Telescoping and Collectivizing Religious Free Exercise Rights

If courts are willing to expand religious liberty so that people may be allowed to choose-on the basis of their own religious beliefs-whether certain laws will apply to non-religious entities they create, those courts should take that step very carefully. This Paper explores the issue and pro- ceeds as follows. Part I discusses three recent Supreme Court cases that il- luminate the telescoping and the collectivization of free exercise rights. Part II considers problems that accompany telescoping and collectivizing free exercise rights. Part III suggests how courts should critically evaluate the telescoping and collectivizing of free exercise rights. This Paper con- cludes with a warning about the danger that can accompany insufficient consideration of the telescoping and collectivizing of free exercise rights through entities

Lincoln, The Emancipation Proclamation and Executive Power

This Essay explores whether President Lincoln\u27s Emancipation Proclamation, freeing all slaves held in areas designated by the President to be under rebellion onJanuary 1, 1863, could be justified as an exercise of his power under the Take Care Clause. Part I of this Essay discusses the legislation that preceded the Emancipation Proclamation. Part II discusses the Emancipation Proclamation. Part III discusses the Take Care Clause and how it might authorize significant parts of the Emancipation Proclamation, if not the entire document

Biblical Interpretation, Constitutional Interpretation, and Ignoring Text

Much is made of how to interpret the Constitution. The Constitution is foundational and its law is the highest law in the land. Consequently, interpreting the Constitution correctly is important, not only so that the Constitution\u27s words are honored but so that its ideals are honored. Similar desires accompany the interpretation of other important documents. Indeed, how a sacred text like the Bible is or can be interpreted may shed light upon how the Constitution could be or should be interpreted. This brief Essay considers how a particular vision of Christian biblical interpretation can inform constitutional interpretation. This Essay does not necessarily endorse the use of the interpretive method presented. Rather, it suggests merely that an interpretive method that may be used to interpret one sacred text might have resonance when considering the possibilities of interpreting another arguably sacred text

Reviewing Holy Writ: Interpretation In Law and Religion

Holy Writ: Interpretation in Law and Religion is precisely what its title suggests. The book consists of “assembled essays on interpretation in the field of law and religion” written by Justice Antonin Scalia and professors of law and philosophy from the University of Leiden and the University of Utrecht. The genesis of the book was “a conference in the honour of Justice Antonin Scalia, who visited the Leiden law department to celebrate the opening of the new faculty building.” (Preface, ix) The structure of the book makes it particularly enjoyable. The collection is aptly likened to a chain novel in the book’s preface. After an introduction by the book’s editor, Justice Scalia is given the first substantive word with his essay. As the first author in the chain, Justice Scalia has little, if anything, to say about the essays that follow his. However, the authors who follow Justice Scalia engage him and each other. The result is a book laden with robust and informative discussions about many aspects of the interpretation of religious and legal texts

Civil Rights Act of 1964

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S. C.A.) (the 19 Act) likely has had the greatest transformative effect on American society of any single law. By prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, a national origin in places of public accommodation, in federally assisted programs, in employment, in schools and with respect to voting rights, this massive law has had profound effects on almost every facet of American society

Reading Amendments and Expansions of Title VII Narrowly

Throughout Title VII’s history, Congress has amended and expanded Title VII. Often, the Supreme Court has read such amendments and expansions narrowly, even as it generally reads Title VII broadly or narrowly depending on the case before it. The Court’s approach to Title VII expansions may merely indicate that the Court believes that such statutory alterations should be read only as broadly as necessary to effectuate their purposes. However, regardless of why the Court has interpreted these expansions narrowly, that the Court has done so suggests that Congress ought to consider carefully how it amends or expands Title VII in the future. This brief Essay examines how the Court has interpreted various amendments and expansions of Title VII and suggests that Congress will need to be very careful in how it expands Title VII to cover additional demographic characteristics and protect employees against all instances of discrimination Congress intends to ban. The Court’s interpretations may have implications for the legislation like the proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act (“ENDA”), which expands Title VII’s coverage to sexual orientation and gender identity. Part I of this Essay discusses how the Court has interpreted Title VII’s motivating factor test, which Congress installed as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (“1991 Act”). Part II discusses how the Court has interpreted Title VII’s disparate impact cause of action, also part of the 1991 Act. Part III discusses how the Court has addressed the reasonable accommodation requirement in Title VII religion cases, which Congress installed through its 1972 Amendments to Title VII. Part IV discusses how the Court has interpreted pregnancy discrimination under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978,3 which amended Title VII

The President, Prosecutorial Discretion, Obstruction of Justice, and Congress

The executive power of the United States is vested in the President of the United States. That power includes prosecutorial discretion—the power to prosecute or decline to prosecute. Consequently, the President would appear to have the constitutional authority to initiate or end a federal criminal prosecution or investigation. This would seem particularly so in an era in which executive power arguably continues to expand. Nonetheless, an ongoing debate exists regarding whether a President obstructs justice when he attempts to end a criminal investigation for improper reasons. Those who argue in favor of the possibility of obstruction of justice suggest that a President can so misuse a power that has been given to the office that the exercise of the power is an act of malfeasance, criminality, or both. Those who argue against the possibility of obstruction tend to rely on the President’s executive power. The debate is too large to fully resolve in this brief essay. Instead, this essay sketches the contours of the debate and briefly considers which questions surrounding the debate are particularly difficult to resolve and which are not

Employer Prerogative and Employee Rights: The Never-Ending Tug-of-War

Where there are employees and employers, there will be employment relationships in need of mending. That reality is enough to guarantee that employment law will always be a warm, if not hot, area of the law. The article and notes on employment law in this issue demonstrate that the development of employment law continues apace