This week, two members of the North Carolina House of Representatives submitted a resolution which would declare that “the Constitution of the United States of America does not prohibit states or their subsidiaries from making laws respecting an establishment of religion.” In other words, the legislation declared that that the state could make its own laws about religion and the federal government would not be able to stop them. Although the resolution is not likely to be approved, it does deserve some serious examination as it reflects a common argument arising in the religious right that the Establishment Clause does not apply to the states.
Stanford University School of Law Students at Stanford University School of Law have a unique opportunity to participate...
ANALYSIS: Supremes Hear California Marriage Case – Prop 8 Advocate Argues It’s All About Procreation
The Roberts Court (2010 – ) By Michael D. Peabody - Today Proposition 8 supporters had the opportunity...
On March 11, 2013, the Kentucky Legislature has passed a measure (HB 279) which will prevent the...
New Hungarian legislation will limit religious freedom by giving parliament the sole right to decide which religious organizations are considered ‘churches’ for the purpose of domestic legislation. (Human Rights Watch)Read more ›
By Jason Hines – n Illinois appellate court rendered an interesting decision last week. The court upheld a lower court ruling that Illinois pharmacists do not have to sell “Plan B” pills to customers if they have religious objections to the use of the product. “Plan B” is the brand [...]Read more ›
On September 17, 1787, the Constitution of the United States was signed by thirty-nine men who changed the course of history. This year as we celebrate the 225th anniversary of the signing of the Constitution, we reflect on the impact this document has made on societies around the world. [...]Read more ›
The core issue will be whether religious groups should be given variance from content-neutral local zoning and safety regulations simply because they are religious, and more specifically, the extent to which individuals can ignore neutral laws in the name of religious freedom.Read more ›
Many conservatives have eviscerated Obamacare, arguing that it would “raise premiums, unconstitutionally force people to buy health care, cause the deficit to skyrocket, slash Medicare spending to create a new entitlement, cause rationing, cause a significant number of doctors to leave the practice, and destroy the quality of American healthcare. Although I am a lifelong Republican, I must respectfully disagree with my conservative brethren on many of these points.Read more ›
By Nicholas P. Miller – It is time to examine a position that provides a principled freedom, both religious and civil, the possibility of a public morality, and a common language with which to discuss and debate the issues. he recent presidential campaign has broken out into a disorienting game of [...]Read more ›