Religious Liberty Protection Act of 1998: Hearing Before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, One Hundred Fifth Congress, Second Session on S. 2148 ... June 23, 1998, Volume 4 |
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
Act Eisgruber Responses activity affecting commerce American applied authority bill burden on religious burden religious Caldor CHAIRMAN child Christian Science Church City of Boerne civil rights claim Commerce Clause commerce power Committee compelling interest test compelling state interest Congress constitutionality discrimination Elder OAKS Employment Division enact enforce Establishment Clause example exercise of religion faith Flores Fourteenth Amendment Free Exercise Clause Freedom Restoration Act interpretation interstate commerce issue Jewish June 24 Justice Scalia land use regulation Laycock least restrictive means legislation Liberty Protection Act Lukumi MINCBERG neutral Professor Hamilton programs protect religious Protection Act Eisgruber provisions reasonable reli religious belief religious exercise Religious Freedom Restoration Religious Liberty Protection religious practice religiously motivated requirement Responses to Additional RFRA RLPA RLPA's rule S.Ct Section secular Seminole Tribe Senator DURBIN Smith Spending Clause standard statute strict scrutiny substantial burden Supreme Court Texas Monthly unconstitutional violation WESTLAW yarmulke
Popular passages
Page 144 - The motive and purpose of a regulation of interstate commerce are matters for the legislative judgment upon the exercise of which the Constitution places no restriction and over which the courts are given no control.
Page 147 - We think that Congress may, in determining what is "appropriate legislation" for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, provide for private suits against States or state officials which are constitutionally impermissible in other contexts.
Page 62 - Before the Subcomm. on Civil and Constitutional Rights of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 102d Cong., 2d Sess.
Page 138 - Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co., 59 US (18 How.) 421 (1855...
Page 82 - Congress. And the State itself, rather than challenging the germaneness of the condition to federal purposes, admits that it has never contended that the congressional action was unrelated to a national concern in the absence of the Twenty-first Amendment. Indeed, the condition imposed by Congress is directly related to one of the main purposes for which highway funds are expended — safe interstate travel.
Page 143 - The Court has attempted on occasion to distinguish motive from purpose, and the distinction has figured in disagreements among the Justices over the meaning of Smith. Justice Kennedy has assumed that Smith is primarily about governmental actions taken with anti-religious motive. This is suggested by his reliance on anti-Santeria motive in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye. Inc. v. City ofHialeah, 508 US 520, 540-42 (1993), and by his unelaborated references to "religious bigotry
Page 25 - It may fairly be said that leaving accommodation to the political process will place at a relative disadvantage those religious practices that are not widely engaged in; but that unavoidable consequence of democratic government must be preferred to a system in which each conscience is a law unto itself or in which judges weigh the social importance of all laws against the centrality of all religious beliefs.
Page 7 - It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage, and such only, as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of civil society.
Page 321 - American) continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.
Page 52 - This statement is submitted in my personal capacity as a scholar. I hold the Alice McKean Young Regents Chair in Law at The University of Texas at Austin, but of course The University takes no position on any issue before the Committee. I...