FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3123969685> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3123969685 startingPage "1435" @default.
• W3123969685 abstract "Today I want to talk about the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Protection Act, otherwise known by the acronym RLUIPA. Specifically, I want to talk about the portions of RLUIPA that deal with land use more than the institutionalized persons provisions of RLUIPA. I want to try to, in brief fashion, make two quick arguments. One is that the land use provisions of RLUIPA are constitutional. In other words, Congress had the authority under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to enact those provisions. And two, to the extent that there are constitutional questions about the power of Congress to pass RLUIPA, the current academic debate and current academic literature is missing the primary point, as it is largely devoted to what I think might be a non-issue. First let's get a little bit of background on RLUIPA. To do that, I have to briefly talk about the dialog between the U.S. Supreme Court and Congress during the decade of the 1990s regarding religious freedom. I'll focus on some slightly different portions of that dialog than what we have heard already. The starting point is Employment Division v. Smith, and we have already learned that Employment Division v. Smith tells us that as long as the law is neutral, and as long as the law is generally applicable, then the religious claimant is not entitled to an exemption from that law even if the law puts a substantial burden on the religious claimant. Of course, American polls have consistently shown that Americans support giving religious claimants a free exercise exemption from laws regardless of whether they are neutral or generally applicable. And as has already been discussed, it did not take long for Congress to attempt to deal with Employment Division v. Smith, through the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). RFRA attempted to restore what was perceived by Congress as the pre-Employment Division standard for free exercise. Under this test, religious claimants who have been substantially burdened by a law, regardless of whether it is neutral or generally applicable, are entitled to an exemption unless the government in question can demonstrate compliance with the compelling interest test, which requires not only showing a compelling interest not to grant the exception but also that this government interest is being achieved in the least restricted means available. RFRA easily passes through Congress with wide support, but of course was eventually struck down by the Supreme Court in City of Boerne v. Flores. The basis for the Court striking down Boerne was the lack of power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. To the extent that RFRA was an attempt to alter the standard that state governments would be held under, Congress needed to rely on Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Court determined that Congress had exceeded its power in RFRA. Boerne is an important case--not only does it reverse the decision or the attempt by Congress to restore religious freedom in the context of state governments, but Boerne also tells us or informs us what standard the Court is going to use to determine the scope of Congress's power under Section 5 the Fourteenth Amendment. And the test that we get from Boerne is the congruent and proportional test. What the Court does when it considers a challenge to the ability of Congress to enact a statute under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, it asks what constitutional right Congress is attempting to enforce, what does the statute require, and is the statute congruent and proportional to the perceived constitutional violations that are occurring? I am not the first one to suggest this analogy, but I think a very good analogy is the analogy of a net being cast. Congress casting a net in the form of a statute and the congruent and proportional test asks: Of the state law violations that are caught up in the net, how much of those are an actual constitutional violation as opposed to a mere violation of a more protective legislative standard? …" @default.
• W3123969685 created "2021-02-01" @default.
• W3123969685 creator A5061403944 @default.
• W3123969685 date "2007-09-22" @default.
• W3123969685 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W3123969685 title "RLUIPA and Congressional Intent" @default.
• W3123969685 hasPublicationYear "2007" @default.
• W3123969685 type Work @default.
• W3123969685 sameAs 3123969685 @default.
• W3123969685 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W3123969685 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3123969685 hasAuthorship W3123969685A5061403944 @default.
• W3123969685 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W3123969685 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W3123969685 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W3123969685 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W3123969685 hasConcept C2778323131 @default.
• W3123969685 hasConcept C2994536602 @default.
• W3123969685 hasConcept C97460637 @default.
• W3123969685 hasConceptScore W3123969685C144024400 @default.
• W3123969685 hasConceptScore W3123969685C17744445 @default.
• W3123969685 hasConceptScore W3123969685C199539241 @default.
• W3123969685 hasConceptScore W3123969685C2778272461 @default.
• W3123969685 hasConceptScore W3123969685C2778323131 @default.
• W3123969685 hasConceptScore W3123969685C2994536602 @default.
• W3123969685 hasConceptScore W3123969685C97460637 @default.
• W3123969685 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W3123969685 hasLocation W31239696851 @default.
• W3123969685 hasOpenAccess W3123969685 @default.
• W3123969685 hasPrimaryLocation W31239696851 @default.
• W3123969685 hasRelatedWork W1504972236 @default.
• W3123969685 hasRelatedWork W1550143603 @default.
• W3123969685 hasRelatedWork W1606728401 @default.
• W3123969685 hasRelatedWork W1608648410 @default.
• W3123969685 hasRelatedWork W2036840919 @default.
• W3123969685 hasRelatedWork W2126523037 @default.
• W3123969685 hasRelatedWork W2205664251 @default.
• W3123969685 hasRelatedWork W2224713180 @default.
• W3123969685 hasRelatedWork W2300363847 @default.
• W3123969685 hasRelatedWork W252592075 @default.
• W3123969685 hasRelatedWork W2596250783 @default.
• W3123969685 hasRelatedWork W276212494 @default.
• W3123969685 hasRelatedWork W280658389 @default.
• W3123969685 hasRelatedWork W287005266 @default.
• W3123969685 hasRelatedWork W3122126507 @default.
• W3123969685 hasRelatedWork W3166800544 @default.
• W3123969685 hasRelatedWork W319781988 @default.
• W3123969685 hasRelatedWork W816411053 @default.
• W3123969685 hasRelatedWork W3123776385 @default.
• W3123969685 hasRelatedWork W3124394743 @default.
• W3123969685 hasVolume "70" @default.
• W3123969685 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3123969685 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3123969685 magId "3123969685" @default.
• W3123969685 workType "article" @default.