Why New Hampshire Should Permit Married Couples to Choose Community Property

[Excerpt] “Two states, Alaska and Tennessee, offer married couples the choice of holding their property as separate or community property. Another nine states use community property as the default arrangement. Yet in each of those nine states a couple can opt out of community property rules by agreement. Only in the remaining thirty-nine states are married couples forced to accept separate property. There is no good reason for this condition to exist. This essay sets forth the advantages of offering married couples the choice of community or separate property and deals with some expected objections to this proposal. Section I details the benefits of choice. Section II examines likely objections and finds those objections insufficient to reject the proposal.

Devolution or Disunion: The Constitution after Meech Lake

Professor Massey discusses the theoretical benefits of decentralized federalism and proposes constitutional changes to obtain those benefits and to respond to the disparate aspirations of the Canadian polity. He proposes that the provinces and federal government share concurrent authority over most powers, with provincial legislation paramount in cases of conflict. He suggests an empowered Senate, partially selected by the provinces and partially appointed by the federal government, aboriginal self-government, and territorial Senate representation. Finally, Massey proposes altering the constitutional amending formula to enhance public participation and facilitate amendment where unanimity is not critical

Church Schisms, Church Property, and Civil Authority

(Excerpt) Part I describes the varied nature of church organizations and the development of the constitutional doctrine that limits civil court involvement in the resolution of church property disputes. Part II explores the religious freedom interests of individuals and local congregations under conditions of religious division, using a Virginia statute that deals with this issue as the lens by which to examine the question. Part III assesses the circumstances under which reliance on internal church governance rules as the criterion for deciding church property may constitute a violation of either of the religion clauses. Part IV states the constitutional principles that should be applied to church property disputes when churches divide into discrete factions as a result of doctrinal disagreement