Source: https://lawandreligionforum.org/author/ddrakeman/
Timestamp: 2017-05-29 07:41:05
Document Index: 130819587

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 3', 'art 2', 'art 1', 'art 3', 'art 2', 'art 1', 'art 3']

ddrakeman « LAW AND RELIGION FORUM
Author Archives: ddrakeman	The Value of the Humanities and Heterodoxy
Share this:Share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)Click to email (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)MoreClick to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)Like this:Like Loading...	Things I Haven’t Figured Out — Part 3: Where’d the Framers Go?
What I find perplexing is that people believe that the hunt for objective public meaning avoids these problems. Let’s look, for example, at the system of town-based taxes for Continue reading →
Share this:Share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)Click to email (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)MoreClick to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)Like this:Like Loading...	Things I Haven’t Figured Out — Part 2: Establishment Clause Heavy Lifting
September 27, 2012 By ddrakeman in Commentary Tags: Establishment Clause	Leave a comment
Every time a church-state issue pops up – school vouchers or prayer, the Pledge, you name it – everyone runs to the establishment clause to see what the answer is. And I’m wondering why we’re asking that clause to do so much work.
You’ll think the answer is obvious. That’s where the Constitution’s governing statement about religion and government is found. Just look at all those Supreme Court cases.
And you’re right. The Supreme Court has, for the last 60 years or so, created its church-state jurisprudence around the first few words of the First Amendment. But it didn’t have to be that way. And, in fact, it most often wasn’t that way for 160 years before that.
Try this as a thought experiment. Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that all the establishment clause did when it was adopted was say that there would be no national “Church of the United States.” (I’ve devoted 1500 footnotes to saying just that in Church, State, and Original Intent, but you don’t have to agree with me. This is just an experiment.) In that case, the establishment clause per se wouldn’t have much, or anything, to say about all our hot-button church-state issues.
It seems to me that there could be interesting questions of delegated powers for federal church-state issues (see the Affordable Care Act litigation), and a chance to mull over equal protection issues for state ones (and perhaps federal ones if you favor reverse incorporation). How about those largely ignored privileges and immunities, and the last couple of provisions in the Bill of Rights? You can no doubt think of others.
I’m not proposing an answer here – just suggesting that, as a diversion from the inevitable less-filling/tastes-great debates between the strict separationists and their establishment clause foes, it might be intellectually freeing (and, at least in my view, more historically accurate) to think about church-state issues without all those layers of establishment clause doctrine.
Share this:Share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)Click to email (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)MoreClick to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)Like this:Like Loading...	Things I Haven’t Figured Out — Part 1: Delayed Reactions
Share this:Share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)Click to email (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)MoreClick to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)Like this:Like Loading...	Things I Thought I Knew — Part 3: The Antifederalists and Religion
September 21, 2012 By ddrakeman in Commentary, Guest Authors Tags: American History, Christianity, Church and State, Constitutional Law, Establishment Clause, First Amendment, Religion in America	Leave a comment
In the last few decades, the Antifederalists have surged, partially because they look like the patron saints of small government, and, for our purposes, because they have been held up as recognizing the importance of religion for the health of a republic.
“[M]any Antifederalists,” according to Herbert Storing, “were concerned with the maintenance of religious conviction as a support of republican government.” And he should know. Storing was not only the dean of Antifederalist scholars, he created a 7 volume canon called (perhaps over-optimistically), The Complete Antifederalist. Since Storing’s book is all about the constitutional debates, it’s hard not to assume that he meant that they were looking for ways for the federal government to support religion.
But, what I found perplexing, when I looked into it, is that even he has trouble documenting his statement about “many Antifederalists.” In all 7 volumes, he only has one Antifederalist, Charles Turner of Massachusetts,” talk about the importance of “Christian piety and morals” to the country. Storing bolsters this statement with a letter by another Massachusetts writer who wasn’t an Antifederalist, and a Virginia writer who wasn’t talking about the Constitution.
To be sure, many Antifederalists did think religion was important to republican government; they shared that belief with many Federalists. The point is that very few Feds or Antifeds thought it was a federal issue. At the state level, there had been – and would continue to be – battles over just how much the government needed religion. But what is most impressive about looking for religion in Storing’s Complete Antifederalist is that it’s rarely there – just an occasional comment about protecting religious freedom, and a few statements both for and against a religious test for public office.
In short, the Antifederalists – in their discussions of the federal Constitution – really didn’t have much to say about religion. If they had thought it was an issue, they probably would have had a lot to say. But it wasn’t, and they didn’t. So anyone who wants to enlist them in a push for more recognition of the importance of religion at the national level must first remember what is abundantly clear from Storing’s collection — that the Antifederalists didn’t want a “national” (a word they hated) government to have power over anything.
Share this:Share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)Click to email (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)MoreClick to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)Like this:Like Loading...	Things I Thought I Knew — Part 2: The Simple Cobbler from Connecticut
Share this:Share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)Click to email (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)MoreClick to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)Like this:Like Loading...	Things I Thought I Knew — Part 1: Supreme Court Facts
Share this:Share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)Click to email (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)MoreClick to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)Like this:Like Loading...	Getting Out of Our Grooves — Part 3: Where Does Religious Liberty Come From?
Share this:Share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)Click to email (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)MoreClick to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)Like this:Like Loading...	Getting Out of Our Grooves — Part II: Islam and Secularization?
Share this:Share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)Click to email (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)MoreClick to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)Like this:Like Loading...	Getting Out of Our Grooves — Part I: Where Does Religious Freedom Come From?