Iqbal and the Free Exercise Clause

[Marc Stern]

if the standard is the that legislature knows what it is doing, nothing
will ever  be  unconstitutional.
Marc

________________________________

From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Brownstein,
Alan
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 1:51 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Iqbal and the Free Exercise Clause



Good question. There is certainly some range of opinions on whether a
law that requires a lot of individualized applications or exceptions is
sufficiently general for Smith purposes.  Also, legislative
accommodations of religion that do not reach all faiths may not be
intentionally discriminatory.  I also think it is possible to be
perceived as creating a "religious gerrymander" without deliberately
intending to do so. 

 

Alan Brownstein 

 

From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of
ArtSpitzer at aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 10:33 AM
To: religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Iqbal and the Free Exercise Clause

 

When would a law that's not neutral or not generally applicable not also
be intentionally discriminatory?  Can a legislature negligently or
unknowingly enact a law that's not neutral or not generally applicable?

Art Spitzer


**************
Dinner Made Easy Newsletter - Simple Meal Ideas for Your Family. Sign Up
Now!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221991367x1201443283/aol?redir
=http:%2F%2Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B215225819%3B37274678%3Bs%3Fhttp:%
2F%2Frecipes.dinnermadeeasy.com%2F%3FESRC%3D622)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20090527/31a8cf1e/attachment.htm>