 
and policy-wise, but the latter does not undermine the  former.  
 
And, yes, the placement of a drug on Schedule I does, indeed, end the  
discussion when the drug is being administered to minors.  The fact  the drugs were 
delivered in a religious context does not change the  extraordinary interest 
of the children.
 
Marci
 
 
 
In a message dated 2/23/2006 2:36:19 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
mnewsom at law.howard.edu writes:

You assume that the  placement of a drug on Schedule I ends the discussion.  
I hope that you  do not think that it is jesting to suppose that that 
placement does not end  the discussion.  Congress surely must have some sense of the 
consequences  of its decisions (1) to place the drug on Schedule I and (2) to 
enact  RFRA.


 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20060224/fab81a50/attachment.htm