Vol. 39 Nbr. 3, February 1998
> SIGN UP FREE
- The Religious Freedom Restoration Act is a constitutional expansion of rights.
- How not to challenge the Court.
- The federalism implications of Flores.
- Why now is not the time for constitutional amendment: the limited reach of City of Boerne v. Flores.
- City of Boerne v. Flores: a landmark for structural analysis.
- Two section twos and two section fives: voting rights and remedies after Flores.
- Conceptual gulfs in City of Boerne v. Flores.
- Why the Congress was wrong and the Court was right - reflections on City of Boerne v. Flores.
- Freedom from persecution or protection of the rights of conscience? A critique of Justice Scalia's historical arguments in City of Boerne v. Flores.
- Judicial supremacy and the settlement function.
- Justice O'Connor's dilemma: the baseline question.
- Losing Jerusalem - RFRA and the vocation of legal crusader.
- The free exercise of religion after the fall: the case for intermediate scrutiny.
- Two versions of judicial supremacy.
- The current state of the peremptory challenge.
- Ad hoc adjudication: People v. Champion, another confusing element in the turmoil following Minnesota v. Dickerson.